Innocent people spend years in jail and there
is nothing done to prosecutors when it is shown
that they prosecuted an innocent person KNOWINGLY.
An article in USA today brings attention to the
large number of cases that have come to light.
An off-Broadway play called the Exonerated called
attention to the problem a few years ago. A Chicago
newspaper ran a series of articles when the governor
pardoned a large number of inmates who were found to
be innocent.
The Innocence Project which involves journalism students
as well as law school students does a great deal of
searching for proof of wrongful convictions.
The main thing is to realize that it can happen to you,
a middle class person who has never had so much as a
parking ticket. Proving innocence is difficult to do.
How can you prove you were somewhere (maybe at home)
alone at a specific time? Do you keep every receipt you
ever get to have time stamps available (no one I know
does)?
Read this article and realize that these things happen
and the worst part is that nothing happens to the
prosecutor when misconduct is proved. But the innocent person
becomes an ex-felon for life unless the case generates
enough media or political attention to end in a pardon.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Assisted Suicide
Switzerland has recently revised its policy about
assisted suicides and Great Britain stopped prosecuting
those who went to another country to help someone commit
suicide.
Three of the United States allow assisted suicide -- Oregon,
Washington, and Montana. I have not seen any published
numbers to indicate whether or not many take advantage of it
or not.
It raises a host of issues involving end of life that became
part of a national debate when a young woman, Terri Schiavo, who
was in a long term coma and never expected to recover, had her
husband and family fighting over whether to pull the plug to the
artificial machinery that was keeping her alive. It was even
litigated and a topic of discussion in Congress. She eventually
was transferred to a nursing home and without life
support finally died after a few weeks.
Sciavo's case also revived the use of medical directives and
medical power of attorney forms. Today anyone who is hospitalized
is asked about whether they want resuscitation used if needed.
Because there are so many ethical and religious aspects to discussions
of issues such as assisted suicide, consensus will probably never
be attainable. But predetermining our wishes on quality of life
and steps to take if we are comatose and in a vegetative
state is something each of us owes to family members
who should not be required to make decisions without
any indication of the person's desires.
About the only time this is an area of discussion, especially
with younger persons, occurs when the news reports on a traffic
accident victim who is in a coma. Then some younger folk may
state something to the effect of
wanting or not wanting life support continued indefinitely.
There have been cases of spouses who were fulfilling the wishes of the
other and faced charges and in some cases were sent to prison on charges
of homicide.
In 2007 Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a retired pathologist, was released
from prison after 8 years. He became known as Dr. Death because
of his assistance to those who wished to end their lies and were
chronically ill with no chance of recovery. He did not do anything
himself to end a life but did provide the means for the individual
who wished to die.
A case involving Elizabeth Bouvier involved her refusal to be force
fed; she went to court claiming her right to make medical decisions
based on her own standard of the quality of life. By the time all
the appeals ended, she decided she wished to live.
assisted suicides and Great Britain stopped prosecuting
those who went to another country to help someone commit
suicide.
Three of the United States allow assisted suicide -- Oregon,
Washington, and Montana. I have not seen any published
numbers to indicate whether or not many take advantage of it
or not.
It raises a host of issues involving end of life that became
part of a national debate when a young woman, Terri Schiavo, who
was in a long term coma and never expected to recover, had her
husband and family fighting over whether to pull the plug to the
artificial machinery that was keeping her alive. It was even
litigated and a topic of discussion in Congress. She eventually
was transferred to a nursing home and without life
support finally died after a few weeks.
Sciavo's case also revived the use of medical directives and
medical power of attorney forms. Today anyone who is hospitalized
is asked about whether they want resuscitation used if needed.
Because there are so many ethical and religious aspects to discussions
of issues such as assisted suicide, consensus will probably never
be attainable. But predetermining our wishes on quality of life
and steps to take if we are comatose and in a vegetative
state is something each of us owes to family members
who should not be required to make decisions without
any indication of the person's desires.
About the only time this is an area of discussion, especially
with younger persons, occurs when the news reports on a traffic
accident victim who is in a coma. Then some younger folk may
state something to the effect of
wanting or not wanting life support continued indefinitely.
There have been cases of spouses who were fulfilling the wishes of the
other and faced charges and in some cases were sent to prison on charges
of homicide.
In 2007 Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a retired pathologist, was released
from prison after 8 years. He became known as Dr. Death because
of his assistance to those who wished to end their lies and were
chronically ill with no chance of recovery. He did not do anything
himself to end a life but did provide the means for the individual
who wished to die.
A case involving Elizabeth Bouvier involved her refusal to be force
fed; she went to court claiming her right to make medical decisions
based on her own standard of the quality of life. By the time all
the appeals ended, she decided she wished to live.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Don't take Presumption as a given
Two Americans are in jail in Juarez after being
accused of drug trafficking. They have been found
guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
BUT their claim, supported by three witnesses, is
that the military planted the drugs in their truck.
One witness was killed before the trial and the
other two disappeared.One cannot overlook the fact
that the vast majority of prisoners, worldwide, claim
innocence.
