"I want him put away forever, or I want him executed," Hall told CBS News. "And I know that's harsh, but I'm sorry, I wish he'd never gotten out." Hall, of all people, should not have to apologize for that sentiment. We all wish he'd never gotten out — better yet, that he'd never been born — and if he dropped dead of natural causes tomorrow, the most compassionate person alive would be hard-pressed to stifle a cheer. The depth of Garrido's cruelty and remorselessness have inspired numerous comments along the lines of, "I don't even believe in the death penalty, but I'd like to see that bastard die," let alone the ones from people who do believe in the death penalty.

This despite the fact that, as far as we know, Garrido has not committed a capital offense. He's now a suspect in the murders of 10 women, but there's no proof yet that he's caused the death of another human being (or committed treason against the state of California), so any talk of whether he deserves execution at this point is based not on law, but on a sense that if there's such a thing as pure evil, Phillip Garrido must be the embodiment of it.

That I'm among those who, in theory, wouldn't mind seeing Garrido executed is exactly why I oppose capital punishment. The desire to stamp out perceived evil is not conducive to clear thinking, and surely, if anyone deserves a sober, methodical evaluation of the facts, it's people facing death sentences. As the Innocence Project has made clear over the past 17 years, though, they don't always get that. The project's website lists seven common causes of wrongful convictions — eyewitness misidentification, unvalidated or improper forensic science, false confessions/admissions, government misconduct, informants or snitches and bad lawyering — and that's without getting into the roles that racism and ableism have played in juries' decisions. Phillip Garrido might represent the cleanest possible government kill — a cognitively typical white guy who was caught red-handed committing a horrific crime — but then, the same things appeared to be true of Cameron Todd Willingham.

In a long feature story in this week's New Yorker, David Grann tells the equally heartbreaking and stomach-turning story of Willingham, who was executed in Texas in 2004 for a triple murder he almost certainly did not commit. In 1991, Willingham's house caught fire, and neither he nor firefighters were able to rescue his three small children. For a brief moment, he was treated as the traumatized, grieving father he was, until an arson investigator relying on outdated methods and what scientists who study fire would later call "old wives' tales" declared that the fire was set by a human being, and the children's deaths were homicides. Willingham was the only one who could have done it.

Grann painstakingly details not only why the arson investigator was wrong, but just how far rational thought can go out the window once a person's guilt becomes the prevailing wisdom, "until proven" be damned. Witnesses who saw Willingham as the house was burning initially characterized him as hysterical and recounted how he begged for help and even smashed in the windows of his daughters' bedroom, only to be thwarted by flames rushing outward. After the fire was ruled arson, they described him as behaving oddly, not seeming sufficiently upset or making much of an effort to save the kids. In an effort to prove that Willingham was a sociopath, the prosecution called " a psychologist with a master's degree in marriage and family issues," who knew the Assistant District Attorney socially and had little apparent experience with sociopathy. Based on heavy metal posters hanging in Willingham's home, the psychologist said, "I see there's an association many times with cultive-type of activities. A focus on death, dying. Many times individuals that have a lot of this type of art have interest in satanic-type activities." So now Willingham's not only an arsonist and a sociopath but a satanist, all because he was a fan of Iron Maiden — just in case you thought that sort of logic disappeared in the '80s. A jailhouse informant who claimed Willingham confessed to him was believed, despite not only his motivation to lie, but the unlikelihood of his story. (He said Willingham spontaneously confessed to him in an area where guards could easily have overheard, despite the two inmates not having any previous relationship that might elicit such trust.) When the informant tried to recant his testimony in 2000, Willingham's lawyer wasn't told about it. The series of patently outlandish claims twisted to fit the prosecution's portrait of a cold-blooded baby-killer is mind-boggling.

And worst of all is how evidence that the arson investigator was not only dead wrong, but probably had no business being in that line of work at all, was simply ignored. Shortly before Willingham's execution, a fire expert who relied on the scientific method rather than gut feelings, guesswork and "old wives' tales" reviewed the evidence and submitted a report to the Board of Pardons and Paroles, concluding that "there was no evidence of arson, and that a man who had already lost his three children and spent twelve years in jail was about to be executed based on 'junk science.'" Barry Scheck of The Innocence Project, who obtained all the records related to that report, told Grann, "The documents show that they received the report, but neither office has any record of anyone acknowledging it, taking note of its significance, responding to it, or calling any attention to it within the government. The only reasonable conclusion is that the governor's office and the Board of Pardons and Paroles ignored scientific evidence." And then voted to kill an innocent man.

