Execution Watch: Travis Runnels

This is the last scheduled execution this year (the federal ones held up by appeal) and on the same day the Supreme Court will deal with the proper mitigation factors to consider in a case prosecuted back in 1991.  It is unclear from the summary why basic principles (settled in the 1980s if not before) did not prevent this sort of thing. But, by now, it is not surprising that something fell between the cracks and now we will hear "why should be delay things even further?!" sort of arguments probably as usual.

The Order List on Monday included two statements by Justice Sotomayor regarding her concerns in two murder cases, one involving material given to the jury and another touching upon a scandal in Louisiana alleging mistreatment of habeas appeals. A suicide being involved juices up the details some for sure.  Otherwise, the orders were standard stuff and as usual the one grant (an interesting electoral law case) was made separately in an order at the end of last week. 

"It would be a travesty to take away his life when he is the epitome of what a changed man looks like," reads one of the 29 letters included in a clemency petition submitted to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles on Nov. 13 by Travis Runnels' attorneys. They ask that Runnels' execution, scheduled for Dec. 11, be halted and his sentence commuted to life in prison. The letters come from friends and family members scattered across the U.S. and Europe and describe him as "repentant," "reformed," "loving," and, especially, "changed."

No one would have used those words to describe Runnels on Jan. 29, 2003, when he was several years into a 70-year sentence for armed robbery. That morning, on the way to his shift at the boot factory in the Clements Unit near Amarillo, Run­nels told a fellow inmate he was going to kill his supervisor, Stanley Wiley. Arriving at the factory, Runnels took a knife used for trimming leather, slipped up behind Wiley, and slit his throat. As Wiley bled to death, an inmate asked Run­nels why he'd done it. "It could have been any offender or inmate, you know, as long as they was white," Runnels replied.

This is one of those "worse of the worst" scenarios: murder in prison. But, even here, over fifteen years later (if medium-range as far as these things go), there are concerns.  The forty-something murderer here is argued to have changed, which occurs even for murderers though even granting this redemption might only get you so much.  Perhaps, it serves justice and his own morality good to find some sort of peace before getting "just deserts" for his crimes.  Someone angry at his work detail or even the usual pettiness of employers (inside and outside at times occurring in seriously bad ways though it's unclear how much of that was here) murdering someone in prison, an inmate already with behavior problems there, is not an ideal suspect here.

Some cases are easier than others but even the easier ones are not simply some grave miscarriage of justice akin to someone innocent or blatantly unfit for execution.  I find the death penalty very problematic and am quite willing to say that it doesn't take me much to find a reason to determine it is not warranted in any given case.  This doesn't require me, especially as not an advocate for the defendant (it won't always even help), to sugarcoat. There are arguments both ways and by now they are readily made.

His possible redemption does suggest -- since we should lean toward life especially given the flawed nature of the state death penalty -- a reason for the state to not execute.  It provides incentives to others to have good behavior.  Runnels no longer is treated the same as what someone in there for a long robbery charge (70 years in his twenties?).  This is a major hook of his defense -- someone already found to have tainted execution determinations in the past is argued to have misstated the danger of detaining him.  It also appears that at some point some argument was made that his representation was flawed in part because proper mitigating factors (such as his background) was not raised during his sentencing.  At the very least, not doing so made the flawed expert that much more important.

(I can toss in here that while in prison he wrote to short books: Guidance On Navigating The Path To Love and How to Survive in Prison: A Guide for Prisoners, Their Families and Supporters, available on Amazon.)

I will likely still talk about executions and other death penalty matters, including the federal execution appeals, in 2020 but will stop with this more "deep dive" approach.  I don't know if there was any special lessons to be found here really and it has a depressing element.  But, I think I appreciate that I did it and the small sample made it more possible.  My general sentiment remains -- the strength of my opposition in any specific case is not really equal but have not found one really compelling case for which execution is really necessary.  This does not surprise given the few jurisdictions world-wide that actually has the death penalty.  Either way, Runnels was executed by Texas with no recorded dissent. And, thus, hopefully, the machinery of death closed for the holidays.