Alabama Pardons Three Dead Men

The New York Times published an article today about Alabama posthumously pardoning three black men who had been falsely convicted more than 80 years ago in the rapes of two white women.

For something that happened in the 1930’s the NYT seems to believe the public knows a lot about this event. 9 men were originally convicted of raping two white women. This incredibly vague article says that these men endured convictions, pardons, and more convictions. It’s one big legal mess. But… did they do it? All 9 of them were let off the hook by the Supreme Court but four of them were later re-convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms (or death).

The article summarizes the confusing convictions well, but fails to strike into the heart of the matter with the exception of one sentence: “The case, which yielded two landmark Supreme Court rulings about the inclusion of blacks on juries and the need for adequate legal representation, had continued to hang over Alabama as an enduring mark of its tainted, segregationist past.”

Maybe this is the harsh question, but why does this matter? The State senator was quoted; “We’re certainly a different state in the 21st century than we were. Today is the final chapter – and it ends on a brighter note – of a very tragic chapter in our history.” I wish this article had done some digging. They mention that the juries were all white, which of course wasn’t fair. But had the men actually done what they are accused of? IF they had, why are they being pardoned? If they hadn’t…why are they being pardoned post-harmoniously, and why does this matter to Americans today? Aside from being a nice thought, a nice band aid on the issue of racism, how is this effecting the general population? The men are dead. Did they have families or friends advocating the issue?

“Nudged by researchers, the state Legislature earlier this year unanimously supported a measure from Mr. Orr and others that allowed the pardons board to act on cases that had not been overturned by the courts or abandoned by prosecutors.” This almost seems to be the ultimate point of the story. I’d like to know more about this as well. Does this apply to people who are still sitting in jail today? How will this affect them? This could mean something huge, but is poorly developed in the article, mentioned as an afterthought.

The piece ended with a quote from the Governor; “We cannot take back what happened,” Gov. Robert Bentley said in April when he signed the legislation. “But we can make it right moving forward.” Again, how far into history are these pardon boards going to go? How deep into recent history, and will it change the lives of people in jail or their families?