In August, the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS) released a report that concluded none of the evidence from the fire indicated it was set intentionally and that the state fire marshal who testified the fire was arson lacked "any realistic understanding of fires."
What Willingham had going against him was a ruling by the Supreme Court on those who are eligible to hear death penalty cases:
For capital cases in which the jury will debate whether or not to sentence a convicted defendant to death, the Supreme Court mandates that jurors be "death-qualified"-that is, they must pledge during the jury selection process that they morally support capital punishment and that they would have no problem signing a sentence that will result in the death of another human being.
Litigation expert Brooke Butler's research contends that this ruling results in like-minded individuals hearing the case. And it's been shown that those who support the death penalty on moral grounds tend to be male, white, Catholic/Protestant, educated, and moderately well-educated, politically conservative, and middle-class.
In other words, Willingham, who maintained his innocence until the day he was killed, had the deck stacked against him from the start. Those who decided his fate tended to side with the prosecution and believe in the overall infallibility of the criminal justice system. It is my contention that these people also believe it is OK to execute innocent people so long as they number a small percentage of overall prisoners put to death.
"Liberty and justice for all" indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment