Wednesday, August 31, 2011
How Much Are You Willing to Pay to be Terrorism Free?
A decade after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, federal and state governments are spending about $75 billion a year on domestic security, setting up sophisticated radio networks, upgrading emergency medical response equipment, installing surveillance cameras and bombproof walls, and outfitting airport screeners to detect an ever-evolving list of mobile explosives.
The Los Angeles Times asks, “How effective has that 10-year spending spree been?”
"The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It's basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year," John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism, told the Times.
"So if your chance of being killed by a terrorist in the United States is 1 in 3.5 million, the question is, how much do you want to spend to get that down to 1 in 4.5 million?" he said.
The reckless spending on countless projects is startling and thoroughly chronicled in the Times article. To read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/september11/la-na-911-homeland-money-20110828,0,4574475,full.story
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Impoved Techniques for Eyewiness Identification
The New York Times listed a series of techniques that researchers and law enforcement officials say can increase the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Those techniques are listed below:
BLIND ADMINISTRATION An investigator who shows the witness a photo lineup can influence the witness’s response, even unintentionally. Departments can remedy this by having someone not familiar with the case run the lineup. In a variation, the investigator cannot see which images the witness is looking at.
SEQUENTIAL LINEUP Show images one by one instead of all at once to avoid “relative judgment” — comparing the members of the lineup to one another for the best match, rather than selecting the image that most closely matches the witness’s memory.
GOOD FILLERS The other people in the lineup should resemble the witness’s description of the person who committed the crime so that the suspect does not stand out.
LOW PRESSURE Witnesses should be told that the suspect may or may not be in the lineup so they will not feel compelled to pick an image. Investigators should not congratulate witnesses for selecting a match or press them to make an identification.
WRITING IT DOWN Witnesses are often somewhat uncertain of their choice at first and become more certain by trial. Recording the witness’s level of certainty at the time of the identification helps prevent overselling the identification.
BLIND ADMINISTRATION An investigator who shows the witness a photo lineup can influence the witness’s response, even unintentionally. Departments can remedy this by having someone not familiar with the case run the lineup. In a variation, the investigator cannot see which images the witness is looking at.
SEQUENTIAL LINEUP Show images one by one instead of all at once to avoid “relative judgment” — comparing the members of the lineup to one another for the best match, rather than selecting the image that most closely matches the witness’s memory.
GOOD FILLERS The other people in the lineup should resemble the witness’s description of the person who committed the crime so that the suspect does not stand out.
LOW PRESSURE Witnesses should be told that the suspect may or may not be in the lineup so they will not feel compelled to pick an image. Investigators should not congratulate witnesses for selecting a match or press them to make an identification.
WRITING IT DOWN Witnesses are often somewhat uncertain of their choice at first and become more certain by trial. Recording the witness’s level of certainty at the time of the identification helps prevent overselling the identification.
Monday, August 29, 2011
California Rejects Relief for Juvenile Lifers, Again
California has about 295 inmates serving life without parole sentences for offenses committed as a juvenile. For the second consecutive year the California legislature refused to pass a bill that could provide some relief to those one-time youthful offenders.
The bill would have given inmates who committed a crime as a minor and were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole the hope for eventual release. Under Senate Bill 9, an offender who has been in prison for at least 15 years, has worked toward rehabilitation and can prove they are remorseful could ask the court to reduce their sentence. If the court agrees, the inmate would receive a new sentence of 25-years to life in prison, and after serving at least 25 years, could appeal to the state's parole board for release, reported the San Francisco Chronicle.
There is no guarantee the parole board will let them out. Parole is not automatic. Prisoners are released at the discretion of the parole board. Juvenile life without parole came to California as a result of a 1990 ballot measure approved by voters. Juvenile life without parole is on the books in 38 states.
To read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/25/BAVV1KRVF5.DTL#ixzz1WLPEK6P7
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Illinois Cuts Early Prison Release: Overcrowding Dangerously Out of Control
Last year, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn’s canceled an early prison release program. The result has been a prison population dangerously over capacity.
According to the Quad-City Times , an August 11 population report shows the prison system with nearly 49,000 inmates, which is about 147 percent over its rated capacity of 33,373 inmates and about 4,000 inmates more than were in the system before the early release program was shut down.
Pushing more and more inmates into fewer and fewer cell can have serious safety and legal implications for Illinois. In recent months, officials changed the way they calculate capacity.
