Concerning the Execution of a Bad Man

The man was a year younger than I am. He was born Ledell Lee in Blytheville, Arkansas. A little town that I have been to more than once. When Ledell was born there was an Air Force Base in Blytheville. Eaker AFB had opened in 1942 as Blytheville Army Airfield and did not close until 1992. The base fell victim to the US military drawdown that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Ronald Reagan is often credited with bringing about this collapse and winning the Cold War. I was in the service at that time, and I know I thought so. Reagan did a lot of things. One of the things he did was change the rules in American courts. Arguing that the criminal justice system had collapsed, he advocated legal changes that would make it easier to deny the accused bail and would allow prosecutors to use illegally seized evidence in court. He made it clear that it was time to put “public safety” ahead of “offender’s rights.” He argued that poverty and bad environment did not produce crime, and that retribution for criminals should be swift[i]. While speaking to several thousand police officers, he said that he regretted not having authorized more executions while he was the Governor of California. He would point out examples of murderers who had killed again after parole and said that “our legal system has failed to carry out its most important function -the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty.” This was hard to argue against. Human beings, though capable of rational thought, most often make their decisions based on visceral emotional responses from much older systems in the brain. We then put our more rational systems to work justifying those decisions. Reagan seemed to passionately believe that capital punishment would reduce crime. A “common sense” argument that has been proven false over and over again yet has a degree of “truthiness” to it, as Stephen Colbert would say, that does not allow it to die. He also believed that the “exclusionary rule” prohibiting the use of illegally seized evidence, should not prohibit the use of that evidence at trial. This is also inherently truthy. No sane person wants a serial killer to go free with two bodies in the trunk because the taillight wasn’t really out when he was stopped. Reagan also argued to limit the use of habeas corpus petitions. Habeus corpus allows someone to argue that their trial or the verdict was unfair or wrong, and Reagan feared bad people would get off on “a technicality.” But what message did those words from the president of the United States, and the subsequent changes Reagan championed in the courts, have on our justice system? Simple. If you must break the law to get a conviction that’s okay, as long as you get the “bad guy.” People in prison whine too much and should not be listened to, and not enough bad guys are dying.

When this country was founded, Benjamin Franklin had said, “it is better that a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.” Though the United States had never lived up to that premise, after Reagan it quit trying. In the 1970s and 80s it was not uncommon to find police officer’s carrying “throw away” weapons. In case they mistakenly shot an unarmed person. At that time if they were not prosecuted for it, they were definitely fired. Now the standard is only “did the officer fear for their lives.” Let’s look at that for a moment. Not that the victim was a true threat, but that the officer “felt” fear. An almost impossible standard to disprove. And who do we most fear? Those who are different from “us,” those who “look like” criminals. And who are those people? Those would be young, male minorities. The standard went from “was he a threat?” to “could he have been a threat if he chose to be?.” George Floyd was a big man at 6 feet six inches. He was very muscular and weighed 223 pounds. He fit the profile. He was also scared to go into the police car, so he did not comply. Police have learned over the last four decades since Reagan that, if you have to break the law to kill more bad guys that’s okay. The police unions have your back, and too often the media will support you. Michael Brown, well he may have been threatening to someone in a store the day he was killed. Plus, he didn’t comply. He dared to not, get the f*** off the road. He argued with a police officer. He tried not to get shot when the officer pulled a gun. Then he either ran away, in which case he had to be shot at, or he ran toward the officer, in which case he had to be shot at, or he stood still with his hands up, in which case it was too late, and he had to be shot at. He was a big boy too. Only 18 years old but he was six feet four inches tall and weighed 292 lbs.

