I have written before about how we've seen more than 200 wrongfully convicted people released from U.S. prisons in recent years after proving their innocence via DNA or other evidence.
It is good that we can do this post-conviction testing, to ensure that we're punishing the right person. And, in the case of death row inmates, we certainly don't want to execute the wrong guy. Right?
Well, while most people of conscience would probably agree, Alabama Governor Bob Riley seems to have a problem with the concept.
Here is the story:
For more than 20 years, Tommy Arthur has been sitting on Alabama's death row for a crime he says he did not commit. Of course, many people in prison claim that they're innocent, and we can't just take their word for it. But those 200+ aforementioned exonerees prove that sometimes they really are telling the truth.
In Arthur's case, DNA is available that could either prove his innocence or confirm his guilt. Since last August, the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people, has repeatedly requested that Gov. Riley order the crucial DNA testing in this case. But, so far, the governor has refused.
Now why would a governor not want to order DNA testing that would either confirm that you have the right guy in custody, or else prove that you've been holding an innocent man and that the real killer might still be at large?
I couldn't imagine an answer. And so I decided to call Gov. Riley's office and get a firsthand perspective on the case.
I called several times from December 19 through December 21, and all I got was the runaround, and no returned phone calls.
On two occasions, I was transferred to a "Lisa", who is apparently the person in charge of the Tommy Arthur Case. On the third call, I was transferred instead to the Media Department.
Each time, I left a very polite voicemail message. I did want to come across as confrontational. In my messages, I said that I was a writer in Philadelphia, and that I was interested in the Tommy Arthur case, and was wondering what the next steps will be, and when, to do the DNA testing that will either prove Arthur's innocence or confirm his guilt. I left my cell phone number. And I never heard back.
Recognizing that I was calling during the holiday season, when many people take extra time off from work, I decided to call again to see if Lisa or the Media folks might be on vacation. The receptionist checked and said no, they were all at lunch. This was two days after my initial call. I left another message for each.
It has now been more than a week since my initial phone call. Either they take very long lunches in Alabama, or they don't want to talk about the Arthur case.
So:
Why in the world would Gov. Riley not want to grant the DNA testing?
And why in the world does his staff refuse to talk about it?
Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
The 200 cases that you mentioned, and common sense, dictate that it is not merely possible that an innocent man will be executed, it is a virtual certainty. It might not turn out to be Tommy Arthur, but innocent people have, and will, be executed.
Morality issues aside (not that they should be), we have zero credibility in the area of international human rights issues so long as we demonstrate to the world that we are as backwards and barbaric as the Governments of Saudi Arabia & China, among many others.
by
Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 318 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 12:51:31 AM
This is ridiculous! A DNA test should be STANDARD for everyone convicted! There shouldn't be a need for a decision by the governor or a court decision.
One wonders how anyone could be stupid enough to not want a test that could determine guilt or innocence performed. But, oh, I forgot. They CAN'T do that. If they start doing that, wrongfully convicted people might get off!
1 | 2
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