What Grann's essay highlights is that the supposed "failsafes" in the system, meant to prevent wrongful executions, are pretty much a joke. Over twelve years, Willingham — who had no motive, who refused to make a guilty plea in exchange for a life sentence, who was saddled with an overworked legal aid lawyer who believed he did it, and who maintained his innocence and love for his children until the moment he died — exhausted every opportunity to clear his name, only to be told time and again, "Nah, we still think you did it, so we're not really interested in looking at the facts."

The evidence that Phillip Garrido committed monstrous crimes, more than once, appears incontrovertible. I'm in no way suggesting that in his case, it might all be a horrible misunderstanding. But I find it interesting that in the same week Grann's essay appears, many people seem more interested in discussing whether rape should perhaps be added to the list of capital offenses, whether Garrido deserves execution — to say nothing of castration, torture, and other things we ostensibly don't approve of as a society — than in looking at how often our justice system sentences innocent people to death. And how, despite all the supposed failsafes in the system, in at least one case, the state of Texas appears to have murdered a man in cold blood.

I am totally sympathetic to people's desire to see Garrido hung up in the town square, possibly not by his neck. But like I said, that's exactly why I could never trust myself to decide whether another human being should be executed, even one who makes me stumble over the words "human being." Because that desire is based, like the original arson investigation in the Willingham case, substantially on gut feelings and subjective interpretation — and when the stakes are life or death, that is not good enough. No matter how sincerely I believe the facts support a conclusion that society would be better off if Phillip Garrido were dead, I have to remind myself that people are saying the same thing about the president right now, and those people are just as eligible for jury duty as I am.

Trial By Fire [The New Yorker]
Prior Victim "Horrified" Over Jaycee Story [CBS News]
The Innocence Project [Official Site]

MOE: Okay, first of all, re the companies chosen for those coveted Iraq oil contracts of course they did, some people are complete idiots, Paul Krugman thinks Obama needs to be more like Reagan than Clinton…so what's Obama doing here??



MEGAN: On the first story, gotta love this quote:

The advisers — who, along with the diplomatic official, spoke on condition of anonymity — say that their involvement was only to help an understaffed Iraqi ministry with technical and legal details of the contracts and that they in no way helped choose which companies got the deals.

I mean, does anyone actually believe that?



MOE: Also I don't know if you've been reading about this book but it's been eliciting some really surprising rarely-articulated viewpoints from pundits such as:

The people who fund and run the GOP are simply too committed to the idea of cutting taxes for affluent people and reducing government spending… In fact, even saying the GOP estabilshment is "committed" to these things understates the grip of economic libertarianism over the party. It suggests a worldview that's the product of some reflection, when in fact the economic libertarianism of big GOP donors is mostly an expression of their self-interest

And in case you didn't catch what he was trying to say there:

—i.e., they want to keep their own taxes low.

MEGAN: As for McCain's record, not to bash on John Aravosis whose work I normally like, but Jeffrey Klein did that story way better, like two weeks ago without going into the gutter at all.



Well, the problem with Noam Scheiber's analysis in that review is that he repeats the claptrap that the GOP is ostensibly committed to reducing government spending, which is utter bullshit.

Let's bust that myth people. They are committed to saying they want to reduce government spending, and committed to spending more of it in ways that appeal to them ideologically (i.e., defense, abstinence education, marriage-promotion) or appeal to their constituents (i.e., earmarks)

MOE: Okay here's the thing:

The authors say they blew their chances to capitalize on their opening to these voters “by confusing being pro-market with being pro-business, by failing to distinguish between spending that fosters dependency and spending that fosters independence and upward mobility, and by shrinking from the admittedly difficult task of reforming the welfare state so that it serves the interests of the working class rather than the affluent.”

To "distinguish between spending that fosters dependency and spending that fosters independence and upward mobility" is, as near as I can figure, the opposite of "pro-market."

MEGAN: Yes, I would agree with that completely. Of course, apparently, "spending that fosters independence and upward mobility is — surprise! — serendipitously spending on things like marriage promotion and putting more black people in jail and abstinence education!

Douthat and Salam say to the contrary that the social issues are a major part of working-class insecurity. “Safe streets, successful marriages, cultural solidarity and vibrant religious and civic institutions make working-class Americans more likely to be wealthy, healthy and upwardly mobile. Public disorder, family disintegration, cultural fragmentation and civic and religious disaffection, on the other hand, breed downward mobility and financial strain — which in turn breeds further social dislocation, in a vicious cycle that threatens to transform a working class into an underclass."

Great, so, the government is now going to be able to solve the problems of family disintegration by.... making divorce harder? Making marriage necessary for all pregnant women? They're going to solve religious disaffection by... making religion mandatory? And, God knows the Democrats love them some public disorder. Yum, goes perfectly in my coffee.

