Robert Roberson’s death sentence became a circus, with horrific acts performed simultaneously in three quintessentially American rings. At the center are Texas politicians fighting for the power to end or preserve Roberson’s life. In a side ring, celebrities question whether the convict might be telling the truth about his young daughter’s death, and in another, medical experts debate the credibility of shaken baby syndrome and the meaning of the autism spectrum.
It gives the impression of an 18th-century public hanging, with gaping crowds. And yes, the media offers commentary. We are all actors in the most horrible spectacle in the world. All because of the death penalty.
This is not a blow to Republican and Democratic members of the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, who effectively halted Roberson’s scheduled execution on October 17 by issuing a last-minute subpoena for him to appear in court. that he testifies on his case. It was a strange but creative and heroic move, blocking the murder at least temporarily, and force the debate about the Texas laws and procedures that led to Roberson’s 2003 death sentence for the alleged murder of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis. At trial, prosecutors presented medical testimony that the girl’s injuries could only be the result of “shaken baby syndrome,” in which a young child is injured or dies from blunt force trauma. by abuse.
Roberson would be the first person to be executed based on this diagnosis, just as it was falling into disrepute.
Before Monday’s hearing, Roberson’s life was the subject of a terrible political tug-of-war. Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton denied lawmakers’ attempt to bring Roberson to the state Capitol. Gov. Greg Abbott told the Texas Supreme Court that the subpoena violated his executive powers. The court suspended the execution to resolve the territorial dispute between the elected officials.
In Texas’ unusual court system, the Supreme Court only handles civil cases. A second, evenly matched high court — the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals — previously rejected Roberson’s request to delay his execution, putting the two courts at odds. Each court has nine judges who run in partisan elections in which they align with political parties. All are Republicans.
Further complicating and politicizing matters is that three of the Court of Criminal Appeals judges who rejected Roberson’s stay requests are lame ducks, having been defeated for re-election in the primaries earlier this year after a campaign against them by Paxton political machine. The attorney general was unhappy that two years earlier he had been prevented from pursuing several highly questionable election fraud cases.
Voters are currently elect judges who might give up execution, or reschedule it.
Roberson’s position is almost unimaginable. Hours before his execution, he was called to Austin to defend his life, not in a courtroom with experienced lawyers addressing judges or juries on his behalf, but alone, before politicians who were scrutinizing after his presentation.
Paxton blocked Roberson from appearing at the hearing.
Roberson has autism, which may make it difficult for him to understand other people’s reactions and emotions. And vice versa. Even if he was not ultimately put to death, his punishment was cruel and unusual, in the sense in which these words are commonly understood, even interpreted by the courts which analyze the meaning of the 8th Amendment. If he is innocent, of course, the more than two decades he spent in prison and the last year of involvement in state political and ideological conflicts are worse than cruel. This is a deep stain on the administration of justice.
Phil McGraw, also known as TV Dr. Phil, testified on behalf of Roberson in his absence. So did it John Grishamattorney, former member of the Mississippi House of Representatives and author of numerous legal thrillers that have been made into popular films, including “The Pelican Brief,” “The Firm” and “The Rainmaker.” They argued that Roberson did not receive a fair trial and deserved a new trial.
Celebrity involvement adds to the circus atmosphere, but McGraw and Grisham are, like Texas lawmakers, heroes for sticking their necks out in pursuit of justice they have good reason to believe was refused by the system.
McGraw stressed that he was not opposed to the death penalty.
“The death penalty is at stake here, because if we get a case like this wrong, I think the death penalty could come under real attack,” he said.
However, the death penalty deserves to be attacked. It is perhaps ironic that the impending execution was the only thing that mobilized so many people to come to Roberson’s defense. But this does not honor the death penalty. Rather, it is a critique of a legal system that is more concerned with punishment and finality than with truth and fairness.
Almost all developed and democratic countries have abolished the death penalty, except Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and the United States.
Even so, a majority of states have abolished it or, as in the case of California, simply stopped executing people while leaving the penalties in place.
Killing people, whether guilty or innocent, is an abuse of state power that should not be tolerated in a free and democratic society. Ending this circus means more than allowing Roberson to live a few more months. This means ending the death penalty and recommitting ourselves to justice, mercy and truth.