Anthony Graves - 12 years on death row for a crime he did not commit

I haven't posted in a while because I was on a roadtrip down Route 66 with some friends to celebrate my birthday. One of my friends is a vehement supporter of the death penalty, something which causes us endless arguements, such as the one we had somewhere between Chicago and Springfield on our trip, which ended the same way as all our arguements about the death penalty usually do - I said the death penalty risked innocent lives, she said we just need to prevent innocent people ending up on death row (the exact phrase I think she used was "not throw the baby away with the bathwater") and I told her to prove to me the infallibility of human nature which would result in absolutely no innocent deaths. She told me I was talking nonsense. I brought up Anthony Graves.

It was unfortunate for my friend that it was October 29th, two days after Anthony Graves was released from prison after spending 18 years behind bars (12 of which were spent on death row) for someone else's crime. He was convicted for the 1992 murders of an entire family, including 4 children - an unforgivable crime, I know, but one which he did not commit. On October 27th 2010, after almost two decades in prison, some bright spark finally listened to what he'd been saying all along.

He's innocent.

Let me tell you a few things about Graves's trial. There was no physical evidence tying him to the murders. There was no motive for him to slay the six strangers. And there was no possibility of it being true. Three witnesses testified that he was at home at the time of the killings.

In fact, the only 'evidence' came from the absolutely reliable testimonies of some jailhouse inhabitants who claimed they'd heard him confess, and on the testimony of Robert Carter, a death row inmate executed in 2000 who admitted to the killings but initially blamed Graves. Carter actually recanted the claim several times. He told District Attorney Charles Sebesta the day before Sebesta put him on the stand to testify against Graves that is wasn't true - something which Sebesta never told the defense, even though he was required to.

I bet I know what you're thinking. You probably think I'm exaggerating. You think that there's no way a jury would convict a man at all based on that little 'evidence', let alone send him to death row. But convict they did, and send him away to be executed they did.

He wasn't executed - thank the Lord for small mercies - and a few days ago he called his mother to ask what she was cooking for dinner. When she asked him why he wanted to know, he said "Because I'm coming home". Hurrah. Justice has prevailed this time.

Or has it? Anthony Graves spent 18 years in prison - 18 years which we, as a society who favor irrevocable punishments like the death penalty, will never be able to give him back. He was 26 when he was arrested. Now he's 45. The phone call to his mother was made on a cellphone he borrowed from his lawyer. His lawyer had to show him how to use it. Can you even begin to imagine how terrible it would be to spend 18 years of your life in prison, 12 of those years spent waiting to be killed, and then just be expected to put your life back together? I can't. I think I'd rather be executed. It's all fine and good to say that he's free now, wonderful... But can we just ignore the irreparable damage we've caused to him, mentally and in terms of what he might have done with his life if we hadn't stolen such a huge chunk of it? Furthermore, is it right to shrug and say we caught it in time, and then continue with the killing?

No. Just finding one innocent man on death row is enough evidence to support a moratorium in my opinion. I don't think any evidence was even needed to support a moratorium (if a man can be sent to death row on no evidence, why can't we do the same with the death penalty?).

Just as every argument about the death penalty which I have with my friend bottles down to the very real problem of innocent people ending up on death row, so does almost every single thing I post in this blog, and this post is no exception. The death penalty is dangerous. It is an addiction which America (indeed, the world) needs to kick because if we keep bargaining with ourselves in tinkering the legal processes and everything in between to make the death penalty more 'foolproof' just so we can keep fueling that addiction a little bit longer, the more dangerous it becomes and the less likely it is we'll ever be able to kick it. Aristotle once said "the law is reason, free from passion". That's what it should be, at least. Passion is the downfall. It is society's passion for vengeance which makes us crave the death penalty (no matter how we sugarcoat it to make ourselves feel better) and it is this same passion which clouds our judgment and prevents reason from having anything to do with it. Just look at Graves's case. The District Attorney who prosecuted him was told by his key witness that his testimony was a load of crap! (Not in those words, obviously). The DA chose to put the man on the stand anyway and then stood there calmly while an innocent man had an undeserved death sentence handed to him by the jury, another bunch of idiots I supect were blinded by their support for the death penalty. How else could they come to that verdict from the 'evidence' they were presented?

Gandhi was right. An eye for an eye is really making us all blind. Because if we cannot see that men like Graves are innocent, and that our addiction to the death penalty needs to be kicked, we must all be blind as bats.

You can read more about Graves's case at www.texasmonthly.com/