A new look at the old flaws in capital punishment Editorial
Stabroek News
November 18, 2006

Related Links: Articles on capital punishment
Letters Menu Archival Menu

The Innocent Man, John Grisham's latest book, tells a familiar story. An innocent man stands accused of a brutal rape and murder. Stranded in a prejudiced legal system with a blind lawyer as his only defence, a number of deliberate errors and genuine mistakes seem to have him hopelessly trapped. The prosecution builds its case around jailhouse snitches and dubious forensic analysis; the trial is held in the same courtroom where a co-defendant has just been convicted; and, because the accused is mentally ill and has a bad reputation, nobody seems too worried about the lack of due process. Sentenced to death, the innocent man is snatched from the shadow of death just five days before his scheduled execution. Good lawyers take over and the whole sham is exposed. Later on, DNA evidence exonerates him, justice is served and the victim returns to something like normal life on the outside, badly scarred by bi-polar disorder which has gone untreated during his stay on death row. It sounds a lot like Grisham's other work, but there's something special about this new book. It's not fiction.

Grisham's account of the tragic life of Ron Williamson is tailor-made for a Hollywood blockbuster. Williamson narrowly missed out on a career in major league baseball but stayed around the big-time long enough to pick up some of its bad habits. His return to small-town obscurity, his subsequent lapses into drinking and womanizing, and the redemptive drama of mental illness and wrongful imprisonment were almost too useful as plot points for them to sound believable, even for a popular novelist who spends most of his time inventing similar crises. Grisham found the story in an obituary-he had missed the brief moment of media interest which followed Williamson's release-and so he came to his subject with a biographer's curiosity. A famously knowledgeable observer of the American legal system, and the number one best-selling novelist of the last decade, Grisham could have written about any number of other stories that caught his attention. But he settled on this one, and human rights groups all over the world will soon be very grateful that he did.

Given Grisham's devoted readership, the Williamson saga will almost certainly reach a wider audience than any previous death row story. Already the book has sold 400,000 copies after being on sale in the United States for only a few weeks. It is also likely to reopen a much needed debate on the shortcomings of the death penalty process in America, and, by extension, the questionable assumptions often made about capital punishment around the world. In some ways, Grisham's book will continue the work of Ken Armstrong and Steve Mill, two reporters from the Chicago Tribune who recently carried out an investigation of death row prisoners which uncovered so many flaws in their local courts that two months after the series concluded, Governor Ryan decided to impose a moratorium on all executions in the state of Illinois.

Mill and Armstrong published a survey of the systemic failures of the capital crimes process, based on a close examination of the case histories of 285 death row inmates. Much of what they found is echoed in Grisham's book, but it bears repeating. More than 10 percent of the defendants were represented by attorneys who had been disbarred or suspended; 35 black defendants has been convicted by all-white juries (in one trial prosecutors had rejected 20 blacks from the jury pool to ensure a white jury); 46 cases used evidence from a jailhouse informant; at least 20 cases included as evidence a crime lab employee's visual comparison of human hairs, even though this is so notoriously inexact that it is disallowed in some jurisdictions. When the reporters took a look at case records of 131 people executed in Texas while George W. Bush was governor, the results were even worse. In 43 of these cases the trial or appeal lawyer for the defence had been publicly sanctioned for misconduct and in 40 cases the defence had presented no evidence or offered only a single witness during the trial's sentencing phase. At almost every stage, prejudice, a lack of proper legal representation and avoidable human error significantly affected the trials.

That happened in America. DNA evidence, complex appeals processes, well-funded advocacy groups and investigative reporters are much less available to wrongfully convicted prisoners in other parts of the world. There does seem to be a trend away from state sponsored killing-the European Union requires its members to abolish the death penalty-but far too many people still refuse to concede that the imperfect nature of criminal justice, in every country, makes capital crimes an outmoded and dangerously idealistic concept, regardless of one's convictions about taking one citizen's life to atone for the loss of another's. Perfect justice is an important ideal, but reasonable justice which spares the life of innocent men is surely preferable to a bloodthirsty idealism which ignores the mistakes that keep being uncovered in death penalty cases. If this is what happens in the developed world, isn't it time to get rid of capital punishment here?