Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols and Jessie Misskelley Jr. better known as the West Memphis Three, breath free air today.  Hopefully, they will breath free air for the rest of their lives.  After 18 years in prison for the 1993 murders of  Steven Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore, a deal was cut that allowed them to walk out of prison (and for Echols, off death row).

The defendants took an Alford Plea to the murders with an agreed upon sentence of, in essence, time served plus a ten year suspended imposition of sentence.  If they violate the terms of the SIS, they face 21 years in prison. 

Personal injury lawyers are fond of saying that a resolution with which no one is happy is a good settlement.  The reason for the defendants copping out is easily understood; they’ve been in prison for 18 years and by doing so, they go home.  It’s the criminal justice system at its most coercive.  But the prosecutor, Scott Ellington, faces stiffer opposition.  At the Arkansas Blog, he explains:

Some are happy, some are angry, and others are perplexed. Such is the case at the conclusion of every trial. This one is no different.

*  *  *

In light of these circumstances I decided to entertain plea offers that were being proposed by the defense. I NEVER considered ANY arrangement that would negate the verdicts of those two juries. Guilt or Innocence was NEVER ON THE TABLE.

Today’s proceeding allows the defendants the freedom of speech to SAY they are innocent, but the FACT is, they just plead GUILTY. I strongly believe that the interests of justice have been served today.

Of particular note is Ellington’s use of words in all capital letters in his statement.  Usually a sign of mental instability, it’s also used when needed to create emphasis for those who otherwise find it difficult to comprehend the meaning of words.  Ellington, in other words, is constrained to sell his deal to his constituents, who hear only about the West Memphis Three walking away while there are dead bodies of children demanding retribution.

This is an ugly, horrible deal all around.  The problem is that it highlights the most unacceptable failing of the legal system by splitting the baby.  While the responsibility for a herniated disc may reasonably be shared, the question of whether the West Memphis Three are responsible for the murders of three children cannot be so easily divvied up.  Either the three defendants, whether together or separately, committed the crime of they didn’t.

Sure, they entered an Alford plea, conceding that there was sufficient evidence to produce a conviction while denying that they did, in fact, commit the crime.  They are, as Ellington says, guilty.  They did not, however, admit guilt.

Ellington rationalizes his agreement to the release based upon the 18 years already served:

As part of the plea and sentence negotiation the defendants were sentenced to a period of 18 years with credit for time served. Those sentences will be followed by 10 years SIS or Suspended Imposition of Sentence.

These defendants have spent roughly half of their lives in prison. I pray that during this time they have been rehabilitated.

Whether 18 years is sufficient if they committed the murders is something that can be debated.  Whether it sufficient for the murderers of children to be rehabilitated is also something worthy of discussion.  But these aren’t the subjects of debate. Rather, they’re the subject of religion as unwittingly implied by Ellington’s statement, as one either believes them guilty or innocent, and neither believes that this outcome is adequate to vindicate the truth.

But the real message of this deal is that it doesn’t bear upon the forces of truth and justice, as so many feel the criminal justice system should.  Whether killers have just been unleashed or innocent men have finally been freed, our characterizations are little more than cocktail party discussion to amuse ourselves.  What’s real is that three human beings who have been in prison for 18 years have been forced to make a decision about their lives, perhaps to compromise some greater truth or to get away with murder, but to decide nonetheless.  And they did. And they pleaded guilty to murder. And they went home.

The deal sucks.  No one is better for what happened here, no matter which side you believe to be correct.  The deal sucks because any one of the three could be picked up for something or nothing, and still face 21 years in prison, perhaps for a crime they didn’t commit.  The deal sucks because it leaves three murdered children without a real answer.  The deal sucks because the defendants were coerced into taking it, there being no option of spending more years in prison in the hope that they will beat the case at the next trial.

But the deal has been struck, performed and the parties have honored their obligations.  The ambiguity it leaves the rest of us means nothing.  We don’t get a vote, and we will never know the “truth” no matter how strongly we believe we do.

I only hope the deal was the right one, for everyone involved. Still, there is no doubt that the deal sucks.