Instead of using an industry standard based on the number of cells, the state is now measuring capacity based on how many beds can fit in a facility. The new capacity for Illinois’ prisons is listed at 51,000 inmates.
The department of corrections abandoned efforts to gain national accreditation after the inmate population began to grow. As part of the American Correctional Association accreditation process, prisons must meet certain specifications for square footage per inmate — a standard that may not be possible for Illinois, given the additional prisoners, reported the Times.
A California Lawyer told the Times, recalculating capacity based on bed space is “very, very irresponsible” because it could lead to numerous problems.
Crowding typically results in more violence behind bars. It also likely means fewer educational opportunities, which already had been reduced because of Illinois’ on-going budget woes. Crowding also has a impact on inmates with mental illness.
According to the Times, the increase in prisoners also has raised concerns about flat or reduced staffing levels of prison guards.
To read more: http://www.qctimes.com/news/local/article_c3390cb4-cebe-11e0-b9c3-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1WKUL7WLZ
Saturday, August 27, 2011
The Pennsylvania Sentencing Myth
Last week, the Allentown Morning Call published an interesting article about the myth of indeterminate sentencing in Pennsylvania. Indeterminate sentencing provides that every 'state' sentence have a minimum term and a maximum term, i.e. two years to four years.
Many in the criminal justice system have perpetuated the myth that most offenders serve 85 percent of their maximum sentence before parole, i.e. three years and four months on a four years sentence. The myth has impacted sentencing, plea decisions and has beguiled crime victims and criminals alike. The article below in its entirety is an interesting read--and its implications go far beyond the Lehigh Valley.
The 'baloney' you'll hear in court
Violent offenders in Lehigh Valley and beyond don't serve 85% of maximum sentences.
The Morning Call -Riley Yates
August 21, 2011
From the bench of the Northampton County courtroom, a judge sentencing a 27-year-old man for a harrowing home invasion in Bethlehem cited a statistic sure to ease the mind of anyone worried about violent criminals returning to the streets.
Judge Edward Smith told Luis Nestor Martinez he'll probably be forced to serve at least 85 percent of his up-to-50-year sentence — that's 421/2 years — for tying a couple in their basement and ransacking their house on Father's Day 2010.
There's one problem, however.
The figure Smith highlighted last month is a myth, without basis in state parole policy or practice.
In fact, according to a 2007 report by the Board of Probation and Parole, nearly half the violent offenders in Pennsylvania's prison system are released at their minimum sentences, which for Martinez — who is also serving time for a separate Lehigh County case — would be 261/2 years.
Even those convicted of the most serious crimes tend to be paroled at about the same point in their sentences as other convicts, if not slightly sooner, according to 2010 data provided by the board to The Morning Call. An inmate sentenced to five to 10 years for a crime like aggravated assault was out in six years on average, not 81/2 years as many judges and lawyers believe.
But the false number — sometimes given as 85 percent of the maximum sentence, sometimes as 80 percent — is one you're sure to hear if you sit in courtrooms in Northampton, Lehigh and other counties. It is often raised by defense attorneys, and occasionally crops up in newspapers — among them The Morning Call.
"It's intellectual laziness on people's part," said Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler, a former president judge who labels it "baloney" that someone on the bench would cite a number for which he's never seen statistical backing.
"And you can quote me on that," Heckler said. "They used to be my colleagues, but that's wrong."
Call it an urban legend, the courthouse's version of claims that Walt Disney was cryogenically frozen (he was cremated), or that downing Pop Rocks and cola will cause your stomach to explode (it won't).
The claim "has been persistent for years," said Mark Bergstrom, executive director of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, which advises the state on sentencing policy. "It's pretty embedded. … It sort of takes on a life of its own."
Northampton County Court Administrator James Onembo acknowledged there is no statistical backing for claims that violent offenders usually serve 80 percent or 85 percent of their maximum sentences.
Comments by judges about future parole decisions are "speculation" based on factors like defendants' prior records, their crimes and their treatment needs, Onembo said. It is ultimately the parole board that determines how much time offenders will serve beyond their minimum sentences, he said.
"A member of the court may be giving his or her opinion," Onembo said, but it is only an opinion.
Smith, a respected judge in his 10th year on the bench, is just one of many who have used the mistaken stat. He declined to be interviewed for this story.
