Going away to dance camp put me away from the news, so I'm behind a lot of other bloggers on this. But this name deserves to be repeated, even belatedly. Shouted, even.
Todd Cameron Willingham
I don't think for a moment that there haven't been executions of innocent people in recent years (meaning since the restoration of the death penalty). The "clear" part is the higher hurdle in Scalia's quote; many people have been exonerated before being executed, which (in a pathetic, belated, abusive way) means that the system is sort of working. And in some cases the evidence of probable innocence has been arguable or ambiguous. But a recent investigative piece by David Grann in The New Yorker on the arson-murder case of Cameron Todd Willingham (here; go read it before finishing this post) as well as the just-released report (here in PDF form) of arson expert Craig Beyler make it clear that there was a little problem with this conviction: the house fire in question wasn't arson. And therefore wasn't murder. Mr. Willingham tragically lost his three young children (two were infant twins) and then was arrested, tried, convicted, spent twelve years on death row, and then was executed for their "murder."
If this persecution and state-sponsored murder of a bereaved father doesn't make you sick enough, how about this: Beyler's report is the second by a fire analysis expert to conclude that it wasn't arson. The first was written and sent to Texas authorities before Mr. Willingham's execution. They ignored it.
Now, Mr. Willingham doesn't sound like he was a lovable guy. He was a teenage petty criminal, sniffing paint and committing small thefts. He cheated on and beat his wife. The New Yorker article edits his last words for journalistic effect; after a final protestation of innocence he actually spewed profanity at his (by then) ex-wife, who was there to watch his execution.
But there's a big difference between being a wife-beating sleaze (I'd have less trouble if she had shot him in self-defense) and committing a triple arson-murder.
I go back and forth about the death penalty; in cases such as that of the Petit family arson-rape-triple-murder (story here) where the suspects were caught leaving the scene of the crime after raping and killing a woman, beating her husband, and leaving her two daughters to burn to death, I really have a hard time thinking it's a bad idea. But you can hardly get more clear-cut than the Petit case. For anything less obvious than "caught in the act," which means the overwhelming majority of cases, mistakes can be made. And mistakes that involve the state killing innocent people are unacceptable. I don't think this is the first such mistake, but it's one that is nauseatingly clear and should be clear enough even for Justice Scalia.
The state of Texas executed Todd Cameron Willingham for a crime he did not commit -- a crime that wasn't even a crime, a horrible tragedy of which he was a victim, not the perpetrator.
Todd Cameron Willingham.
Shout it from the rooftops.
To put it mildly, Scalia is a frakking thug, whose definition of 'Justice' is too much like Cardinal Richelieu's.
Posted by: Serge | September 17, 2009 at 10:49 PM
A state I used to live in, Virginia, won't even listen to exonerating evidence after a certain deadline. It doesn't matter what kind of proof you might have -- DNA, a confession, statements by all the arresting officers and the DA -- they sweep all that under the rug.
Posted by: Kip W | September 18, 2009 at 05:28 PM
Kip W... Isn't that unconstitutional?
Posted by: Serge | September 18, 2009 at 05:50 PM
Yep, the 21 Day Rule. The only way to get out of jail or not get executed is for the governor to commute your sentence or give you clemency.
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | September 18, 2009 at 05:55 PM
I don't plan to live in Virginia any more than I ever plan to live in Texas again.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | September 18, 2009 at 07:04 PM