Tweet
I think they took the Alford plea because they wanted to be free immediately, and it allowed for that. They were probably very tired of not knowing what was going to happen to them, and the Alford offered finality. Echols had been on death row for 18 years, where he was never even touched by another person, and he had very little daylight, so he had problems with vitamin D deficiency, and vision problems from being in a restricted area for so many hours a day. That's based on general studies of long-term death row inmates, not on Echols specifically, although his wife commented that he was having "vitamin deficiency and vision problems" in West of Memphis. In the face of that, preserving the right to vote, something Echols had never done anyway, and other rights denied to convicted felons, probably didn't seem terribly important. Owning property is another thing that is denied felons in some jurisdiction, but for people who grew up in trailer parks, that may be so far out of their experience, losing that right may not be a big deal either. Misskelley's intellectual deficiencies are probably such that he never gave a thought to things like voting.
Jason Baldwin was probably the only one thoughtful enough to care about the rights he was losing, and not on death row, so not feeling the descending pendulum, and therefore, he was the one who balked at the Alford plea. But the deal was for all three, or none, and so Baldwin went along. It did, after all, mean immediate freedom, as opposed to remand to prison while waiting for a new trial (they'd never get bail). The new trial would probably have a lengthy prep time, since they waived their right to a speedy trial the first time, and that might have stood, and all in all, even if they won at a new trial, they might have spent a couple more years in prison, and the whole time, not knowing if it would ever end-- they might lose, after all. Not to mention the difficulty of finding an impartial jury, but they wouldn't want a bench trial, either.
I can see them just wanting it to be over.
Jason Baldwin was probably the only one thoughtful enough to care about the rights he was losing, and not on death row, so not feeling the descending pendulum, and therefore, he was the one who balked at the Alford plea. But the deal was for all three, or none, and so Baldwin went along. It did, after all, mean immediate freedom, as opposed to remand to prison while waiting for a new trial (they'd never get bail). The new trial would probably have a lengthy prep time, since they waived their right to a speedy trial the first time, and that might have stood, and all in all, even if they won at a new trial, they might have spent a couple more years in prison, and the whole time, not knowing if it would ever end-- they might lose, after all. Not to mention the difficulty of finding an impartial jury, but they wouldn't want a bench trial, either.
I can see them just wanting it to be over.
Comment