MOE: The thing that is so dreamy about talking about this stuff as a failure to distinguish between the different kinds of "spending" is that it really cuts to the heart of the issue that, as some guy points out on today's WSJ edit page OF ALL PLACES…numbers lie!

MEGAN: Whoa, seriously, someone spiked the coffee with LSD at the WSJ this weekend:

there is no such thing as "the economy."

MOE: The first Harper's reading last month said this a lot better, but I'm not sure where it is online. Maybe I'll just screengrab it here.

Dammit, it doesn't want to let me, oh well.

MEGAN: Although, back to the intersection of economics and politics, I spent hours yesterday obsessed with the implications of this chart. Which goes with this article but the article's less interesting and not just because I like pretty pictures.

MOE: Oh here it is. Anyway we forgot to discuss < a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aftgJ3S0euEQ&refer=home">Steven Hatfill, whose name is not Mohammed and therefore actually got some money out of his whole post-9/11 harassment, or we never did, because that happened on Friday and I was too tired out from Dimitri the Lover to do a proper news roundup, but hahaha he did well for himself. And Mallaby who I generally love has something on oil and speculation and whatnot.

And now I have to try to get on the internet bus

BRB as they say.

9 minutes

MOE: And I'm back! On the bus. But I'm still using the free Dupont wifi signal so I'm not sure if that's sustainable.

MEGAN: I think it kicks in on the bus pretty soon, but we can totally hurry up.

Anyway, what's fascinating about the chart I sent is about the redistribution of wealth in this country, from the Midwest to the Coasts (by and large) and the weirdness that Alaska and Hawai'i were two of the richest 12 states in 1976.

And about how the richest states — and by and large, the richest people — are increasingly turning to the Democratic party. Fucking elitists.

—-—-—16 minutes—-—

MOE: Hey

Do you read me?

MEGAN: Yup

MOE: The wifi server is allegedly just getting reactivated

So I'm on bberry.

Anna is going to kill me but. If this works it isn't a bad thing. Free wifi in DuPont is good!

MEGAN: No problem! I got grabbed coffee and a yogurt and plugged my computer back in as I was previously sitting on the front porch watching my neighbor playing with his baby and the cats of the 'hood stare at me

Anyway, the wifi bus worked fine for me the one round trip I took it. I, um, spent most of the time IM'ing with people.

MOE: So Cass Sunstein co authors an oped in the Wash Post... Cass sunstein is the Obama policy adviser yes? It doesn't mention that. But anyway it is about the death penalty. I wanted to bring up Juan Williams admirably

MEGAN: Juan Williams?

Also, Cass Sunstein, I'm not sure if he's an adviser but he's definitely a fan

MOE: Frustrated performance on fox news Sunday re the supreme courts striking down the gun ban

MEGAN: Sadly, I have no cable but I will find a clip.

I mean, my parents have no cable because my mother doesn't believe in it.

MOE: Maybe I can find a clip. What he lacked in eloquence he made up for in abject what the fuckitide

My dad and I talked about whether murder is the worst crime. He believes in the death penalty for people who cut off peoples legs and gouge their eyes out and such.

MEGAN: On the other hand, I think blind people and amputees would probably disagree, right?

MOE: If I can't get wifi on this bus I'm going to make them drop me off on the side of the 295

MEGAN: As though there's wifi along 295?

MOE: Well if you had your arms and legs cut off and your eyes gouged out by some crazy child rapist you might feel like giving that guy the lethal injection, I dunno,

MEGAN: But is it worse than murder? Would I rather be dead than mutilated? I guess I already made the decision a long time ago that I'd rather be a living sexual assault victim than a dead one. So I guess that makes murder worse.

It's kind of a subjective question

MOE: Yeah anyway sunstein mostly discusses the evidence or lack thereof for and against the concept that the death penalty is a deterrent which is sort of the same question...

MEGAN: For the death penalty to be a deterrent, people would have to believe sincerely that the likelihood is that they will get caught.

MEGAN: Most people aren't weighing the consequences of their actions or thinking that far ahead, frankly.

MOE: I wonder what the penalty for advertising internet access on your bus service and failing to deliver is...

MEGAN: Ok, that's totally a capital offense.



MOE: Lol I just passed the capitol.

UPDATE: I misread the Breitbart article: the woman's lashes were for getting into a car with a man she wasn't related to, NOT for getting raped. Because that's so much better! Also, her lawyer thought the sentences on the men were too lenient but unfortunately got a judge who just increased his client's sentence. D'oh!!
[Breitbart]