I have received some inquiries on why we have not posted on the New Yorker article on the Willingham case. Two reasons:
First, the case has been kicking around a long time, and I do not regard the article as the kind of major event that demands immediate comment.
Second, and more importantly, the broader subject of innocence and the death penalty does not lend itself to the kind of "quickie" post I can dash off in a few minutes. When we do post on the subject, it will be one of the longer posts on this blog, and we will have to go over it carefully to minimize the ability of the more dishonest elements of the opposition to distort what we say. (We can never eliminate that possibility entirely, of course.)
CJLF has three briefs and two law review articles due this month, so in the short run blogging will be limited to things we feel comfortable writing and posting quickly. This case is not one of them.
First, the case has been kicking around a long time, and I do not regard the article as the kind of major event that demands immediate comment.
Second, and more importantly, the broader subject of innocence and the death penalty does not lend itself to the kind of "quickie" post I can dash off in a few minutes. When we do post on the subject, it will be one of the longer posts on this blog, and we will have to go over it carefully to minimize the ability of the more dishonest elements of the opposition to distort what we say. (We can never eliminate that possibility entirely, of course.)
CJLF has three briefs and two law review articles due this month, so in the short run blogging will be limited to things we feel comfortable writing and posting quickly. This case is not one of them.
Leave a comment