However we also know of cases where years
later prisoners are released and then exonerated because
they were innocent all along and should never have been
sent to jail/prison for a crime they did not commit.
Recently a New York man was released after 27 years when
in fact he was innocent all along. How do you compensate
for taking so many years and life experiences away from
someone? How do you compensate for the horrors endured
while locked up?
A most interesting aspect of this story from Juarez
is the fact that in Mexico an accused is presumed to
be guilty and has the burden of proving innocence. Consider
the handicap of trying to gather evidence to prove
a government agency planted evidence against you or
tortured you or in anyway infringed upon your basic civil rights.
In our country and in many western nations, the presumption
is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. Proving
innocence when unjustly accused is difficult enough without
the added problem of having the burden of proof.
Americans tend to take our Bill of Rights for granted and do
not stop to realize that any one of us could be falsely accused
because of mistaken identity or any of a litany of hard to
imagine occurrences. Go to
and read about a woman who spent 9 years in prison for a crime she
had nothing to do with.
The show Sixty Minutes, which has the resources, were able to prove her
innocence as well as that of another gentleman, also prosecuted by
the Dallas District Attorney's Office. It would be nice to think
that these two are a rarity but unfortunately every state has some
who should never have been sent to prison. Even after being shown
to be innocent, the stigma of the accusation follow one for life.
accused of drug trafficking. They have been found
guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
BUT their claim, supported by three witnesses, is
that the military planted the drugs in their truck.
One witness was killed before the trial and the
other two disappeared.One cannot overlook the fact
that the vast majority of prisoners, worldwide, claim
innocence.
However we also know of cases where years
later prisoners are released and then exonerated because
they were innocent all along and should never have been
sent to jail/prison for a crime they did not commit.
Recently a New York man was released after 27 years when
in fact he was innocent all along. How do you compensate
for taking so many years and life experiences away from
someone? How do you compensate for the horrors endured
while locked up?
A most interesting aspect of this story from Juarez
is the fact that in Mexico an accused is presumed to
be guilty and has the burden of proving innocence. Consider
the handicap of trying to gather evidence to prove
a government agency planted evidence against you or
tortured you or in anyway infringed upon your basic civil rights.
In our country and in many western nations, the presumption
is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. Proving
innocence when unjustly accused is difficult enough without
the added problem of having the burden of proof.
Americans tend to take our Bill of Rights for granted and do
not stop to realize that any one of us could be falsely accused
because of mistaken identity or any of a litany of hard to
imagine occurrences. Go to
and read about a woman who spent 9 years in prison for a crime she
had nothing to do with.
The show Sixty Minutes, which has the resources, were able to prove her
innocence as well as that of another gentleman, also prosecuted by
the Dallas District Attorney's Office. It would be nice to think
that these two are a rarity but unfortunately every state has some
who should never have been sent to prison. Even after being shown
to be innocent, the stigma of the accusation follow one for life.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Budget cuts and Effect on Death Penalty Defendants
An article published in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette as well as the New York Times
details a Georgia Supreme Court ruling involving a death penalty defendant.
Georgia has a severe budget crisis and the state ran out of money to pay the attorneys for Jamie R. Weis who is facing the death penalty. The prosecutor recommended that two overworked public defenders, who he specifically named, should take over the Weis defense.
When Mr. Weis objected, the issue went before the Georgia State Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Mr. Reis should accept the public defenders to help solve the state's budget crunch.
The public defenders made three motions that asked the court to remove them from the case because they had neither the time nor experience to provide a death penalty defendant with an adequate defense. In addition there is no money to pay for any type of investigation which would be a severe handicap for any appointed counsel. Nor is there money for any expert witnesses.
Normally prosecutors have no role to play in the selection of defense counsel. In addition once counsel is on record for a defendant, it takes exceptional reasons for any changes to be allowed by the court.
"Two states, Georgia and Louisiana, take a less sporting attitude, saying poor defendants may be forced to switch lawyers long after the case is under way and must take whomever the state can afford at the time." (New York Times article).
The famous United States Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright established the right of defendants to adequate counsel. The current United States Supreme Court is being asked to grant certiorari to hear this case.
As states continue to deal with budget deficits, more and more criminal justice
participants will face difficulties.
details a Georgia Supreme Court ruling involving a death penalty defendant.
Georgia has a severe budget crisis and the state ran out of money to pay the attorneys for Jamie R. Weis who is facing the death penalty. The prosecutor recommended that two overworked public defenders, who he specifically named, should take over the Weis defense.
When Mr. Weis objected, the issue went before the Georgia State Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Mr. Reis should accept the public defenders to help solve the state's budget crunch.
The public defenders made three motions that asked the court to remove them from the case because they had neither the time nor experience to provide a death penalty defendant with an adequate defense. In addition there is no money to pay for any type of investigation which would be a severe handicap for any appointed counsel. Nor is there money for any expert witnesses.
Normally prosecutors have no role to play in the selection of defense counsel. In addition once counsel is on record for a defendant, it takes exceptional reasons for any changes to be allowed by the court.
