Skinner Case

My thoughts on Hank Skinner’s trial are a bit confusing, even to me. At some moments, I feel like he is simply buying himself time by playing the system. Yet at other times, I feel like he truly may be innocent, and is simply seeking a fair trial. My opinions are greatly affected by what media coverage or website I am reading at the time. This goes to show the impact that the way a story is portrayed in the media can really affect the public’s opinion. It is frustrating that the simple usage of words can sway opinions, and that we are indeed so heavily affected by the media’s opinion, and not the facts. The “dueling” websites make it so hard to really determine the real facts. They have such opposing arguments with such different evidence that it leaves me wondering where the real truth is. Clearly, there is bias in the way both websites are written. The only equivalence is their aesthetic layout. When reading each website separately, I find myself leaning the way they want me to…because the writing is very persuasive. Then I read the opposing story and again, my opinion is swayed. Now I’m in a state of limbo. I find it very disheartening that both websites are only exaggerating the evidence that helps their case and suppressing all arguments that go against theirs. In the mean time, the truth is lost. Beyond just the skinner case, I think this is a prime example of how the media affects our opinion of law cases everyday. The public is at a big disadvantage because its almost as if, no matter what we do, we will never know the pure facts without any type of bias. We can read opposing articles all day, yet we are being lied to and manipulated by the beautiful English language. Beyond the opposing websites, is the rest of the media coverage. The coverage of the case is extremely bias in favor of Skinner’s innocence. All  three of the articles make is seem as if the state is the bad guy, refusing to let Skinner have a fair and complete trial. They make is sound like the fault of this case is in the Texas law, and that the state just wants to execute Skinner.  The media focuses on the fact that the lawmakers are denying Skinner’s requests and that they consistently side with Switzer. This bias is easily noticed until the last paragraph on article three where for the first time, the idea the Skinner is simply playing his cards to buy extra time surfaces. The fact that letting Skinner have access to DNA testing will set a negative precedent is finally brought up in the last few paragraphs of one article. The rest of the three articles mainly focus on his innocence and all his supporters that believe he is being denied a fair trial.

In the end, I would have to say that averting the execution was an act of injustice. After reading all of the articles and websites, I do believe Skinner is guilty and should have been executed. The reason I say this is due to the fact that he wants DNA testing to prove his guilt or innocence. A truly innocent man would have said that the testing will confirm his innocence. He doesn’t even truly believe he is innocent, so how should we as a jury believe that. His altered state of consciousness due to the drugs and alcohol make the situation a bit sketchy and make his recounts of the evening unreliable. And the other thing, why did he wait so long? How come his lawyer did not use the DNA testing in the very first trial. It is clear that the lawyer thought that was the best thing to do at the time. So why cause all this commotion now? To avoid an executing and buy time. Skinner’s life is already ruined. He has spent most of life in jail, and his name will be forever tainted…the fact that he is avoiding an executing by using the legal system against itself is just his way of getting a bit of satisfaction out of this situation. By averting the execution, injustice was done not only to the victims of the crime, but to all of the other criminals who were executed despite having access to evidence. Executions should all have the same implication, the same standards, and the same processing. The fact that Skinner avoided his, is unjust to all of the criminals previously executed without a second trial with more evidence. They were denied this right, and so the fact that he wasn’t is not fair. The injustice is also done to the opposing party. The lawyers who prosecuted Skinner did their job. They followed the law and provided the evidence needed. It is unjust to avoid the execution because it is almost like saying their case had no value. Delaying the execution is giving Skinner a second chance, and this is basically portraying that the jury’s decision was not sufficient. Skinner and his lawyer are playing the courts by using their own inconsistencies against themselves. Skinner has nothing else to lose, so why not just make the lawyers who prosecuted him suffer a little before he leaves this world.