Gov. Perry defends the execution of Willingham

Willingham is the guy that Texas executed for killing his three children by arson. (Previously discussed here and here.) M calls my attention to this Chron article wherein Gov. Perry defends his actions and proclaims Willingham guilty and a monster.

Update: And another Chron story per M. This one includes two recent statements (one by the brother of Willingham's former wife and another by a neighbor) supporting Willingham's guilt. The story doesn't say when the brother-in-law's statement was made. His statement relates a conversation to which the bro-in-law would not have been privy. (I don't get why the statement wasn't made by the ex-wife.) The second one includes incredibly damning details about what a neighbor witnessed the day of the fire. The neighbor claims he told police about it at the time, but that he was been rebuffed. Given the import of the neighbors claims, it seems odd that the police and DA wouldn't have been interested in what he had to say.

Update II: Per M, Chron columnist makes the case that focus should remain on Perry's role in the violation of process, rather than on the monster qualities of Willingham.

Attitudes about capital punishment

K always tells me that as soon as there's a case where it is proved that we've executed an innocent person, people who support the death penalty will change their minds. But I don't think he has that right. I presume that folks who support the death penalty recognize that we execute an innocent person now and then, but they feel that is an acceptable cost for what they perceive the benefits to be.

So in this case, I think they're comfortable saying this:

Here's what you get for a life: you'll watch your kids die in a fire, then we'll wrongly accuse you of killing them (by burning them up in a fire, no less) and then we'll execute you. Sorry about your life, bud. Cost/benefit analysis, don't you know.

Here's a link to The Innocence Project. They can use donations.