Senseless Punishment Demands Justice
Dublin Core
Title
Senseless Punishment Demands Justice
Subject
Capital punishment
Description
Columnist James Kilpatrick writing on death row inmate Joe Giarratano's court case; questioning conviction.
Creator
Kilpatrick, James
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1991
Rights
The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.
Format
300 DPI
1 JPG
Language
English
Coverage
Law, Human Rights, Capital Punishment, Supreme Court Cases
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
RICHMOND, Va. – Let me ask a favor. Take a couple of minutes, if you will, to read a letter from Joe Giarratano. He is on death row in Virginia’s prison at Boydton. On Oct. 1, the Supreme Court turned down his last appeal. His legal roads have run out. If Gov. Doug Wilder refuses to interview, Joe will be executed before the end of the year.
By way of background: On the unchallenged record, Joe Giarratano was the product of a sordid childhood. He had a limited high school education. Those facts do not excuse, but they help explain. In February 1979, Giarratano was 21 years old, a drug addict, a drunkard, a drifter working on a fish boat out of Newport News. No man is worthless in the eyes of God, but in 1979, Joe was right at the bottom of the heap.
The ugly details of the crime are now irrelevant. Joe was charged and convicted of the rape-murder of a 15-year-old girl and the murder of her mother. The only evidence against him came from five separate confessions he signed in the hours immediately after the arrest. The confessions were internally inconsistent; they smacked of police coaching. Following a brief non-jury trial, a judge sentenced him to death. That was almost 12 years ago. He has been in prison ever since. He has spent his time studying law and remaking his life.
I learned of the case three years ago. I spent hours reading the record and came away deeply troubled. I am not sure whether Joe is guilty; I am not sure he is innocent; but I have spent 50 years covering courts and I am certain of this: He was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now to the letter. It is dated Oct. 7, 1990:
“I truly appreciate the efforts you have made on my behalf, and for bring my plight to the attention of the public through your columns. Knowing that folks really care has been a real boon for my morale.
“Overall I am holding up well, and I remain hopeful. The news from the U.S. Supreme Court came as no surprise, though it is a terribly frustrating to see that procedural default mechanisms can outweigh the truth-finding process in such an obdurate fashion. Even though I understand the judiciary’s frustrations with capital cases, I really find it impossible to reconcile that imbalance with the constitution (state or federal). The ball is now in the governor’s court, and I can only hope that he will exercise his executive authority.
“In the meanwhile my chin is up, and I keep fairly busy. I’ve recently completed and article for the Yale Law journal (‘A Cautionary Tale; Fallibility vs. Finality’). It is in the final editing stages. And I am in the process of co-authoring another law review with Professor Mike Mellow (Vermont Law School). The subject is the ‘forgotten’ Ninth Amendment of our Constitution.
“Early in November, 50 law students from Georgetown and Maryland will be coming to the prison, and I plan to talk with them about the ninth Amendment and Lockean political theory and its role in the formation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I’ve given two talks like this in the past, and I was amazed to discover how little is known about the historical underpinnings of the Constitution. Amazed isn’t the proper word because my ignorance was on par with theirs until just a couple of years ago.
“Anyway, I have rambled on enough. I simply wanted to send you a note of thanks. If things work out for me I hope we can one day meet. Please do not feel obliged to respond to this letter. I know that you are a busy man. Be well, and keep telling it like it is.”
A personal note: I am not opposed to the death sentence. Given a killer in the weird mold of Ted Bundy, I see no reason for society to keep such a monster alive. The prospect of capital punishment may not be a deterrent to rape or murder – I doubt that it is, but that issue defies resolution. In truly heinous cases, a death sentence out to be available to a jury as an option.
But let me ask: what would be the point in killing Joe Giarratano now? In all of my instincts, I am a man of the law. The judgments of a court ought not to be flouted. But Joe was convicted 12 years ago by a single trial judge on evidence of doubtful reliability. The confused, suicidal drug addict of 1979 is gone. In his place one finds a young man with a good mind and healthy outlook on life. How would killing him avenge the victims or sustain respect for judicial process?
