Texas Governor Perry and “Execution, Texas Style.”
Oct 15th, 2009 | 8 responses
Even though I live in Texas, the first I heard or read about a case that is now getting nation-wide attention was at The Moderate Voice (TMV).
Two weeks ago, Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estés, TMV’s Deputy Managing Editor, published a guest voice by Elijah Sweet bringing to our attention the disturbing news that Texas Governor Rick Perry had, on Wednesday, September 30, “without prior notice” replaced three of the members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission that was reviewing the case of Todd Willingham’s conviction and subsequent execution, in 2004, for the “arson” related deaths of his children.
This past Monday, Dr. Estés wrote an update to that article (“Execution Texas Style – Guilt Optional“) with another guest article by Mr. Elijah Sweete, where we were told that
Texas Gov. Perry has now replaced a fourth member of the commission investigating death row inmate, C.T. Willingham’s, potential innocence. The Governor has now in the last month, removed four persons from the investigative commission, raising the dark question about whether a sitting Governor is attempting to silence a report from an independent group regarding execution, evidences and other matters in this capital punishment case… where though the accused may be accused, he may also be, not guilty.
As I mentioned, this issue is now receiving lots of national scrutiny.
I am sure that we will get more updates from Dr. Estés and from Mr. Sweete, and it is not my intent to preempt such.
I just want to convey to our readers a little bit of the flavor added to this story by my hometown newspaper, the Austin American-Statesman.
In this morning’s edition, this story is prominently featured. But also prominently featured are Perry’s efforts to “shift the debate away from his role in shaking up the leadership of a state commission examining the case and back onto solid ground for political candidates in Texas, which executes more prisoners than any other state and where polls consistently show strong support for the death penalty.”
I personally find it distasteful that the fact that Texas executes more prisoners than any other state and that Texas’ strong support for the death penalty would be “solid ground,” for political candidates in our state, and that part of Perry’s defense strategy relies on such. But that’s neither here nor there.
Several studies, as pointed out in Dr. Estés posts, have found major flaws in the way Texas has handled death penalty cases in general and specifically in the arson investigation that led to Willingham’s conviction and the possible execution of an innocent man. Perry, however, instead of addressing such studies and evidence, is instead attempting to turn attention away from the possibly faulty investigation to the executed suspect himself by describing Willingham as a “monster,” which he may very well be, if in fact he was guilty.
However, we may never know because of Perry’s manipulations.
And what does Perry’s leading GOP challenger for the Texas governorship, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, have to say?
Well, knowing Texans’ strong support for the death penalty and aware of the “distinction” that Texas executes more prisoners than any other state, she has to tread very carefully on this issue. According to the Statesman:
“I think the majority of Texans believe the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for the crimes that are the state law for the death penalty. I think everyone of the people who believe in the death penalty would want to know we are using DNA evidence and the best technology in all the fields to determine if a person is rightfully convicted,” Hutchison told the Associated Press in Houston on Wednesday.
Talk about a cautious Texas Two-Step.
8 Responses to “Texas Governor Perry and “Execution, Texas Style.””
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, Sasha Price. Sasha Price said: Texas Governor Perry and “Execution, Texas Style.”: This past Monday, Dr. Estés wrote an update to that article.. http://bit.ly/4noq0 [...]
Has Perry ever given a justification for the changes? That's what I haven't been able to learn yet.
Pacatrue -
As I understand it, Perry's explanation has been that it's routine, just business as usual. This is a nine member commission. It would be interesting to know how many other commissions have had nearly half of their members replaced in two or three week's time. Maybe then we could assess how “routine” or “business as usual” it really is.
To me, what's going on with Perry and this commission doesn't pass the smell test. Didn't the first three dismissals from the commission occur two or three days before the commission was to hear evidence that the arson investigation was faulty and that it probably wasn't arson at all?
pacatrue:
It is my undxerstanding that other than saying that changing the commission members was routine, his prerogative, etc. I have not heard other reaosn. However, a few days before fire scientist Craig Beyler who was hired to to look into the case by the Texas Forensic Science Commission,was scheduled to present his findings to the Commission, (Beyler said the arson investigation that contributed to Willingham's conviction was based on faulty science), that meeting was canceled when “Perry replaced three members of the nine-member panel, including its chairman. Later, he replaced a fourth.
The new chairman, Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, said he needed more time to study up on the case. Some of Perry's adversaries said the governor was trying to deflect attention from the Willingham case until after the Republican primary in March”
Actually he took off as many people as he could. The rest of the commission isn't under his purview.
Yes, Mikkel, as reported in one of the prior posts, the other five positions on the commission are appointed by the Lt. Gov. and the Texas Attorney General. Perry removed all four over which he had power of appointment.
Adds to my earlier comment that this doesn't pass the smell test.
OK, I am no Perry defender, and I think the actions in the initial case and his current actions with the commission are appalling. However, he did not violate any law.
The commissioners he replaced all had just recently had their terms expire. That said, extending their terms through the hearing would have been the proper thing to do.
He did wait until some time after the term expiration had occurred to do the replacements, for the likely reason of ensuring a delay.
AR -
Everything you say is factually accurate. And I think you also said what I am thinking, that the fact that no law was violated is a pretty lame excuse for what he did. There's a difference between what's legal and what's proper [or ethical]. The best solutions are those that are both legal and proper which, in this case, would have been extending the terms, or holding off on replacements, in order to allow the investigation to be completed.
I still want to know if he routinely does this with other commissions. Is it really “routine” as his spokesperson claims? Something tells me the answer to that question is no.