August 8, 2005
...of executed man in Missouri, reads the headline of an AP story. The piece describes the events surrounding the conviction of Roy "Hog" Roberts, who was put to death in 1999 for his part in the murder of a prison guard.
Apparently, a number of facts make it highly probable that he was innocent, which he proclaimed loudly to the very end. The chief investigator for the state in the case helpfully sets this straight: "He was obese and he had a loud mouth, and he just caused problems," a statement which, considering its ad hominem nature, maybe tells us little about Roberts and more about the investigator.
Now, I'm not completely against the idea of the death penalty. And I'm not going to argue the merits of this case based on one news article. But I was given pause by one statement about executions in the US in general:
There has never been a known case of an innocent person being executed in the U.S., and those on both sides agree such a determination would create unprecedented concerns about the death penalty.
This seems a bit nitpicky. The work of the Center on Wrongful Convictions has almost single-handedly led to the exoneration of 18 death row inmates in Illinois. That's exonerations - as in released from prison, sent free, wrongly convicted, innocent.
Now, if we look at the fact that, for example, George W. Bush rubber-stamped the executions of over 150 inmates during his tenure as the governor of Texas, a state notorious for its poor public defense, it seems impossible to think that no innocent people have been executed. Sure, it's slightly reductive or simplistic logic, but I'm willing to bet if the Center had more resources, or had they focused exclusively on Texas, that the number of executions under W. wouldn't have been quite as high.
So, while there's no "known case" of the execution of an innocent - no confirmed wrongful execution to point at - there's enough doubt and enough information pointing in that direction that the statement seems a little too sure at best, and a little dishonest at worst.
Posted by starlen at August 8, 2005 10:10 AM
Comments
This is the issue that makes my very strong liberal side wrestle with the side of me that likes the bad guy killing. All I'm saying is that you better be damn sure the fucker is guilty.
Certainly, hearing that there is a confirmed case of the wrongly accused getting juiced would make me question the system in which this "justice" is dispensed.
Posted by: Alex Mestas at August 10, 2005 7:24 PM
Well, that's the problem, though, right?
I mean, the fact that we don't, at a very minimum, demand DNA evidence for capital cases is a problem. There was a case somewhere where a last minute stay was allowed for DNA tests to be run . . . and they confirmed (assuming everything was on the level) that the man they were going to execute was the man who committed the crime. And super-conservatives point to that as being proof of some futility of making sure - a sort of "See, we told you so," as though confirming guilt somehow invalidates the need to make sure you're not executing innocent people.
Fact is, I don't have an issue with guilty people being executed for certain crimes - as long as all possible steps are taken to ensure the party is guilty, and that a truly fair trial has been given.
Posted by: star at August 10, 2005 10:59 PM