I am not arguing that the police only shoot large people, or minorities. I am pointing out the fact that being a large Black male has become a terminal condition in too many police encounters. The new motto on police cars might more accurately read, “If you don’t comply you will die.” The fear doctrine sets a standard where the most cowardly of the officers can legally shoot the most people. But even complying does not guarantee you will be allowed to live. George Floyd could have put up an incredible fight, but he did not. He cried and begged for his life, over and over again. But it did not save him. Ronald Greene said, “I’m sorry!” and “I’m scared! I’m your brother. I’m scared!,” but that did not save him. He had already committed the cardinal sin in America, he had disrespected a police officer by leading them on a chase. Never mind that every large Black man in America must feel a sudden panic these days when the blue lights come on and you are on a dark road. And trying to get to a lighted area to pull over to make sure the officers will not mistake a hand gesture as a lethal threat is not allowed. Just ask Army Lieutenant Joe Gutierrez. Who was pepper sprayed, thrown to the ground, and hit, for doing just this. When he said he was scared the officer said, “You should be…” The officer was right. Lieutenant Gutierrez should be scared, we all should be. For what our country was meant to be, and what it has become.

And that brings us back to Ledell Lee. Ledell was convicted and executed for the murder of his neighbor, Debra Reese. Mr. Lee maintained his innocence throughout his trial and conviction. He maintained it through his appeals to the Arkansas Supreme Court and later the US federal courts. He maintained it through his execution in 2017 at the age of fifty-one. The victim, 26-year-old Debra Reese, was found dead in her home in 1993. She had been strangled and beaten with a wooden bat. Several neighbors testified that they saw Lee near the house on the day of her death. We all know that DNA evidence is now the gold standard for identification. And the “tire thumper” used to kill Debra Reese had DNA on the handle, where the killer’s hand would be. This would have to be the killer’s or that of the victim. There was also a hair found at the scene that was not Debra’s and could be tested. And a drop of blood on a Converse shoe. A simple DNA test could be performed on all of this evidence.

But the state of Arkansas denied the defense request to test the evidence. Let us ponder this for a moment. The State of Arkansas argued, in court, that DNA evidence, which can only lead to the truth, should not be tested. What greater crime can anyone commit? Than to deny access to the truth during a capital case. Or any case for that matter. Prison is not benign. Taking years away from someone’s life is not a minor thing. It’s like being buried into a hillside in a glass coffin where you can see that life is going on for others… but not for you. It seems that, after Reagan, nothing can derail the wheels of justice, as they move inexorably toward conviction of the accused. The judge who presided over Ledell’s trial was found to be having an affair with the assistant prosecutor. But Mr. Lee’s attorney appeared inebriated at the hearing where this was brought out and failed to take the appropriate action. Ledell was given a new attorney but this one failed to raise the issue at all. The execution would go on. And be sped up because the lethal combination of medications Arkansas kept for executions was about to expire. The state had to use them or lose them. So, after twelve years of no executions Arkansas planned to kill seven people as fast as possible. The Arkansas Supreme Court had no problem with this. Neither did the US Supreme Court. Four were put to death in one week, including Ledell.

In April of 2021, the DNA was finally tested, proving that an “unknown male’s” DNA had been at the murder scene. The state claimed that there was “moderate support” that a drop of blood on Ledell’s shoe could have belonged to Reese. As someone familiar with DNA let me assure you, there is no scientific meaning to the term “moderate support” when it comes to DNA. Either you can analyze the sample, or you cannot. Either you can prove it came from one individual’s genome (or identical twins) or you can say nothing. “Moderate support” in DNA testing is like hair sample analysis. Junk science. A forensic specialist trying to help his buddies get the bad guy, like on CSI. But this execution should not be seen as a failure of the American justice system. This was not a failure. This was the desired result.

The question was never about Ledell’s guilt. In fact, the United States Supreme Court said, through Justice Antonin Scalia, that, “mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.” Ledell had been accused, and to ensure the safety of the citizens of this great country, if there is any chance that a “bad man” might be guilty, he must die, because after all, if he didn’t do this one, he must have done something else. Or he might have. In any event he was capable of doing something bad. But he’s dead now and we don’t have to worry about him doing something later that would make us look bad. As for the real killer. Well, yes, he’s still out there. But eventually he’ll kill enough people that he will be identified. And that’s not law enforcement’s fault. After all, they did their job. A crime was committed, a bad man was found, and he was killed. What more could you ask for?

[i] Reagan Proposes Revision of Laws to Combat Crime, Howell Raines, Sept. 29, 1981, New York Times