Gore's Home State to Execute Innocents?

I have a question for Al Gore. And how he might answer it goes to the very heart of the character of this man who wants so badly to be President.

No, it's not a query about how he views blowjobs in the White House, or extramarital affairs, or whether or not he inhaled. While those might be considered the key "character" issues for some, for me there are slightly more important questions worth asking.

And seeing as how both Al and I are citizens of the state of Tennessee, it is perfectly appropriate for me to be the one who asks it. So here goes:

Mr. Vice President, how do you feel about the evidence that seems to indicate our state is planning to execute a number of men who are almost certainly innocent of the crimes for which they were condemned to die -- the first of these as soon as the 31st of January 2001?

No point asking Bush a question like this: we all know how unconcerned the Texecutioner is with claims of innocence by those on death row. But Gore is, after all, a member of the party that likes to tell everyone how committed to fairness, and equity and justice they are; the folks who insist they are for due process, and -- unlike the GOP they say -- committed to seeing to it that innocent persons are spared the ultimate punishment. So, I ask again:

How does it feel, Mr. Vice-President, to know that your state is planning to execute men with your tax dollars, who are very likely not guilty?

It's not a political question, for as President he would have no say over whether any of these executions takes place. I ask merely as a citizen -- one Tennesseean to another. I want to know how it feels to him as a human being: or even as a taxpayer.

And naturally he may be lacking in some of the details of these cases, seeing as how he's been busy inventing the internet, "reinventing" government, and supporting his wife's crusades to clean up music lyrics, so perhaps he needs a brief recitation of the disturbing specifics in some of these cases.

Like the case of Philip Workman, whom the state of Tennessee intends to kill in approximately thirteen weeks.

On August 5, 1981, Philip Workman robbed a Wendy's restaurant in Memphis. During the scuffle with police that followed, one officer was shot and killed. The state claimed it was Workman who shot Lieutenant Ronald Oliver, and produced a witness who claims to have seen him do so, at point-blank range.

But ballistics evidence,never investigated by Workman's trial attorneys, indicates it is highly improbable that Workman's gun could have fired the fatal shot that night, as the wounds to the officer were thoroughly inconsistent with the ammunition in Workman's revolver. Instead, it looks as though Oliver was likely killed by friendly fire.

Even worse, it appears the state's "star witness" wasn't even on the scene when the robbery and shooting took place, but was coerced by police to testify against Workman at trial.

Harold Davis claimed to have seen the shooting from his car, parked in the Wendy's lot at the time of the robbery. But no one -- civilian or police officer -- ever remembered seeing him or his vehicle on the scene. Furthermore, the police diagrams of the crime scene, and photos taken at the time fail to picture Davis' car in the location where he claimed to have been parked. Last fall, Davis finally admitted he had lied. According to a friend who was with Davis that night, the two of them drove past the crime scene after the shooting had occurred, and Davis, hoping to collect reward money, called police the next day to say he had been there. Though he later tried to back out of testifying, he now says he was threatened by police not to change his story.

In light of the ballistics evidence alone -- and even before the only witness recanted -- five of the original jurors now say they would never have convicted Philip Workman of murder, let alone sentenced him to die, had this information been introduced at trial. Even Oliver's daughter now says she doubts Workman killed her father.