Last week, I called on Governor Perry to sign a pardon for Timothy Cole. He has continued to deny Mr. Cole's family's request for a pardon, repeatedly citing an Attorney General's opinion that precludes posthumous pardons.

Since Governor Perry was apparently not swayed by the Texas Legislative Council's report that suggested that he did have the power to issue posthumous pardons, State Senator Rodney Ellis submitted a request for a new Attorney General's opinion regarding whether Texas governors can grant posthumous pardons.

I look forward to reading the new AG's opinion and continue to hope that Governor Perry will bring Timothy Cole's family some peace by signing the pardon. However, the whole thing leaves me wondering what is the real motivation behind Perry's unwillingness to clear an innocent man's name? There is no fear that he is actually guilty - DNA has cleared him and the true culprit has since confessed to the rape for which Cole was wrongly convicted.

The matter makes me think of Perry's veto of the expunction bill - again, if someone isn't found guilty of committing a crime (and they don't plead guilty), why should his or her name and criminal record suggest otherwise? This is not being "tough on crime," this is being tough on the innocent.*

*and yes, I realize that some people have their cases dismissed even when factually "guilty" due to some other reason - often mitigating evidence in the interest of justice. But if we empower prosecutors to determine whether a committed crime is worth pursuing, and they decide to dismiss, then there's no functional reason to insist on waiting the full statute of limitations period.

(photo via eschipul's flickrstream)

Labels: expunctions, governor perry, posthumous pardons, presumption of innocence, senator ellis, timothy cole

posted by Kristi Couvillon   permalink   0 Comments