Argumentative essay on “Trial by Fire” and “Death by Fire
What makes a person guilty of a crime? What criteria do we use to gather evidence, and are they always right? Most people are convicted of crimes with which they are innocent. Every town is bound to have bad people; similarly, tragic events are bound to happen in any town. However, people fail to learn from the mistakes they make from the past. Criminal investigative officers are more of in a rush to find the ‘criminal’ and be applauded for closing a case. The big question is that are all ‘criminals’ guilty of their alleged crimes? Corsicana, Texas convicts an innocent man Cameron Todd Willingham for the allegations of burning his three children in his house in 1991. Willingham is declared guilty for starting the fire that kills his children because it will later be maliciously unjust. While the judicial system succeeds in convicting and sentencing Willingham to the death penalty, ‘Trial by Fire’ an article by David Grann, and “Death by Fire,” an exclusive Frontline documentary highlights truths of an unjust execution of an innocent man for a crime that he did not commit. Therefore this report addresses the debate of whether it is right to give a verdict on the death penalty.
Death by fire and Trial by fire tells the tale of an American arson case where Todd Willingham is convicted for the crime. During the early stages of investigations, evidence points at Willingham are responsible for the arson fire. With the previous anger and theft charges and violence against his wife, the investigators confirm his guilt alongside the neighbors. Surprisingly, a convict is brought as a witness during the trials and accuses Willingham to confess his crimes, citing the images in his room as evidence for ritual practices. However, after the period of conviction elapses and the execution period approaches, things take a drastic turn for Willingham; the investigation finding is reevaluated. Evidence points that he might be innocent of all the allegations. Sadly, the execution appeal is denied, and courts uphold the death sentence verdict; thus, an innocent man is executed.
The facts presented during the case go as follows; Willingham suspected of murder by his neighbors due to his behavior during fundraising. Police rule out fire not to be accidental due to a liquid accelerant’s presence, and the patterns shaped like puddles on the floor assumed to be ignition point. Furthermore, the prosecutor insinuates that the fire was started deliberately and witnesses statements on the accused not taking steps to save his children. With the collected evidence, Willingham is prosecuted and arranged before a jury, who finds him guilty of his crimes. However, during the trials, the accused is convinced to plead guilty for better senses, but he refuses. After spending time in prison, Elizabeth Gilbert writes him a letter, which Willingham replies, marking the journey of proving his innocence. However, the judiciary system denies death sentence appeal even though the new evidence reveals that the court made a ruling on evidence that is unsubstantial. Therefore, over the years, debates are rising over the justification of death verdicts as a penalty for a crime.
The proponent of the death penalty verdicts has given several justifications on why they support execution as an option during convictions. First, proponents argue that death verdicts set an example to prevent murder and other serious crimes in the future. Furthermore, by using harsh punishments, potential criminals who are likely to commit outrageous crimes get discouraged. Some argue that Society’s responsibility is to ensure that crime is inhibited; therefore, death verdicts are just good examples to set things right. Willingham is branded as a ‘child murderer,.’ Moreover, the lead prosecutor Jackson quotes, “Whosoever shall harm one of my children, it’s better for a millstone to be hung around his neck and for him to be cast in the sea,” a bible verse to justify the punishment he deserves.
The first argument for the death penalty is that of deterrence. This means that the death penalty works to prevent other future murders in Society. Hence, Using this strict punishment, Society discourages potential murderers and criminals from participating in criminal activities. As they argue, Society is responsible for preventing murder. Due to this, the community should, therefore, use any form of punishment to deter murder activities. Among the most substantial disciplines available, as they argue, is that of the death penalty. Thus, the death penalty must be practiced to prevent or deter future murder cases.
Additionally, advocates for the death sentence are an excellent way of enhancing nemesis; Adding that for a society to be just, it is essential to take the lives of those who murder. Death sentence advocates also justify that execution is the only viable way to balance the Society from unjust murders. Many believe that people convicted for life imprisonment get to live longer lives than their counterparts who are murdered in cold blood. This type of argument traces back to the biblical historical values that use ‘an eye for an eye, or those who kill by sword shall die by sword.’ “It is really a shame that we didn’t put him to death three times because he took three lives,” says Vicky Prater, a bar owner who believes Willingham received what he deserved.
Ideally, the arguments above give justifications of how murderers found guilty of their crimes should be punished. However, those against death sentences also argue their reasons as to why an alternative method would be appropriate. The first argument is that punishment serves the purpose of changing behavior. Nonetheless, Society and parents are responsible for instilling good morals and values in their children as they grow. In Willingham’s case, he received punishment for stealing and violence. Spending days at the detention center provides a space for self-reflection. The death penalty does not correct that someone is already dead; it is just using one wrong to correct another wrong.
Additionally, several cases of wrongful conviction is always a shortcoming within the judicial systems. May people, just like Willingham, have lost their lives or are serving sentences for the crimes they did not commit. Therefore, it becomes too late to correct the mistakes made during Trials, especially when a person is already dead. “I can guarantee you we have a list of a couple hundreds of people in jail for accident fire,” says scientist Jerald Hurst.
While both parties clearly state their argument either in support or against the court sentence, Cameron Todd Willingham receives, questions arise if he was innocent of the crime charged against him. Furthermore, the rising evidence at the end of the video brings points out his innocence. However, even with the new development, the court denies him an appeal. Whether or not Willingham is guilty of his crime, a second chance to redeem his life would have been appropriate. Maybe he would be with his family. False evidence and crook witnesses have left people in places they do not deserve. “Death by Fire” and “Trial by Fire” highlights not only Willingham’s unjust case but also the negligence within our court systems.