Introduction
The death penalty in criminal justice has sparked a lot of debate as many citizens wonder whether to accept it or call for its abolishment. I am against the use of the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment. Firstly, from a humane perspective, the government should repeal capital punishment as it’s against the law of nature. Secondly, its arbitrary nature shows how the system violates the Eighth Amendment regarding unfair treatment and discipline because the majority of death row inmates are poor and a racial minority. In addition, the death penalty does not avert crime and costs the nation more compared to life imprisonment. Another important reason why the government should abolish this punishment is that sometimes the inevitability of legal and moral decay might lead to the death of an innocent defendant, as in the case of Cameron Todd Wellington, a misunderstood dad accused of murdering his daughters by burning them alive in 1991 Corsicana, Texas (Floyd & Sinclair, 2010). As much as Wellington claimed innocence, the system deceived the jury, and he received the lethal injection after a three-day trial and an hour of conviction.
The Case of Todd Wellington
Todd Wellington had his shortcomings, the main one was abusing his wife, but that doesn’t mean he committed an obnoxious crime such as killing his children. Although many Americans believe the death penalty is inevitable, the majority insists that putting someone on death row is letting them off the leash easily since there are punishments better than taking their life. Money is crucial to life in the contemporary world and those without it usually experience worse outcomes. This is true for someone like Todd, a poor stay-at-home dad, where judgment is easy since society largely conforms to the notion that any poor person is most likely guilty even when they are innocent.
From the defendant’s unjustified execution, it’s evident that crime, punishment, and justice are also subpar in Texas. In an interview, Todd’s cell-mate confessed to being coerced by the prosecutor to provide false information to the jury so that his aggravated robbery charge could be treated with leniency. Before the trial, his wife believed that he couldn’t kill the children but later recanted and insisted that Todd confessed to killing the girls when she visited him twelve years after the fire incident. According to psychiatrist James Grigson’s report and testimony, Wellington was a psychopath and sociopath due to his love for metal music (Floyd & Sinclair, 2010). In reality, however, many death row prisoners knew him as ‘Dr. Death’ as most of his testimonies resulted in executions.
The nature of the political debate surrounding the death penalty in Texas is largely biased, as shown below. Even when arson scientists proved the arson to be an accident, the train had already left the station, and nothing was to save Todd Wellington as the court of appeal denied him Habeas Corpus. For Governor Rick Perry, Todd’s execution was a leeway for re-election and he assumed Wellington was guilty even before going over his file. In addition, he said men like the victim were criminals who deserved the lethal injection.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it’s sad to learn that Todd’s killing was biased because the investigation was based on the beliefs of a community that saw a perfect opportunity to remove him from society. This case reinforces the idea of abolishing the death penalty as it demonstrates its flawed finality. Had the defendant received a life sentence, he would still be alive and well because he could have appealed his case in light of the new evidence.
Reference
Floyd, J., & Sinclair, B. (2010). Cameron Todd Willingham: Improper or wrongful conviction? John Floyd Law Firm.