To ensure justice and eliminate doubts
To ensure that justice is done to the suspect and the victim, the justice system in criminal cases is required to carry out its duties diligently.
The prosecution is required to conduct the inquiry properly in order to dispel any uncertainty regarding the accused's guilt or innocence.
Failure may lead to the wrongful conviction of the suspect, or any other type of penalty may be applied in accordance with the law.
The Todd Willingham Case serves as a reflection of how inadequate research can cast doubt on conclusions and the importance of giving suspects justice regardless of any alleged criminal activity.
In fact, many experts have questioned the role of the justice system in the execution of Mr. Willingham despite the suspicions that were raised by experts before his execution.
The primary principle of any justice system is to eliminate any doubts before rendering a judgment to any suspect.
However, in an instance where a judgment is passed, the justice system should rectify its position once the truth is discovered.
Apparently, this was the situation with Mr. Willingham whom majority believed was criminally responsible for the death of his three children.
Despite the experts’ opinion, the justice system failed to protect or delay the execution raising ethical concerns of the legal system and the willingness to protect the suspects from being wrongfully convicted or executed.
The failure of the prosecution
According to “MySA,” the evidence presented by the Marshall Project the State Bar of Texas was correct in filing a formal accusation against John H. Jackson (2016).
Mr. Jackson as the prosecutor was expected to be fair to both the victim, in this case, the deceased children and Mr. Willingham as the suspect.
However, despite the new evidence presented to him by the experts in the investigation of the cause and the spread of the fire, he failed to take action to delay or stop the execution of the victim.
In my view, it was unethical for him to go by “majorities” view and let the execution happen.
This was a case of obstruction of justice on the side of the prosecution and failing to provide the Willingham’s defense with critical information that would have saved his life.
Questioning the authenticity of evidence
The Arson Research Project notes that the preliminary report by fire experts concluded that the fire patterns examined in the scene could only have been created by liquid accelerant (n.d.).
The testimonies from the experts were not backed with evidence as the chemical tests of the debris tested negative in the area of origin of the fire.
Evidently, the prosecution had a reason to question the authenticity of the evidence presented in the form “expert opinion” (Wray 2015).
In this case, the prosecution failed to do so when another evidence contradicting the preliminary report was presented.
Therefore, it was unethical for the prosecution to fail to prevent the execution of the suspect despite having new evidence that contradicted the old one.
It was only fair for the prosecution to offer the new evidence a chance to be examined to determine the truth of the evidence.
Concealing critical information
Additionally, Childless (2015), wrote that the prosecutor in the case of Willingham kept quiet about his involvement with Johnny Webb, a critical witness who testified that Willingham had told him that he lit the fire.
Essentially, Jackson concealed relevant information that could have exonerated the suspect thereby causing him to lose his life.
Childless further recounts that Webb recanted his statement arguing that Jackson has encouraged him to offer false testimony in exchange for a shorter sentence (2015).
These events show a lack of professionalism in the conduct of Mr. Jackson that led to what can be seen as the wrongful execution of Mr. Willingham.
Moreover, Possley & Chammah (2015), disclose another scenario where Jackson made the similar method of coercion of an inmate informant to get a death penalty for a suspect.
The action of Mr. Jackson raises concerns of ethical performances in the justice system in the way suspects are treated in the justice process.
In this case, Jackson portrays some of the cases where justice has been denied because of the unethical performance of the prosecution which forms the broad justice system.
The sickening effects of neglecting evidence
Stahl (2015), further questions the moral corruption in the justice system arguing that neglecting forensic evidence and coercing witnesses is a serious case of obstruction of justice for the suspect.
To Stahl, it is sickening to have such unethical situations affect the justice process and interfere with the judgment of those expected to deliver fairness to the victim and the suspect.
Therefore, my view is that the lack of morals played a significant role in obstruction of justice as prosecutor Jackson was only interested in convicting the suspect regardless of the truth of the evidence presented to him.
A life lost due to lack of ethics
Conclusively, it is more than a decade since Todd Willingham was executed for a suspected case arson of against his three children in Corsican.
Despite his plea of his innocence, the prosecution went on file a case against him.
The primary evidence failed to link him directly with the case of the fire but used circumstantial evidence and coerced witness evidence to execute the judgment.
Later on, the credibility of the evidence used in the case has been questioned and particularly the issue of ethics in the way the prosecutor handled the case has been raised.
My view is that lack of ethics and professionalism caused the loss of a life a possible innocent suspect.
References
Childress, S. (2015). Texas Bar Charges Willingham Prosecutor with Misconduct. FRONTLINE. Retrieved 5 December 2017, from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/texas-bar-charges-willingham-prosecutor-with-misconduct/
MySA. (2016). Willingham case begs for justice. San Antonio Express-News. Retrieved 5 December 2017, from http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/Willingham-case-begs-for-justice-7251599.php
Possley, M., & Chammah, M. (2015). A Second Jailhouse Snitch Claims a Secret Deal With Texas Prosecutor. The Marshall Project. Retrieved 5 December 2017, from https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/18/a-second-jailhouse-snitch-claims-a-secret-deal-with-texas-prosecutor#.aChVc7rtd
Stahl, J. (2015). What Happens to a Corrupt Prosecutor Who Gets an Innocent Man Executed?. Slate Magazine. Retrieved 5 December 2017, from http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/03/cameron_todd_willingham_prosecutor_john_jackson_charges_corrupt_prosecution.html
The Arson Research Project. (2017). Todd Willingham. Retrieved 5 December 2017, from http://thearsonproject.org/case-studies/todd-willingham/
Wray, D. (2015). Questions Swirl Around Cameron Todd Willingham Prosecutor. Houston Press. Retrieved 5 December 2017, from http://www.houstonpress.com/news/questions-swirl-around-cameron-todd-willingham-prosecutor-7684250
