Executions in Texas about politics not justice
Texas has a reputation for meting out tough justice, and that can be a good thing- when the system works as it should. When it comes to the death penalty in Texas, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that they system often does not work when it comes to ensuring that we do not execute the innocent. The people with the largest stake in the system- elected prosecutors, judges, and state politicians- are largely unwilling to even entertain the possbility that the state may be executing the innocent.
Last year, of the 71 people executed nationwide, 33 were in Texas. No other state comes close to executing as many people.
The situation in the Lone Star State is all the more striking in light of the recent decision by former Illinois Gov. George Ryan to pardon four death-row inmates outright and commute the sentences of 167 to life in prison. Ryan, a Republican who left office in January, described the Illinois capital-punishment system as "arbitrary and capricious and therefore immoral."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, also a Republican, denounced Ryan's decision as "inappropriate" and lacking in leadership. "If he has a problem in his state -- which obviously he does -- you do it case by case," Perry said. "You don't just walk in, because there are some victims of crime that you spit in the eye of."
In fact, Ryan did not "just walk in." An independent commission did do a review, case by case. It discovered arbitrary or biased prosecutions; inadequate or incompetent defense; mentally ill or retarded defendants; reckless use of jailhouse or accomplice informants; coerced confessions; and four confirmed innocents.
And despite Perry's protestations, the Texas situation is much the same as that in Illinois. There has never been any attempt at a systematic review of the cases of the more than 450 inmates currently on Texas' death row, but pro bono defense teams -- which have been able to review only a handful of capital cases -- have demonstrated that the system is riddled with problems.
John "Jackie" Elliott, executed Feb. 4, is the most recent case in point. Elliott was convicted in 1987 of the rape and murder of an Austin woman. In December, a team of volunteers reviewed his case and discovered, among other things: exculpatory evidence, including 40 witness statements, never provided to the original defense; blood evidence, potentially implicating the prosecution's primary witness, that had never been DNA-tested; and representation by a series of inadequate or incompetent court-appointed attorneys. The team even polled the 12 original jurors, who joined in requesting that the execution be stayed and DNA evidence be provided for testing.
No elected official wants to appear "soft on crime". Executions, then, are the perfect way to portray themselves as brave defenders of public safety. Why WOULD anyone in a position of power want to take a chance on being portrayed during a tough election campaign as not sufficiently tough on crime?
As for the people who elect these officials, we enjoy feeling safe and secure. We can look at an execution and think, "Look, another bad guy that we won't have to worry about." But what if that person was wrongly convicted? What if that person was indigent, and had no way to fight the war chest and prosecutorial might of the State of Texas? What happened in Illinois is not an Illinois-specific phenomenon. An honest assessment of death penalty cases in Texas would very likely yield similar results.
I'm not saying that we should abolish the death penalty. I'll leave that argument for another time. What I AM saying is that we have nothing to lose by re-examining the manner in which the death prosecuted is prosecuted and administered. Or is the execution of an occasional innocent an acceptable price to pay for our safety and security?
