Let me be up front: I am staunchly pro death penalty.  It is a proven deterrent and quite honestly I don’t see the point of giving a murderer life without the possibility of parole.  I don’t think that hanging, electrocution, or the needle constitute cruel and unusual punishment - especially in light of the crimes that were committed to earn such punishment.  But such ultimate punishment should only be administered once there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that the guilt of the accused is in question.

A DNA testing for death row inmates advocacy group blasted out emails and talking points to news outlets and bloggers in Alabama to support DNA testing for a convicted murderer named Tommy Arthur.  Based on this article it seems that Arthur is a Grade A piece of crap and I have very little doubt of his guilt.  Supposedly there is still evidence from the crime scene that can be tested, but the state has refused to perform DNA testing or even allow Arthur to conduct testing at his own expense.

I believe that it is possible to fairly try and convict a person without DNA evidence and I understand the legal implications of allowing the convicted to continually introduce new evidence after being convicted.  But this is a man’s life we’re talking about.  What does the state have to lose?  Administer the DNA test.  When the expected results come back then give him the needle with a clean conscience.

FWIW a web page has been set up to proclaim Arthur’s innocence.

Related content: