More Inconvenient Facts for Death Penalty Proponents

Like me. Behold:

For more than 20 years, the prosecutor who convicted Cameron Todd Willingham of murdering his three young daughters has insisted that the authorities made no deals to secure the testimony of the jailhouse informer who told jurors that Willingham confessed the crime to him.

Since Willingham was executed in 2004, officials have continued to defend the account of the informer, Johnny E. Webb, even as a series of scientific experts have discredited the forensic evidence that Willingham might have deliberately set the house fire in which his toddlers were killed.

But now new evidence has revived questions about Willingham’s guilt: In taped interviews, Webb, who has previously both recanted and affirmed his testimony, gives his first detailed account of how he lied on the witness stand in return for efforts by the former prosecutor, John H. Jackson, to reduce Webb’s prison sentence for robbery and to arrange thousands of dollars in support from a wealthy Corsicana rancher. Newly uncovered letters and court files show that Jackson worked diligently to intercede for Webb after his testimony and to coordinate with the rancher, Charles S. Pearce Jr., to keep the mercurial informer in line.

“Mr. Pierce and I visit on a regular basis concerning your problems,” Jackson wrote to Webb in August 2000, eight years after the trial, when his former witness was threatening to recant. (Jackson misspelled the rancher’s last name.) “We worked for a long time on a number of different levels, including the Governor’s Office, to get you released early in the robbery case. . . . Please understand that I am not indifferent or insensitive to your difficulties.”

Along with Webb’s account, the letters and documents expose a determined, years-long effort by the prosecutor to alter Webb’s conviction, speed his parole, get him clemency and move him from a tough state prison back to his hometown jail. Had such favorable treatment been revealed prior to his execution, Willingham might have had grounds to seek a new trial.

Read the whole thing. For Stephen Bainbridge, this story is sufficient to push him to “a full abolitionist position” on the death penalty, “absent incredibly unusual circumstances (somebody like a Hitler or Bin Laden against whom imprisonment alone may not be enough to protect society).” I am not sure that I subscribe to a “full abolitionist position” just yet, but as I have written before, I cannot support the application of the death penalty when it involves Eighth Amendment violations. And if Cameron Todd Willingham was indeed unjustifiably killed, the death penalty itself may have received a mortal blow in the process.

Comments

  1. Yes, law is imperfect. So is war. We have each to defend ourselves, and we accept collateral damage, including the slight risk that those we care about might be wrongly injured or killed..

    Why we do not use carbon monoxide in these executions is beyond me. Rapid, painless, nearly fool proof.

    “Make sure you’re right, then go ahead.”

Comments are closed.