Innocence In Death By Fire And Deadline

“The most persuasive argument offered by abolitionists is the dark shadow that looms largest in the minds of people who have conflicting thoughts about the existence of capital punishment: the execution of an innocent person” (Marquis, 2004, p. 127). The argument of innocence has long plagued capital punishment. To reject the idea that innocent people are sentenced for crimes they did not commit would be ignorant. In fact, history has shown that innocent people have been sentenced for crimes they did not commit and later freed due to evidence proving their innocence. In the films Death by Fire and Deadline, innocence fuels the question should America have capital punishment today? In the film Death by Fire, Todd Willingham was convicted and sentenced to
death for the murder of his three children.
On December 23, 1991, Todd’s family home in Corsicana, Texas was badly burned by what investigators called arson. During the fire, Todd was able to escape but without his three children who later would be pronounced dead. After investigators claimed the house was burned due to arson, Todd was questioned. During his interview it was said that Todd showed no remorse until he saw pictures of his children's dead bodies. He was encouraged to plea guilty to avoid the death penalty but Todd refused. His wife Stacey stood by Todd’s side until he was sentenced to prison. She made a statement that Todd loved his kids and wasn’t capable of killing them. Although his wife stood by his side for some time, most if not all of Corsicana believed he was guilty and there was no amount of evidence that would change their mind. Todd Willingham’s case was surrounded by political agendas and poor counsel. In fact, Willingham’s own defense attorney later made the statement that he was certain Todd was guilty. As the date for Willingham’s execution came closer, an arson expert went back to the house and determined that the fire pattern was due to ventilation not accelerant. In the end, this
arson expert came to believe that the fire was due to accidental causes and was not set on purpose. However, this evidence was ignored as many people believe justice included the death of Todd Willingham. During this process Governor Perry made the statement that here in Texas we are hard on criminals. Perry later replaced three members of the fire science commission, which had political implications of it’s own. It was clear that even with evidence which raised reasonable doubt, Governor Perry was not going to grant amnesty to Todd Willingham. This becomes a concern when evidence is ignored and innocence is questioned. It is possible that in the case of Todd Willingham the system failed. In the film Deadline, the death penalty is portrayed as fallible and potentially dangerous. Most of the film discusses the feelings of those adamantly against the death penalty. In fact, at one point in the film the death penalty was equated to reverting back to the jungle. The film questioned weather America could construct a system which punished only the worst and not the innocent. For those in favor of the death penalty, the problem of innocence is not ignored but addressed differently. Instead of abolishing the death penalty, concerns should be evaluated and solutions should be implemented. According to Joshua Marquis (2004), capital punishment should be decided each case on its own, within its own context, using the specific facts of the case, considering the community where the crime occurred and the background of the defendant. Under these circumstances capital punishment can be used to punish only the worst and not the innocent. Education and knowledge of the system, its history and current use of the death penalty is important in keeping innocent people from the sentence of death.