Take Life, but Not My House

[Guest guest]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072501334.\

html

 

 

washingtonpost.com

Take Life, but Not My House

 

By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, July 26, 2005; A19

 

 

 

The city of New London, Conn., narrowly (5 to 4) won the right last month from

the Supreme Court to condemn a parcel of land in a distressed part of the town

to make way for economic development. The ruling has generated a tsunami of

objection and an effort in many states and localities to have its effects undone

-- including, for spite, a quixotic attempt to condemn Justice David H. Souter's

New Hampshire farmhouse and turn it into a hotel. Thank you. I'd prefer the

Bates Motel.

 

At the same time, in a far different area of the law, authorities are wondering

if two men long ago convicted of murder might be innocent. This has generated

almost no interest, no nationwide protest movement, suggesting that in this

country it is far easier for the government to wrongfully take a life than a

parcel of run-down real estate. Is this a great country or what?

 

I do not mean to belittle property rights, since I am a homeowner myself. I

merely want to point out that the most awesome and, historically, most worrisome

power of government is not to take property but to take life. In Europe in the

past century, this was done on such a vast scale that today no European country

retains the death penalty. Government, it has been shown, cannot be trusted with

it.

 

The American experience has been different and so the death penalty not only

persists, but in Texas and some other states it downright flourishes. Still,

pesky facts have cast a shadow over this sunny institution. Since 1973, 119

people have walked off death row, exonerated by DNA or evidence, according to

the Death Penalty Information Center. Had the wheels of justice turned as

swiftly as the hang 'em high crowd would have liked, some of those people would

exist in memory only and we would console ourselves that they were probably

guilty of something -- or why else would the cops have been on to them. The

logic is fiercely circular.

 

Now, though, we have two such cases and they are worth pondering for a number of

reasons. The first involves Olmado Hidalgo, a New York City man who was

convicted 13 years ago of murder -- on what the district attorney's office now

concedes was weak evidence. The authorities are not saying that Hidalgo is

innocent. But to their credit, they are now saying that some new evidence has

surfaced that gives everyone pause. Lucky for Hidalgo that he was not convicted

in another state where justice is swifter -- if somewhat less certain.

 

The other case involves the late Larry Griffin, who was executed by Missouri in

1995 for a drive-by shooting. The main witness against him, now dead, turns out

to have had a pliable memory and an ugly résumé. He was a career criminal and

drug addict who happened to be facing serious felony charges at the time. After

he usefully turned witness to the murder, he got to walk. Lucky man.

 

Griffin may turn out to be the Holy Grail of the anti-death-penalty movement.

For some time the search has been on for the person who was wrongly executed.

Scholars have examined court records and isolated likely cases, but none of them

provide irrefutable proof. Griffin is not likely to provide that either. But the

" scholar " in his case is the St. Louis prosecuting attorney, Jennifer Joyce. At

the urging of the NAACP, she has reopened the case. Strictly speaking, Griffin

will never be proved innocent. He might, though, be shown to be not guilty.

That, after all, is our standard.

 

Both the Griffin and Hidalgo cases are important for what they lack -- DNA

evidence. In this, they are typical. The victims were both shot at a distance:

no DNA evidence. This is often the case. In the average crime, there is no

exchange of body fluids (as in rape) and no tissue under the victim's

fingernails or anything like that. DNA testing has done wonders -- both in

getting convictions and in exonerating the innocent. But it cannot be used where

it is not a factor. For that reason, capital punishment remains fraught with the

possibility of injustice.

 

A part of me cannot comprehend why conservatives or, especially, libertarians,

cannot appreciate how " liberal " capital punishment is: government to the max.

They ought to think of it as the possibly wrongful condemnation of a person --

the ultimate in eminent domain. Poor Hidalgo. Poor Griffin. If they were

buildings, more people would care.

 

cohenr

 

 

 

 

Fight back for stem cells http://www.StemPAC.com

A politician is a man who will double cross that bridge when he comes to it

http://stopviolence.care2.com/

 

 

on-text portions of this message have been removed]