|
|
|
I immediately thought of Ron Williamson after reading Matthew Clark’s editorial on the death penalty in the Jan. 20th Morning Sun. Williamson was a man convicted for the murder of a young woman in Ada, OK, in 1988. He sat on death row for eleven years before he was found to be innocent using DNA evidence and he was released with all charges dismissed. Since DNA evidence became an accepted method of establishing presence at a crime scene, there have been 249 post-conviction exonerations of serious crimes using DNA, 17 were people convicted of murder. In all cases where there is exoneration, there are errors that lead to a wrongful conviction. It begs the questions, does the death penalty bring about justice or injustice, and does our criminal justice system work fairly?
Williamson’s story is deeply moving, the story of a flawed young man, once a promising minor-league baseball player, who was convicted of a heinous crime he did not commit. The State of Oklahoma came within five days of executing an innocent man. A wrongful conviction is something that could potentially happen to anyone. DNA evidence was not yet used when Williamson was convicted, but it now proves that innocent people are convicted and sentenced, and not just in isolated events. The tools the prosecution used for Williamson included fingerprint analysis, forensic testing, and a jail house snitch, all inaccurate in some way. A state witness even turned out to be the actual murderer.
But being tough on crime is a good thing, right? There is no doubt that there are bad actors out there that need to be apprehended, prosecuted, and sent to jail for a long time. But are we sure we always get the right person? I want to make clear here that I do not wish to discount or diminish the sincere and competent efforts of our hard-working law enforcement people, the police, attorneys, jailers, and analysts, who all do difficult and sometimes dangerous work in order to keep us safe. But the 5th Amendment to the Constitution promises that no one be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process is apparently not an easy target.
DNA is present in only 5-10% of cases, and even then it can be lost or destroyed. But other methods commonly used for convictions, things taken for granted as proof, are often flawed. Take eyewitness identification for example, the greatest cause of wrongful convictions. Important social science research shows that the human mind does not work like a tape recorder, that memories can be easily contaminated. Various factors can change a person’s recollection including stress, the pressure to make an identification, and even the way suspects or photos are lined up.
Other evidence can go wrong as well. Some forensic techniques have never been given the same rigorous scientific evaluation as DNA testing, and some that are accurate can be improperly conducted or stated in such a way that they appear more precise than they actually are. Also, 25% of those exonerated by DNA actually gave a false confession. Why? Duress, intoxication, and mental impairment are some of the reasons. And there can be misconduct when evidence is withheld, mishandled, or lost, when there is coercion, and when unreliable jail house snitches testify in exchange for some incentive. Court appointed defense attorneys could be overworked. Some within the system call for reform.
Six states have Criminal Justice Reform Commissions. North Carolina has a nationally recognized commission that meets every 6-8 weeks and is helping that state reduce the possibility of mistaken convictions. In 2000, Illinois Governor Ryan had such low confidence in his state’s ability to prosecute murder cases fairly that he called a moratorium on executions. A reform commission began work and eventually all 85 of their recommendations were enacted into law. Nationwide, recommended reforms are proving to increase the accuracy of the system. Reforms include procedures used in line-ups, the recording of interrogations, laws providing prisoner access to DNA evidence and the preservation of evidence, and national forensic oversight.
But these reforms, while good, don’t address the costs, both human and financial, of the death penalty itself. A death penalty case raises the stress level for all concerned and takes a toll on souls working in the system, even including the judge. It burns out dedicated attorneys on the defense and uses up good legal talent that could be applied in other areas. There have long been calls to end the death penalty. One now is Republican Kansas State Senator Carolyn McGinn, who recently wrote in a column that the financial cost of the death penalty in Kansas is just not worth it, that it is 70% more expensive to try a death case than one where life without parole is the possibility. She reports a survey of criminologists where the vast majority believes that it does not offer a deterrent effect. Kansas offers life imprisonment without parole, which can keep dangerous people off our streets. I am drawn to information showing the 14 states that have no death penalty have significantly lower murder rates than the 14 states that use the death penalty the most.
Does an execution help heal the souls of those who have lost a loved one by a heinous crime? Does revenge help? Most difficult questions. Some say it does, some say it adds to the wound. I think healing work must go on way beyond an execution, and that the costs of the death penalty go beyond the life of just one person. Questions of conscience like the death penalty are very personal for all of us and go the core of our being. When I was young I heard Jesus say, “Love your enemy,” and ask, “Who will throw the first stone?” Jesus was clearly not into retribution. No, I’m not advocating that we disband our military, or that we disregard the threats out in the world. But I think that redemption is possible, regardless how you define it. Wonderful stories have come out of prison of people finding peace and serenity for the first time in their lives. Life imprisonment allows for that possibility.
Ron Williamson’s story tells us that due process and our criminal justice system must continually be worked on to bring about justice.
I submit that the moral compass that Mr. Clark speaks of must point also toward insuring that only the guilty be convicted and put behind bars.
George Weeks lives in Pittsburg.
