Richey case shows we can't all rely on justice

Over the past 20 years Kenny Richey's case has attracted support from Hollywood actors, a pope, Amnesty International, numerous politicians and a huge number of people in Scotland. The profile of the case has grown and grown and he is now the subject of a book, a full-length film and internet discussions around the globe.

Yet there are no shortage of prisoners proclaiming their innocence. Why have campaigners refused to let this particular case lie?

Certainly the fact that he grew up in Edinburgh, and intends to return here if he gets released, adds local flavour for us, but Susan Sarandon, Pope John Paul II or the American legal team now giving their time for free are unlikely to have been swayed by this.

In an ideal world every single human life would be defended with the energy and passion which has kept Richey's case in the public eye. Yet although Amnesty opposes the death penalty in every case there are still thousands of executions every year and it would be impossible to highlight every one, or hold the public's attention with multiple stories.

At the broadest level - and I sincerely believe that Kenny Richey's fate has international significance - the case is important because it raises fundamental questions about basic ideas of justice and challenges any assumption that all people are treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Let's get right to the heart of the story - an apparently innocent man found himself in a nightmare scenario because he couldn't afford a decent lawyer. Twenty years of being locked up in a small cell for 20 hours a day, with death hovering over him. Numerous execution dates and last-minute reprieves. Figures show that Death Row is populated almost exclusively by poor people, particularly poor black people. People who couldn't pay for a professional to argue their case.

Richey's court-provided lawyer had only been practising for two years and this was his first capital case. He failed Kenny on several counts by not questioning prosecution evidence, hiring experts or allowing Richey to testify. He himself has admitted he did a poor job - the appeal court which recently overturned Richey's conviction did so on the grounds that he had received "deficient" representation in his initial trial.

"An apparently innocent man found himself in a nightmare scenario because he couldn't afford a decent lawyer"

What about the checks and balances in the system which should make sure that initial mistakes are identified and corrected? In 1997 evidence was presented to an Ohio court discrediting the original forensic evidence that the fire at the centre of the case was started deliberately. With no deliberate fire, and hence no premeditated murder, there should be no death penalty. Yet prosecutor Dan Gershutz said that "even though this new evidence may establish Mr Richey's innocence, the Ohio and United States constitution nonetheless allows him to be executed because the prosecution did not know that the scientific testimony offered at the trial was false and unreliable". The judge agreed with the prosecution and denied Richey's appeal.

Here we have the remarkable situation of a government agency seeking to kill a man, not because of any concept of guilt or punishment, but simply because it can. This may well be the law, but it is certainly not justice. As I write this article Amnesty International is appealing for clemency for Kenneth Foster, who is set to be executed for a murder actually carried out by another man, because Texan law can make an associate of a perpetrator co-responsible.

Remember that these events are taking place in the United States, in theory a bastion of individual liberty, whose founding fathers declared the inalienable right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". When we get to the stage that a prosecutor can unashamedly argue that it is not guilt or innocence that matters but the rules of the game then somewhere along the line the concept of compassion and humanity has been lost, even in the land of the free.

Human rights are often caricatured by opponents as a kind of criminals' charter, with proponents mostly concerned with ensuring that prisoners get plenty of pillows and are brought a nice cup of tea in the morning. The reality is that human rights set out to ensure that a basic level of dignity and respect is afforded to all people, whether rich or poor, black or white, male or female. Incorporating human rights standards into law (as we have done with the European Convention on Human Rights) gives us a framework that should protect against the shoddy justice experienced by Kenny Richey. We should hold on to that.

Kenny Richey's case is important in that is shows us the danger of forgetting those basic standards. When we label a man a murderer (or an asylum seeker, a terror suspect, a gypsy traveller, an older person) and then assume they don't matter any more, we deny them their humanity, and lose a little bit of our own in the process.

The case does not reflect well on the Ohio State legal system, but like Kenny Richey it has been offered a final chance at redemption. Richey's retrial must be conducted to the highest standards, with all political and personal baggage thrown out in favour of an honest endeavour to seek the truth and provide a just outcome for all concerned. We as observers must remain on our guard, to ensure that it does that and to send out a message to other legal systems that every human being deserves the standard of justice that currently only money can buy.

• John Watson is programme director, Scotland, for Amnesty International

Related topic

• Kenny Richey
  http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=409
• Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)