The story is ostensibly about a convicted murderer scheduled to be executed in California. The Times makes it known (rams it down our throat, rather) that numerous "leading" judges think the condemned man has been framed by police. Perhaps he has, and perhaps not. You have to read very carefully to realize that these "leading" judges are in the minority, and that the soon-to-be-dead man has been found guilty all through the laborious appeals process since the murders were committed in 1983.
It would be interesting -- and fair -- to hear the opinions of all the judges who do not believe the police framed the man. This is, after all, the majority opinion. It would be equally interesting to hear from the prosecutors and police who are being accused of crimes.
But none of that helps the Times in its true mission here: to change public opinion about the morality of capital punishment.
This case is a travesty. It underscores the central pitfall of capital punishment: no system is fail-safe. How can we be about to execute a man when even some of America’s leading judges believe he has been framed?
It's interesting that liberals rarely, if ever, talk about the monetary argument against capital punishment. This would be more effective than the hyperemotional argument.
The Times is making an appeal to the nation, and also to Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Governator's record on clemency is not favorable to libbies.