Texas did not execute Hank Skinner, but why is so much last-minute drama the norm?
The dramatic Death Row scene seems almost a cliche by now: An inmate says he is innocent of murder. Appellate courts up and down the line refuse to reopen his case. His execution date is set, and he comes within hours of the state killing him. Then the U.S. Supreme Court grants a last-minute reprieve.
In my posting of March 23, I explain some of the reasons Hank Skinner, a convicted Texas murderer, could be innocent. Because of the reprieve granted March 24 by the U.S. Supreme Court, Skinner might–and I emphasize the word “might”–receive an opportunity to present new evidence suggesting innocence. Or the reprieve might lead to nothing substantive, with Skinner receiving a new execution date.
My point for today is this: Why has the practice of last-minute reprieves–or denial of reprieve requests–the norm? Why does anybody in a supposedly civilized society tolerate this way of doing business with death? Everyb0dy involved with the Skinner case knew about the execution date way in advance. Why not litigate the possibility of a reprieve and a new evidentiary hearing weeks ago, or at least a few days ago?
Skinner might seem like an unsympathetic character, and he might be guilty of murder or he might be innocent or he might fall somewhere in between–at the murder scene but not the murderer, for example. But why should he suffer from uncertainty about whether he will die by order of the Texas governor on the date scheduled for the execution? Why should the relatives and friends of the murder victims also suffer from such uncertainty?
There is no inexorable reason in the law or in common sense. Why should last-minute reprieves ever again be thought of as humane or logical?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
At least the stay was granted–much to my surprise. What puzzles me is, why in heaven’s name won’t Gov Perry allow the evidence to be examined? If he runs for national office in my lifetime, he’d better not count on my vote!
From an article in the LA Times:
Supreme Court stops execution of convicted killer in Texas. The justices want more time to study Hank Skinner’s appeal for DNA testing of evidence from a triple homicide. The stay is issued an hour before he was to die.
March 25, 2010|By David G. Savage
Reporting from Washington — With just an hour to spare, the Supreme Court blocked the Wednesday evening execution in Texas of convicted murderer Hank Skinner, who maintains his innocence and who has sought DNA testing of key evidence for a decade.
The justices issued a stay of execution and said they wanted more time to consider Skinner’s appeal. It will probably be several weeks before the court decides whether to hear his case.
Last year, the court ruled 5 to 4 that the Constitution does not give convicts the right to demand DNA testing of crime-scene evidence. The case, however, did not involve a prisoner facing execution.
Sorry for late comments, but…they have to DECIDE whether or not to hear his case? Just too busy or any possibility of innocence isn’t important in our justice system today? Of course the DA doesn’t want to look bad or admit they might have convicted the wrong man…again! There is just something wrong with the thought process here! There are way too many innocent persons in prison, put there by corruption and unethical practices. Where does accountability come into play?
Sorry but there are too many questions about this murderer. What about the codeine? What about him hiding from police? Lots more questions than answers at http://www.hankskinner.com.
“But why should he suffer from uncertainty about whether he will die by order of the Texas governor on the date scheduled for the execution?”
Why? Because he is the one who filed his petition late with his last reply brief filed the day of his execution. That’s why.
Perhaps he filed late or perhaps he filed in the nick of time if he is truly innocent. If he is given the opportunity at the eleventh hour to have his innocence he claims proven, then the system will not have executed an innocent man. If testing corroborates his guilt, then he gained more of life’s precious time that other truly innocent persons continue to have taken from them. I believe that a person has the constitutional right to maintain their innocence until the absolute and corroborated facts prove otherwise.
What bothers me the most is that as we see more and more wrongfully convicted persons set free after years in prison upon proof they didn’t convict the crime that they were wrongfully prosecuted for and by so called proof that could never exist; why has not one of these investigators, prosecutors or their key witnesses ever charged and brought to justice for stealing and destroying a person’s innocence, right to liberty and the total destruction of that person’s family and life after it has been proven they never had the factual elements required to pursue a case into prosecution in the first place? They commit the criminal acts that allows them to place an innocent person in prison and they hide behind the shield of protection that this collateral damage is okay as it is part of the pursuit of doing their jobs. Make them accountable and maybe they will a better job if they know the stakes are higher for them.
No, the question was why should he suffer from uncertainty about whether he will die on the date of the scheduled execution. The answer is because Skinner filed late.
You know what really bothers me? People who neither know nor care about the evidence, falsely claiming that there is a reasonable doubt. The DNA tests will prove nothing. If it comes back to him, the explanation will be that he lives there and his hand was cut. It will not come back to a third party. The M.E. testified that Twila was not raped. Those are just a few of the lies Skinner has told.
DNA testing of Skinner’s shirt and the blood stain analysis proves that it was Skinner — no one else, who was up and moving around and who bludgeoned Twila to death. Skinner has lied about so many things and you people eat it up with out every trying reviewing the evidence to see if it is true.
His claims that he was too loaded to do anything is contradicted by his own experts who also admitted that they just assumed he took the codeine before the murders and not after. And there is no evidence that he is allergic to codeine and plenty of evidence that he is not.
He admitted to the police that when he awoke the first think he notice was that his vodka bottle was gone. Twila took it to the party and then brought it home with her. He also admitted on tape that they got in a fight when she came home and he knocked her on her ass, was on top of her, until Elwin pulled him off his mother. Things calmed down but then Twila grabbed the ax handle and hit him with it. So, spare me all your phony angst about him being innocent. As I said their is so much evidence against him, but I get tired of trying to explain it to people just to have them ignore it since they do not care whether he is guilty or not.
It’s clear that no amount of evidence will ever prove that he is guilty to your satisfaction but you are too dishonest to admit it. So, before you go off on other people’s misconduct, take a look at your own.
lucero – I do not take a position on Skinner’s innocence or guilt but rather on the right and the obligation to have absolute factual evidence in order to convict someone. My stance is simple; too many truly innocent people have spent too many years in prison based upon factual and legitimate evidence. The DNA evidence will be whatever it is and the Supreme Court will make it’s ruling accordingly. We must all be afforded our right to the presumption of innocence and legal and just due process. I am an advocate for the truth and I totally “care about the evidence”!