Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam pardoned seven men who were executed for rape in 1951. Were the men innocent? That did not matter to Northam. They were pardoned because Northam believed they did not get a fair trial because they were black.
The case became known as the “Martinsville Seven” and drew international attention. The seven men were black and were accused of, and subsequently convicted of, raping 32-year-old Ruby Stroud Floyd, a white woman. At the time, rape was considered a capital offense. All seven men were executed by electric chair in 1951.
The men were mostly in their late teens to early 20s. They were: Francis DeSales Grayson, Frank Hairston Jr., Howard Lee Hairston, James Luther Hairston, Joe Henry Hampton, Booker Millner, and John Clabon Taylor, NBC News reported.
A petition was given to Northam late last year asking him to issue posthumous pardons. It did not discuss whether the men were guilty or innocent. It just asserts that each of their trials was unfair, and the sentencing was extreme and excessive.
“The Martinsville Seven were not given adequate due process ‘simply for being Black,’ they were sentenced to death for a crime that a white person would not have been executed for ‘simply for being Black,’ and they were killed, by the Commonwealth, ‘simply for being Black,’ ” the petition sent to Northam said.
“This is about righting wrongs,” Northam said in a news release. “We all deserve a criminal justice system that is fair, equal, and gets it right—no matter who you are or what you look like. While we can’t change the past, I hope today’s action brings them some small measure of peace.”
Except, as in most cases of virtue signaling by Democrats and other leftists, their claims aren’t necessarily true. Despite the petition’s assertion, white men were indeed executed for the crime of rape. For example, Ronald Wolfe, the last person in the United States who was executed for nonhomicidal rape, was a white man. One can legitimately argue there was a discrepancy in executions between blacks and whites. However, one cannot argue that whites were never or rarely executed when the facts say otherwise.
Unequal execution rates by race are something that should not have happened. The determining factor for all punitive acts should be the magnitude of the crime. And there do appear to be merits to the claim that blacks were executed disproportionately as rapists compared to whites. That being said, none of this justifies pardoning people without determining whether they were innocent.
Yet, while no one in his right mind would legitimately support the denial of due process for the accused, shouldn’t the main criteria for posthumous pardons be whether or not the accused is actually innocent? Does the color of one’s skin now supersede whether or not someone actually committed the crime?
I have no idea whether any of the “Martinsville Seven” were guilty. It sounds as if Northam does not know either. If they were innocent, then pardons should rightfully be issued. And it would absolutely be tragic if they were indeed not given due process. And, assuming it did not happen, Northam could and should take steps to make sure nothing like that ever happens again.
However, issuing a posthumous pardon for people without determining if they were guilty or not is equally as wrongheaded. Not even caring about whether they were guilty speaks volumes of the woke toxicity era we currently live in. If the “Martinsville Seven” were innocent, then pardon them. If not, then don’t.
