The Innocence Commission

Here's a Law & Politics Book Review excerpt....

The book is divided into five sections. Chapter One provides a history of wrongful convictions and the development of the responses by states, and in particular Virginia. Chapter Two discusses the creation of the Innocence Commission of Virginia (ICVA). The main focal point of the book lies in Chapters Three and Four which describe the likely source of wrongful convictions and the state response. Gould explains the main sources of wrongful convictions and the remedies that states can and do provide. Finally, Chapter Five updates research on wrongful convictions and sets out a strategy for ongoing criminal justice reform. Author Jon B. Gould gives currency to the problem, providing the reader with both an agenda and strategy for future reform.

Thanks to Prof. DeBow for the heads up.

Criminalizing Brady Violations

D.A. Craig Watkins is advocating criminal sanctions for prosecutors who intentionally withhold evidence......

The Dallas County district attorney who has built a national reputation on freeing the wrongfully convicted says prosecutors who intentionally withhold evidence should themselves face harsh sanctions – possibly even jail time.

"Something should be done," said Craig Watkins, whose jurisdiction leads the nation in the number of DNA exonerations. "If the harm is a great harm, yes, it should be criminalized."

--Read the entire DMN article

Former assistant D.A. Toby Shook rightly points out that such Brady violations expose prosecutors to the risk of federal prosecution under civil rights laws. A better venue perhaps, rather than dealing with the political circus that would ensue with local investigation and prosecution of assistant district attorneys. Remember, Duke Lacrosse prosecutor Michael Nifong was demolished civilly for his misconduct. This included the loss of his law license.

Dallas D.A. Craig Watkins appears on 60 Minutes tonight to discuss this issue and DNA exonerations.

Making the Case for the DP

..... is none other than the killer himself, Michael Ray Turner. In this jailhouse interview with Fox 4 News, he opens a window into his wicked soul. Turner just "can't control himself." Viewers cautioned... it's R rated.

Are Voters Paying Attention?

If so, do they understand the consequences of governance like this?

New Era of Death Penalty Debate?

One of the Supremes thinks so.... and our district attorney as well.

Texas is the death penalty capital of America. In recent decades, the state has executed 405 men and women.

For many, the death penalty is a vague abstraction that rarely grabs their attention longer than the time it takes to scan a news brief.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection in a Kentucky case. As it did so, Justice John Paul Stevens called for a national debate over the morality of the death penalty.

Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins thinks the spark for the debate "is going to come from someone in a district attorney's seat."--from Dallas Morning News 4/20/08

I'm not sure what Craig Watkins meant by that. It's clear that he has been thinking about the death penalty and appears to be deeply troubled about it. Capital murder defendants Wesley Ruiz, Jose Castro, Robert Sparks and Hector Medina currently await Dallas trials and Watkins' office will seek death in those cases. There's been no call from the D.A. for a moratorium on the death penalty in Dallas County. For now, it's full steam ahead. The death justice machine after the Baze v. Rees decision is back in motion..... along with the debate. I am glad that Craig Watkins is struggling with this issue. We all should. Good people can mull this over and come to different conclusions. On this, I'm certain.

Here are two recent articles that may help shape your thinking on capital punishment....

• First Things, The State Without an Executioner by R.R. Reno

• Dallas Morning News, Death-row inmates don't need pity, fame by Jacquielynn Floyd

17

"...like no other..."

Beyond DNA Exonerations

From the Dallas Morning News, "Dallas district attorney steps up scrutiny of cases where DNA can't prove innocence."


Recent related post.

Call the Bomb Squad

New York Times reviews the documentary Bomb It--not in the sense of blowing things up ....literally. Bombing refers to the act of creating graffiti. Perhaps the subversive nature of the term makes it appealing to the graffiti artist. Anyway, looks interesting.

Traveling from graffiti art’s roots in Philadelphia and New York to Paris, Tokyo, Cape Town and other cities around the globe, the film features interviews with artists (some veiling their identities) whose milieu gives impetus to their activities, which include social rebellion, political agitation, expressions of boredom and simply bringing art to the streets. Though Mr. Reiss’s approach is decidedly pro-graffiti, he also gives screen time to the occasional naysayers: law enforcement types who consider tagging a public nuisance. ...

"The View From Gate 14"

Peggy Noonan is simply a national treasure.

Criminal Justice for Profit

NPR's Justice Talking discusses free enterprise in the criminal justice system. Topics include bail bondsmen, bounty hunters and private prisons. You can listen to the program online or download the podcast.

"Courting Disaster"

A very good Jonah Goldberg piece at NRO. In part...

When defending his vote against Justice John Roberts’ confirmation, Obama explained that the standard for a justice must be “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”

Now that is a pure expression of the principle of judicial fiat.

Indeed, by Obama’s own words the best justices are those who will most shamelessly violate their own oath of office.

Supreme Court justices must “solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.”

Note the bit about doing right to poor and rich alike. Feeling sorry for the poor guy who violates the Constitution or the law has no role in how a Supreme Court justice is supposed to make a decision. Legislators can write laws based on empathy. They can invoke their pet theories about “how the world works.” They can even, as Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are fond of doing, consult foreign laws and court decisions in their efforts to make a more perfect union. But Supreme Court justices are supposed to decide what the written law requires, not pick winners and losers based upon some sense of noblesse oblige. That’s why all of those statues of Lady Justice show her standing blindfolded, not bent over kissing the boo-boos of the unfortunate and the downtrodden.

SCOTUS Okay With Needle

By a 7-2 vote, the Supremes give the constitutional green light to lethal injection. If the 3 drug protocol changes, it'll be up to state legislatures to make that happen. The Baze v. Rees opinion is here.