I immediately thought of Ron Williamson after reading Matthew Clark’s editorial on the death penalty in the Jan. 20th Morning Sun. Williamson was a man convicted for the murder of a young woman in Ada, OK, in 1988. He sat on death row for eleven years before he was found to be innocent using DNA evidence and he was released with all charges dismissed. Since DNA evidence became an accepted method of establishing presence at a crime scene, there have been 249 post-conviction exonerations of serious crimes using DNA, 17 were people convicted of murder. In all cases where there is exoneration, there are errors that lead to a wrongful conviction. It begs the questions, does the death penalty bring about justice or injustice, and does our criminal justice system work fairly?
Williamson’s story is deeply moving, the story of a flawed young man, once a promising minor-league baseball player, who was convicted of a heinous crime he did not commit. The State of Oklahoma came within five days of executing an innocent man. A wrongful conviction is something that could potentially happen to anyone. DNA evidence was not yet used when Williamson was convicted, but it now proves that innocent people are convicted and sentenced, and not just in isolated events. The tools the prosecution used for Williamson included fingerprint analysis, forensic testing, and a jail house snitch, all inaccurate in some way. A state witness even turned out to be the actual murderer.
But being tough on crime is a good thing, right? There is no doubt that there are bad actors out there that need to be apprehended, prosecuted, and sent to jail for a long time. But are we sure we always get the right person? I want to make clear here that I do not wish to discount or diminish the sincere and competent efforts of our hard-working law enforcement people, the police, attorneys, jailers, and analysts, who all do difficult and sometimes dangerous work in order to keep us safe. But the 5th Amendment to the Constitution promises that no one be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process is apparently not an easy target.
DNA is present in only 5-10% of cases, and even then it can be lost or destroyed. But other methods commonly used for convictions, things taken for granted as proof, are often flawed. Take eyewitness identification for example, the greatest cause of wrongful convictions. Important social science research shows that the human mind does not work like a tape recorder, that memories can be easily contaminated. Various factors can change a person’s recollection including stress, the pressure to make an identification, and even the way suspects or photos are lined up.
Other evidence can go wrong as well. Some forensic techniques have never been given the same rigorous scientific evaluation as DNA testing, and some that are accurate can be improperly conducted or stated in such a way that they appear more precise than they actually are. Also, 25% of those exonerated by DNA actually gave a false confession. Why? Duress, intoxication, and mental impairment are some of the reasons. And there can be misconduct when evidence is withheld, mishandled, or lost, when there is coercion, and when unreliable jail house snitches testify in exchange for some incentive. Court appointed defense attorneys could be overworked. Some within the system call for reform.
Six states have Criminal Justice Reform Commissions. North Carolina has a nationally recognized commission that meets every 6-8 weeks and is helping that state reduce the possibility of mistaken convictions. In 2000, Illinois Governor Ryan had such low confidence in his state’s ability to prosecute murder cases fairly that he called a moratorium on executions. A reform commission began work and eventually all 85 of their recommendations were enacted into law. Nationwide, recommended reforms are proving to increase the accuracy of the system. Reforms include procedures used in line-ups, the recording of interrogations, laws providing prisoner access to DNA evidence and the preservation of evidence, and national forensic oversight.
But these reforms, while good, don’t address the costs, both human and financial, of the death penalty itself. A death penalty case raises the stress level for all concerned and takes a toll on souls working in the system, even including the judge. It burns out dedicated attorneys on the defense and uses up good legal talent that could be applied in other areas. There have long been calls to end the death penalty. One now is Republican Kansas State Senator Carolyn McGinn, who recently wrote in a column that the financial cost of the death penalty in Kansas is just not worth it, that it is 70% more expensive to try a death case than one where life without parole is the possibility. She reports a survey of criminologists where the vast majority believes that it does not offer a deterrent effect. Kansas offers life imprisonment without parole, which can keep dangerous people off our streets. I am drawn to information showing the 14 states that have no death penalty have significantly lower murder rates than the 14 states that use the death penalty the most.
Does an execution help heal the souls of those who have lost a loved one by a heinous crime? Does revenge help? Most difficult questions. Some say it does, some say it adds to the wound. I think healing work must go on way beyond an execution, and that the costs of the death penalty go beyond the life of just one person. Questions of conscience like the death penalty are very personal for all of us and go the core of our being. When I was young I heard Jesus say, “Love your enemy,” and ask, “Who will throw the first stone?” Jesus was clearly not into retribution. No, I’m not advocating that we disband our military, or that we disregard the threats out in the world. But I think that redemption is possible, regardless how you define it. Wonderful stories have come out of prison of people finding peace and serenity for the first time in their lives. Life imprisonment allows for that possibility.
Ron Williamson’s story tells us that due process and our criminal justice system must continually be worked on to bring about justice.
I submit that the moral compass that Mr. Clark speaks of must point also toward insuring that only the guilty be convicted and put behind bars.
George Weeks lives in Pittsburg.
