Yesterday’s Washington Post featured this long story about Wilbert Rideau’s release from prison after 40 years. The gist of the tale is that Rideau’s various trials were deeply flawed for one reason or another. Also, the fact that he was black seemed to indicate he got “harsher” treatment — i.e. a longer sentence — than some whites convicted of similar crimes. He was originally sentenced to death but when the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional his sentence was commuted to life in prison. I didn’t read the story at first, because I figured it was just another story about racism and death penalty screw-ups. But then I heard the story reported on NPR. Here’s the thing: The guy was guilty of shooting three people and stabbing one of them with a hunting knife after taking them hostage after a bank robbery. None of that is in dispute.
Rideau has apparently worked very hard at redeeming and rehabilitating himself. But the fact is that his release is dependent on a whole confluence of events which have nothing to do with what he actually deserves. The system made mistakes. Whites were treated too leniently, etc. But this guy did in fact murder people. His appeal hinged on the contention that he didn’t plan on murdering these people and so he was only guilty of manslaughter (a conviction deserving a shorter term of conviction). Maybe so, but killing three people you’ve taken hostage after robbing a bank is not exactly the same thing as accidentally hitting someone with your car. It speaks well of him that he feels remorse and that he got his act together. Life Magazine called him America’s most rehabilitated prisoner in 1993, presumably for good reason. But, if the Supreme Court hadn’t scuttled the death penalty in the 1970s he probably would have been executed for his crimes — and, in my mind at least, deservedly so.