Another Death Row Debacle: The Case Against Thomas Arthur

Another death row inmate awaits his fate, despite
evidence he may not be guilty. (photo: AP Images)

By Andrew Cohen, The Atlantic

03 March 12

  
In Alabama, a death row prisoner could be exonerated by a DNA test. Why are the courts preventing this from happening - especially when another man has already confessed to the crime?

nother month, another man on death row, another excruciating case that illustrates just some of the ways in which America's death penalty regime is unconstitutionally broken. This time, the venue is Alabama. This time, the murder that generated the sentence took place 30 years ago. And this time, there is an execution date of March 29, 2012, for Thomas Arthur, a man who has always maintained his innocence.

He also has the unwelcome distinction of being one of the few prisoners in the DNA-testing era to be this close to capital punishment after someone else confessed under oath to the crime.

Late last month, I profiled the wobbly capital conviction against Troy Noling in Ohio and there are remarkable similarities between it and the Arthur case. Both involve white defendants. Both include contentions of innocence and allegations of bad lawyering at trial. Both include a lack of physical evidence linking the defendants to the crime. Both include crucial witness testimony that borders the farcical. And both include state officials reluctant to permit sophisticated DNA testing that might definitively answer questions about whether the defendants committed the murders they will die for.

Arthur's attorneys are even willing to pay for that testing, the few thousand bucks it would be, and the testing could be completed by the execution date. It is here where prosecutors and judges lose me when they prioritize "finality" in capital punishment cases at the expense of "accuracy." It would cost Alabama nothing to let Arthur's lawyers do the testing. And it might solve a case that already has cost the state millions of dollars. Instead, Alabama wants to finally solve its Arthur problem by executing him. No matter how the new DNA test could come out, the state is more interested in defending its dubious conviction.

The Trials of Thomas Arthur   READ MORE

------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm...  if an innocent man is convicted,  that means a guilty man has gone free!
Thus,  if it does not matter to the state,  who is punished for what crime,  why do
they tout their crime fighting abilities?  Since they are admitting that they have none.