How long must the victims, who were taken from us too soon, have to wait for true justice to be delivered? Will their families and loved ones ever have closure from their nightmare? When will we, the citizens of Arkansas, stand for just punishment for the truly unforgivable crimes committed on our soil? Can we sit idly by as our broken judicial system protects the worst of the worst, at the cost of the legacy of the slain?
As an elected official, I have been asking myself these questions lately as our state moves forward in the execution of Jack Greene. As we get closer to the Nov. 9 execution date, the now-routine roadblocks are being placed.
When you consider the array of weak legal challenges, a sympathetic media and the judges who seem to wallow in their bias, it seems as if an extraordinary amount of effort is being wasted to protect the life of a monster, rather than protecting the rights of his victims.
I do not use the term “monster” to describe Jack Greene lightly. If anyone deserves that description, he does. He tortured his former girlfriend, Donna Johnson, for years. Johnson said that he once cut off her finger and it had to be sewn back on. Johnson left Greene after years of abuse and Greene went to North Carolina. There, he killed his own brother and kidnapped his niece, who was 16.
Greene came back to Arkansas, most likely looking for Johnson. Instead he found Sidney Burnett, a veteran of World War II and a retired preacher. Burnett had helped Greene find a place to live and helped him get a job.
How did Greene repay Mr. Burnett’s kindness? He bound and gagged Mr. Burnett, beating him over and over again with a can of hominy. After physically and mentally torturing Mr. Burnett for more than 30 minutes, Greene stabbed him and mutilated his face while he was still alive. Finally, Greene shot him in the head and chest with a.25-caliber handgun. As I said, a true monster.
But this monster deserves mercy, in the opinion of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in an editorial with the darkly ironic title of “Choose Life.” The same editorial said we should disregard the pain of the victims and their families, just because ending the death penalty would stop the “day-by-day suffering” of those on death row.
Should we forget the memory of Sidney Burnett, who spent his last moments on this earth in immeasurable pain and suffering? While we’re at it, let’s forget the fear that his former girlfriend says she is plagued with every day, the fear that someday Greene may get out of prison and come after her. Neither should we listen to Mr. Burnett’s daughters, who pleaded with tears in their eyes when they asked the state parole board recently to let them finally have closure.
If we choose to ignore their voices, then we should not listen to Jack Greene himself. He said at the parole board hearing that he is guilty and should be executed for his crimes.
That’s correct. Greene said that he deserved to die for what he did. But there are some who believe they know better than the victim’s family, that they know better than the criminal who committed the murder and that they know better than the jury who delivered the verdict. Why do they think this? Because, they say, Greene is not competent.
Jack Greene thinks otherwise. “I am totally competent to be executed,” he said at his hearing.
Of course the people of Arkansas should have faith that our judicial system would take a fair and unbiased look at this case and every other death penalty case. Unfortunately, a few judges have acted in such a way as to raise questions about whether they can be fair.
The worst example is Judge Wendell Griffen. A few months ago, on the same day that he handed down a critical ruling meant to effectively halt executions in Arkansas, Griffen decided it was a good idea to protest the death penalty in front of the Governor’s Mansion. He took part in a simulation of an execution while wearing an anti-death penalty button on his lapel.
Does that kind of stunt by a sitting judge pass the smell test for being fair and impartial? The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled it did not, and the high court prevented Griffen from hearing any more cases dealing with the death penalty.
Another example is Judge Alice Gray, who simply ignored a request by the attorney general’s office to move the venue of a death penalty case to another court, as is allowed under state law. The state law in question is very clear that the request shall be granted if the conditions are met. I should know. I wrote it. But it was ignored, and I haven’t yet received a good answer as to why.
It is time for the General Assembly to take a stand for the victims. An important change we can make is to begin manufacturing our own safe and dependable supply of drugs for the lethal injection process. This would remove a potentially huge roadblock in the process of carrying out the death penalty. Not only could we use it in Arkansas; we could sell it to other states that face similar legal challenges.
I feel obligated to act because I was a witness to a recent execution in Arkansas. I was asked afterward if it had changed my opinion about the death penalty, and I said that it had. It made me an even stronger supporter of the death penalty, because what I remember most from that night is not the condemned inmate or his death.
I remember the families of his victims. I remember the relief that came across their faces knowing that justice had been delivered. I saw the tears they shed. I heard them call out the names of their deceased loved ones. Their suffering is what we should care about, not a criminal who forfeited his life the moment he took someone else’s.
We have an obligation to act. Seeking execution for the worst of the worst is the right and moral action to take. It is time to fight for true justice for the victims.
State Senator Trent Garner represents about 90,000 citizens in southwest Arkansas in District 27.