CACorrections (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) on Wikimedia

The death penalty is the most irreversible action the U.S. legal system can take against someone who commits a heinous crime. While it intends to punish the most serious offenders, it’s clear that it’s an imperfect system. 

Some people were sentenced to death despite obvious or lingering doubts about their guilt. As new evidence emerges in death penalty cases and activists continue to fight to end these extreme sentences, some cases remind us that the controversy around the death penalty is genuine and the system requires examination. 

These cases of where a death sentence should have been commuted exemplify the struggle for justice between the legal system and death penalty abolitionists. 

Joe Arridy

Joe Arridy was executed in Colorado in 1933 and is remembered as one of the most tragic convictions in U.S. history. He had a severe intellectual disability, with experts estimating that his mental age was around six years old. He didn’t even understand the charges against him and was coerced during questioning.

He was accused of a murder he did not commit and only confessed after hours of interrogation. In fact, he was hundreds of miles away from the crime scene at the time. Evidence later proved that another man was a far more realistic suspect. 

Arridy was unaware of his fate, so much so that the warden even referred to him as “the happiest man on death row”. He was posthumously pardoned in 2011. 

Carlos DeLuna

Carlos DeLuna was executed in Texas in 1989 for the murder of a convenience store clerk. After his arrest and throughout his investigation and trial, DeLuna insisted that the real killer was a man named Carlos Hernandez, who had a violent history. 

Authorities dismissed his claims until years later, when investigators uncovered evidence that supported Hernandez being the killer. Hernandez had even confessed to friends in addition to carrying the same type of weapon. 

DeLuna’s case is widely perceived as a wrongful execution, one that could have been prevented by proper investigative work. 

Tony Webster on Wikimedia

Ruben Cantu

Ruben Cantu was only 17 years old when he was sentenced to death in Texas in 1993 for a murder he denied committing. The conviction was based exclusively on the testimony of a single eyewitness who was injured during the incident. 

Years after Cantu’s execution, the witness publicly recanted their testimony, admitting that he was under pressure to identify him. Furthermore, there wasn’t a shred of evidence to tie Cantu to the crime scene. 

The authorities ignored the witness’s uncertainty to wrongfully convict an innocent young man. Some jury members expressed guilt over the conviction, admitting that with the new evidence, they never would have gone for a death sentence. 

These cases show how caution must be exercised and reasonable doubt must not exist when pursuing the death penalty for serious crimes. While the justice system tries to operate with the best intentions for citizens and victims, human error is always a possibility. The reliance on unreliable eyewitnesses and investigation mishandling can lead to irreversible convictions. In some cases, commuting a death sentence isn’t only merciful, it is actual justice.