Texas as an Executioner

This morning, Mary Shaw gave her opinion on the death row case of Hank Skinner: "In death row case, Supreme Court came through but Texas remains guilty."  She begins by explaining the case in which Hank Skinner was issued a stay of execution by the United States Supreme Court.  Apparently, the Supreme Court thought he should be allowed his civil rights and be entitled to DNA testing that he believes would prove his innocence.  Skinner received this news an hour before he was supposed to be killed.

Why is this important?  Well, it is becoming clearer that the main interest of Texas is to kill people they feel are guilty.  But the reality is that Texas may be executing the wrong people, which Shaw makes very clear in her blog.  In the Skinner case, the testing of his DNA could possibly prove his innocence and release him from death row.  Shaw also gives some insight to other cases that suggest that Texas is guilty of wrongful execution.  In 2004, Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for the alleged arson murders of his daughters.  Last September, it was brought to the public's attention that he may not have been responsible at all.  Evidence showed that the fire for which he was executed might have been pure accident.  Another case involving Reginald Blanton is quite questionable.  Texas executed Blanton last October, arguing that he murdered his friend.  According to Randi Jones of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, Blanton's case is an example of prosecutor misconduct.  They excluded African Americans from the jury pool, for one.  There was also no physical evidence concluding Blanton's guilt of the crime.  Shaw states, "Blanton was forced to rely on an incompetent public defender who failed to present evidence of innocence at the original trial."

Shaw clearly states that she blames Texas for wrongfully executing people, and I completely agree.  In each of the cases discussed earlier, there is obvious reasonable doubt as to the guilty party.  Texas courts have been overlooking evidence and jumping at the chance to "put a man under," even if he could possibly be innocent.  I am thankful for the Supreme Court allowing Skinner's stay of execution so that he has a chance to prove his innocence, if that is, in fact, the case by testing his DNA.  Light has been shed on this subject and I truly hope that people begin to see how much of a problem this is and can possibly be even more so in the future.  I know that there are flaws in the legal system, but is it too much to ask that better steps be taken as to proving guilt?