Some useful purpose ought to be served by putting Joe to death. I see no useful purpose and all.
By way of background: On the unchallenged record, Joe Giarratano was the product of a sordid childhood. He had a limited high school education. Those facts do not excuse, but they help explain. In February 1979, Giarratano was 21 years old, a drug addict, a drunkard, a drifter working on a fish boat out of Newport News. No man is worthless in the eyes of God, but in 1979, Joe was right at the bottom of the heap.
The ugly details of the crime are now irrelevant. Joe was charged and convicted of the rape-murder of a 15-year-old girl and the murder of her mother. The only evidence against him came from five separate confessions he signed in the hours immediately after the arrest. The confessions were internally inconsistent; they smacked of police coaching. Following a brief non-jury trial, a judge sentenced him to death. That was almost 12 years ago. He has been in prison ever since. He has spent his time studying law and remaking his life.
I learned of the case three years ago. I spent hours reading the record and came away deeply troubled. I am not sure whether Joe is guilty; I am not sure he is innocent; but I have spent 50 years covering courts and I am certain of this: He was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now to the letter. It is dated Oct. 7, 1990:
“I truly appreciate the efforts you have made on my behalf, and for bring my plight to the attention of the public through your columns. Knowing that folks really care has been a real boon for my morale.
“Overall I am holding up well, and I remain hopeful. The news from the U.S. Supreme Court came as no surprise, though it is a terribly frustrating to see that procedural default mechanisms can outweigh the truth-finding process in such an obdurate fashion. Even though I understand the judiciary’s frustrations with capital cases, I really find it impossible to reconcile that imbalance with the constitution (state or federal). The ball is now in the governor’s court, and I can only hope that he will exercise his executive authority.
“In the meanwhile my chin is up, and I keep fairly busy. I’ve recently completed and article for the Yale Law journal (‘A Cautionary Tale; Fallibility vs. Finality’). It is in the final editing stages. And I am in the process of co-authoring another law review with Professor Mike Mellow (Vermont Law School). The subject is the ‘forgotten’ Ninth Amendment of our Constitution.
“Early in November, 50 law students from Georgetown and Maryland will be coming to the prison, and I plan to talk with them about the ninth Amendment and Lockean political theory and its role in the formation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I’ve given two talks like this in the past, and I was amazed to discover how little is known about the historical underpinnings of the Constitution. Amazed isn’t the proper word because my ignorance was on par with theirs until just a couple of years ago.
“Anyway, I have rambled on enough. I simply wanted to send you a note of thanks. If things work out for me I hope we can one day meet. Please do not feel obliged to respond to this letter. I know that you are a busy man. Be well, and keep telling it like it is.”
A personal note: I am not opposed to the death sentence. Given a killer in the weird mold of Ted Bundy, I see no reason for society to keep such a monster alive. The prospect of capital punishment may not be a deterrent to rape or murder – I doubt that it is, but that issue defies resolution. In truly heinous cases, a death sentence out to be available to a jury as an option.
But let me ask: what would be the point in killing Joe Giarratano now? In all of my instincts, I am a man of the law. The judgments of a court ought not to be flouted. But Joe was convicted 12 years ago by a single trial judge on evidence of doubtful reliability. The confused, suicidal drug addict of 1979 is gone. In his place one finds a young man with a good mind and healthy outlook on life. How would killing him avenge the victims or sustain respect for judicial process?
Some useful purpose ought to be served by putting Joe to death. I see no useful purpose and all.
Original Format
Newspaper
Contributor of the Digital Item
Lockett, Darron
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Williams, Megan
Files
Citation
Kilpatrick, James, “Senseless Punishment Demands Justice,” HIST299, accessed May 18, 2025, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/138.