Of the 341 inmates executed in Texas since 1982, the last words of one man have echoed particularly loudly in the minds of those involved in deciding his fate.
Cameron Willingham, of Navarro County in East Texas, was put to death on February 17, 2004 for his alleged role in a fire that led to the deaths of his three young children in 1991. To his death, he maintained his innocence, stating, "I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do."
As the state Senate Criminal Justice Committee heard testimony last week from Willingham's lawyer and a fire expert familiar with the case, the possibility that an innocent man had been executed became a frighteningly disturbing reality. Willingham's last words were not unique; in fact many maintain their innocence until the bitter end.
They are especially resonant, however, because it is clear that he was sentenced to die based on fire forensics that have since been disproved. Many had concluded this long before the new committee had heard any testimony. Yet, in light of these revelations, Gov. Rick Perry refused to grant Willingham a stay of execution. Now, as the panel reexamines the case, its severely limited capabilities give little comfort to those who knew Willingham and seek the truth about the tragic fire.
Perry's committee, established by executive order, is a mockery of legitimate inquiry and lacks the authority to investigate the case effectively. The Senate Criminal Justice Committee's hands have been tied; they do not have the power to subpoena, test evidence or obtain pertinent documents.
Gerald Hurst, an industry-renowned arson expert, agreed to examine the evidence free of charge for Willingham's cousin in 2004, when hope for the convicted was all but lost. Hurst and other fire science consultants found the scientific methods utilized in the prior investigation outdated.
"There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire," Hurst said. The consulted investigators based their refutations of the previous findings on several scientific advancements outlined in the National Fire Protection Association's guide to forensic examinations, published just months after the deadly fire.
The updated document, NFPA 921, had actually led to the retrial and subsequent exoneration of another Texas death-row inmate, Ernest Willis, in a case which Hurst deemed "nearly identical," according to the Chicago Tribune. Cameron Willingham remains the only inmate in America since the reinstitution of the death penalty to have been executed for murder by arson.
Some involved in Willingham's trial have expressed remorse for their actions. Juror Dorinda Brokofsky is now troubled by the unsound evidence that led her to favor Willingham's conviction, sadly remarking, "Now I will have to live with this for the rest of my life. Maybe this man was innocent."
The possibility of an innocent man being executed by the state has long been the great "what if" of those in opposition to capital punishment. In Texas, notorious for its startling number of executions, the argument has been given little credence based on the lack of compelling proof to support such a claim.
Although the divergence of opinion on whom or what deserves to live is a matter of belief that can hardly be reconciled, the right to life of the innocent is unanimously regarded as sacred. Death penalty advocates may now pause in consideration of new evidence pointing to the accidental nature of the fire that killed Willingham's children. They may ask themselves, "If one man is wrongfully executed, is it all worth it?"
Never in recent history has such a miscarriage of justice led to the death of a possibly innocent man in Texas.
The main shortcoming of the anti-capital punishment position has always been the lack of compelling evidence to support accusations that the state has killed even one innocent inmate. Perry knows this, and in setting up a committee that lacks crucial powers, he is ensuring that no such conclusion will be reached.
A weak inquiry may serve the interests of death penalty supporters, but it will never absolve those in power of their role in Cameron Willingham's execution, or end the haunting memory of his last words.
- Greenleigh is a government freshman
Be the first to comment on this article!