"Two states, Georgia and Louisiana, take a less sporting attitude, saying poor defendants may be forced to switch lawyers long after the case is under way and must take whomever the state can afford at the time." (New York Times article).
The famous United States Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright established the right of defendants to adequate counsel. The current United States Supreme Court is being asked to grant certiorari to hear this case.
As states continue to deal with budget deficits, more and more criminal justice
participants will face difficulties.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Privacy carried too far
| Anything carried to the extreme usually has unexpected consequences and this is a good example. Privacy laws to protect juvenile should be limited to status offenses and not to serious acts of delinquency. The public has the right to some protection and in this case, providing the video would probably prevent future assaults by the offender. D.C. Juvenile Detention Officials Won't Provide Videos To Police ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Police who responded to a disturbance Sunday at Washington, D.C.'s juvenile detention center made what should have been a routine request: to view surveillance videos to determine responsibility for the assault of a staff member and other possible crimes. Instead, they ended up in court because the city's confidentiality laws for juvenile offenders precluded release -- even to the police -- of this material. How much more absurd does the situation have to get before the D.C. Council does something about rules that show more regard for those who break the law than those who need its protection, asks the Washington Post in an editorial. A worker at the center had his jaw broken and three other staff members were injuired in the hour-long melee. It appears the incident started when a group of youths objected to the end of a basketball game and refused to return to their housing units. The police investigation was momentarily stymied when the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services cited a confidentiality statute in refusing to make information available. There are good reasons for protecting the privacy of youths who commit crimes; mainly, so they can have the chance of rebuilding their lives without the lifelong stigma of their youthful offenses. But Washington's laws are overly broad and unusually strict, making it a crime for anyone to release any information about a juvenile case. Attorney General Peter Nickles, who is reviewing the juvenile justice system, said he's increasingly convinced that strict confidentiality laws harm public safety by shrouding the system in such secrecy that public confidence is undermined. Washington Post |
| |
Friday, June 18, 2010
Connecting Prisoners and their children
This topic is mentioned in the text.
Prisons Work To Reconnect Inmate Fathers With Their Children
Prisons Work To Reconnect Inmate Fathers With Their Children
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More than 1.7 million children have a parent in U.S. prisons, says USA Today, citing the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. The number of children with a father in prison grew by 77 percent from 1991 through mid-2007. And those children are two to three more times likely to wind up behind bars themselves, says Christopher Wildeman, a University of Michigan sociologist who has studied the effects of imprisoned parents. To combat that trend, Louisiana's Angola prison and other institutions across the U.S. sponsor two programs aimed at reconnecting prison dads with their children: Returning Hearts, a day-long carnival-like celebration where inmates spend eight hours with their kids, and Malachi Dads, a year-long training session that uses Bible passages to help improve inmates' parenting skills. Inmates must show good behavior to participate, says Angola Warden Burl Cain. Once they feel reconnected to their family, their attitudes improve, he says. Around 2,500 inmates have participated in Returning Hearts since it began in 2005. Malachi, which started in 2007, currently has 119 men. "The ones who were problematic before are not problematic anymore," Cain says. "Prison didn't straighten them out; their kids straightened them out."
USA TodayTuesday, June 1, 2010
Supreme Court has a new Miranda decision
In the past the Supreme Court required that a
suspect must clearly and unequivocally
state the desire to have a lawyer. The Court
has now gone a step further.
The Court has now held that if a suspect wishes
to remain silent (the first of the Miranda Rules),
the suspect must clearly state that he/or she
is invoking the constitutional right to remain silent.
Somehow the idea that one must speak in order
to remain silent is strange to write or even talk about.
But the Court has over the years endorsed Miranda
while requiring that a suspect articulate any
rights that are to be invoked.
Once a right is invoked by articulation, there
is no longer any question that police must
stop all interrogation and not ask any
further questions, no matter how much
time has passed.
The suspect could still contact the police
and inform them that he/she no longer
wishes to invoke silence, but without this
articulation, interrogation could not be
used as evidence, nor anything said ever
used in any manner to make a case
against the suspect.
The bottom line is that anyone who wishes
to utilize a right must clearly state the intention.
suspect must clearly and unequivocally
state the desire to have a lawyer. The Court
has now gone a step further.
The Court has now held that if a suspect wishes
to remain silent (the first of the Miranda Rules),
the suspect must clearly state that he/or she
is invoking the constitutional right to remain silent.
Somehow the idea that one must speak in order
to remain silent is strange to write or even talk about.
But the Court has over the years endorsed Miranda
while requiring that a suspect articulate any
rights that are to be invoked.
Once a right is invoked by articulation, there
is no longer any question that police must
stop all interrogation and not ask any
further questions, no matter how much
time has passed.
The suspect could still contact the police
and inform them that he/she no longer
wishes to invoke silence, but without this
articulation, interrogation could not be
used as evidence, nor anything said ever
used in any manner to make a case
against the suspect.
The bottom line is that anyone who wishes
to utilize a right must clearly state the intention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
