How Much is an Innocent Man’s Life Worth?

On November 9^th, unless a court intervenes, Hank Skinner will die in Texas, like hundreds before him, with toxic chemicals being pumped through his veins. The same Hank Skinner claims to be innocent of the murders for which he was convicted and condemned, and what’s more, he says that he can prove it: a number of items recovered from the crime scene have never been tested for DNA, and he says that testing will show that someone else was there.

Now, we don’t know for sure whether Hank is innocent or guilty. All we know is that the State of Texas won’t pay to make sure – and neither will it let him pay. A windbreaker, two knives and clothing left at the murder scene were never tested for DNA evidence. What Hank says, not unreasonably, is that before the State kills him, couldn’t they take a few days to double-check. Thus far, the State has said no.

There may be a crack of light through Texas’s stone wall, however – or more accurately, two. After the US Supreme Court heard his case, stopping his execution less than an hour before it was due to proceed, it held that he could apply to a Federal District Court and argue that the DNA evidence should be tested. That application is pending, and has just recently been accompanied by a renewed application in the Texas state courts. Texas just brought in an updated DNA testing law, and Skinner’s is one of the first cases applying for relief under the new law.

Prosecutors, however, continue to oppose both applications. Their view is that rushing to kill Hank Skinner is more important than making sure they have the right man. In a state which executed Cameron Todd Willingham based almost solely on forensic evidence later proven to have been based on a discredited scientific theory, is it really too much to ask that, before killing Hank, they make sure that the untested evidence doesn’t point to someone else?