At yesterday’s Town Hall for the democratic candidates, a man who was wrongfully convicted of murder and subsequently spent 39 years in prison, narrowly escaping execution, asked Secretary Clinton about her stance on the death penalty. She gave a long, rambling equivocal answer to which the questioner, Ricky Jackson, responded that he was “satisfied”.
Supporters of Clinton watching this exchange naturally understood his satisfaction with the answer to mean that he agreed with her. It was very painful watching him asking his question, and he had equal difficulty expressing it, having to compose himself in the middle of it. When Clinton was finished he had a look on his face that didn’t appear at all as if he agreed with her, on the contrary it appeared he wanted to get out of there, and the glare of millions on national TV, as fast as possible.
Today he has penned a moving, heartfelt editorial explaining why he believes Sec. Clinton is wrong in her stance on capital punishment. As someone who has been so badly served by his fellow humans, he is demonstrating incredible humanity by giving her a “second chance” to reconsider.
(I have edited some of the piece, for clarity he and two friends were all convicted)
(CNN)At the CNN Town Hall meeting between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, I had the privilege of asking Clinton how she could still support the death penalty in light of all the innocent people in this county in recent years who have been wrongfully convicted and sent to death row.
I said last night that I was "satisfied" with Clinton's answer, but that does not mean I agree with her. While I respect her opinion and her honesty, I completely disagree with her position on the death penalty.
The fact that we too often send innocent people to death row in this country can no longer be debated.
I ought to know. I was one of them.
I came within two months of my execution date but was saved by a lucky technicality -- the court made a mistake filling out the death penalty sentencing paperwork. Bridgeman and Ajamu later escaped death only because the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Ohio's death penalty statute as unconstitutional.
If not for pure luck and chance, none of us would have been alive to see our exoneration nearly 40 years later.
Because of an investigation by the Cleveland Scene newspaper and theOhio Innocence Project at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, we were vindicated and gained our freedom in November 2014. By that time, I had served 39 years in prison for a murder I didn't commit -- the longest sentence by an innocent person in U.S. history.
I know that the death penalty does not deter. That can no longer be seriously debated.
I also know that it is very expensive at a time when states are struggling financially and many are on the brink of bankruptcy. As an expensive government program with no proven track record of effectiveness, it is, indeed, the proverbial "bridge to nowhere." But I also know that it sends innocent people to death row, and sometimes kills them.
Other innocent inmates -- in fact more than 150 of them -- have been lucky enough to have been exonerated and freed before their execution.
Furthermore, I learned from my time on death row that even the guilty are worthy of salvation.
As an innocent and scared 18-year-old boy sent to death row, it was only the kindness and humanity of death row's guilty, who took me under their collective wing, that kept my sanity and maintained my faith in humanity. These inmates made horrible mistakes, and deserved to be punished, but they are not the animals our criminal justice makes them out to be.
A society should not be judged on how it treats its best, but rather on how it treats is lowest. And even the lowest are capable of incredible acts of humanity and are worthy of decency. They are worthy of God's grace, just as they bestowed grace upon me.
When I asked Clinton why she still supports the death penalty, she said she supported it only for the worst of the worst: those who committed acts of mass killing or terrorism. I cannot accept that.
In cases such as those, the societal pressure to convict is at its highest. And when an intense pressure to convict is present, that is when the risk of convicting an innocent is greatest.
The death penalty is also not a deterrent in terrorism cases. In fact, death can serve the purpose of many terrorists who wish to become "martyrs" for their cause.
During all the decades I sat in prison as an innocent man, I saw societal views gradually change. Not too many years ago, a Democratic candidate could not publicly support same-sex marriage and stand a chance of getting elected in a general election.
Now, a Democratic candidate could not be taken seriously if he or she didn't support same-sex marriage.
Likewise, no serious Democratic candidate should be able to support the death penalty. We have evolved. We have seen the evidence that the death penalty doesn't work and that it kills the innocent.
Given this evidence, it is time that no candidate -- Democrat or Republican -- should be taken seriously if he or she supports capital punishment.
The fact that Clinton continues to hang on to this antiquated relic confuses me. She touts "criminal justice reform" -- and much reform is needed -- but she misses one of the lowest hanging pieces of fruit.
I said last night that I am an "undecided" voter. I hope that Clinton reconsiders her position on capital punishment before I do what I have been waiting my entire life to do: cast my first presidential vote as a free and vindicated man.