Executed man’s ghastly journey, as witnessed by a ‘brother’

Your editorial “Don’t kill man on nitpicky technicality” stands as a sad epitaph to the life of Michael Lambrix, executed on Oct 5. He and I corresponded for 26 of the 33 years he was on death row. I also met him on four occasions. We became like brothers and I grew to have the greatest of respect for him. Which is not something I can say of the U.S. judicial system. Even though there were no eyewitnesses and there was no forensic evidence, the courts refused to entertain the possibility that their interpretation of events might be incorrect. To my mind it makes simply no sense to suggest that Mike enticed two people out of the trailer one by one to kill them without any palpable motive and using different means (bludgeoning one and strangling the other). Mike always admitted to manslaughter in self-defense, while the state’s version of events relied critically on the evidence of a woman who was to go on to have a sexual relationship with the chief investigator. That appeared to have no bearing on the reliability of her evidence.

There were so many ambiguities, inconsistencies and uncertainties in the whole case that it is little wonder Mike’s juries back in 1984 were not unanimous. But as the law now recognizes, the ultimate punishment requires the ultimate certainty. This we never had in this case and it is hard to comprehend that review of the case was not possible and that clemency could not be considered (something the state has not granted since 1983).

It is clear that Mike had become a thorn in the side of the courts and politicians. But the way in which he was hunted down for 33 years was not just deeply unedifying, but also raised the fundamental question as to what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

In my country — the UK — a death sentence would automatically be commuted to life if execution did not go ahead within three months of sentencing. Mike made the point that if he had held a gun to someone’s head for 15 minutes before shooting them, this would have constituted torture and qualified as an aggravating factor. The state of Florida effectively held a gun to Mike’s head for 33 years. How on earth does this square with the Eighth Amendment?

To cap it all, another four hours were added to this wearisome, ghastly journey while the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated. The American judicial system not only has institutionalized violence at its very heart, but it also seems incapable of handling the ultimate punishment at all humanely.

Mike came from a dreadfully dysfunctional background, marked by physical and sexual abuse, that would have tested anyone. His life went hideously off the rails in his early 20s. In prison he educated himself, read widely and taught himself the law. He was one of the most intelligent, thoughtful and considerate people I have had the privilege of meeting. He thought deeply about the meaning of life and had experiences that convinced him the world was not as it seemed and that ultimately all would be well.

I have learned from him. I hope and pray that he is indeed at peace.

There were so many ambiguities, inconsistencies and uncertainties in the whole case that it is little wonder Mike’s juries back in 1984 were not unanimous.