The bad information can gum up plea bargains, with defendants unwilling to take a deal they worry will be harsher than it is in reality. It also can lead victims to expect that their assailants will be locked away longer than is actually likely.
Pennsylvania Victim Advocate Carol Lavery said her office regularly gets calls from across the state from victims who were told by prosecutors or the court that their perpetrators would serve 80 percent or 85 percent of their sentences. Instead, the victims have learned, the defendants are up for a parole hearing after serving their minimum sentences.
"They are very, very unhappy people who feel that they have maybe agreed to a plea agreement based on misinformation," Lavery said, adding: "We often call that re-victimization, the concept that the system failed them."
The parole board, which bases its calculations on an offender's minimum sentence, says the myth has no backing.
For the class of crimes that include third-degree murder, manslaughter, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and arson, the average inmate served 119 percent of his minimum sentence last year, or not more than 60 percent of his maximum.
The average sex offender also didn't reach 85 percent of his sentence, though he came closer. Last year, he served 148 percent of his minimum, or not more than 74 percent of his maximum.
By comparison, an inmate for a class of offenses such as forgery, simple assault, drunken driving and fraud served an average of 123 percent of his minimum — higher than for the class of more serious crimes, though less than for sex offenses.
Those imprisoned for drugs usually got out earlier, at 112 percent of their minimums last year.
Bergstrom and the Board of Probation and Parole trace the mistaken violent-crime figure to the 1990s, when the federal government encouraged states to enact "truth-in-sentencing" laws that more strictly regulated when convicts got out.
At the time, many states were allowing prisoners to significantly reduce their jail time through "good-time credits" for working, taking classes or remaining infraction-free. The federal effort sought to goad states into imprisoning violent offenders for at least 85 percent of their terms, and tied that to federal grants.
But Pennsylvania's sentencing structure, which has fixed minimums and maximums, is different from those that issue a specific sentence. In Pennsylvania, inmates must serve their minimum sentences before becoming eligible for release, with the exception of some nonviolent offenses. That structure provided truth in sentencing and satisfied federal officials, Bergstrom and the parole board said.
When deciding when to release convicts, the parole board considers their social and criminal history and the input of prosecutors, judges and jailers. Inmates need to have reduced their risk of offending again, and gotten the counseling and education they need to stay out of trouble.
The treatment requirements help explain why prisoners for less serious crimes tend to serve a higher percentage of their maximum sentences, said Leo Dunn, a parole board spokesman.
Serious offenders typically have longer sentences, giving them the opportunity to complete the classes they need, Dunn said. Those with short sentences sometimes haven't finished their programs before their parole hearings come up, causing delays.
That reality flies in the face of the mythical violent crime stat that many judges and lawyers cite.
In April, Judge Craig Dally sentenced Michael J. Beaman to six to 14 years for a Forks Township bank robbery, then helpfully calculated that Beaman could spend 11.2 years behind bars.
In explaining his decision, Dally said it is a "matter of fact" that defendants such as Beaman "do serve approximately 80 percent of their maximum sentence."
"You are going away for a long time," Dally told Beaman.
Dally, a former state lawmaker in his second year as judge, did not respond to a request for comment.
Even prominent attorneys get the stats wrong.
Easton lawyer Philip Lauer has argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court and he's also one of the few lawyers in the area to win an acquittal for a defendant charged with murder and facing the death penalty. In appeals, he has used the mistaken 85 percent statistic to try to overturn sentences his clients received, arguing those sentences are harsher than intended.
"Anecdotally, it still appears that particularly in any violent offense, people are doing very close to their maximum sentence," Lauer said in an interview.
When told of the contradictory parole statistics, Lauer said, "That really surprises me."
Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli believes that those convicted of violent crimes used to be jailed longer than they are today. But he admits that's based on his perception, and not hard data.
"You raise the question, 'Where do you get this, out of the air?' " Morganelli said. "And the answer is, 'Sort of.' "
Many in the criminal justice system have perpetuated the myth that most offenders serve 85 percent of their maximum sentence before parole, i.e. three years and four months on a four years sentence. The myth has impacted sentencing, plea decisions and has beguiled crime victims and criminals alike. The article below in its entirety is an interesting read--and its implications go far beyond the Lehigh Valley.
The 'baloney' you'll hear in court
Violent offenders in Lehigh Valley and beyond don't serve 85% of maximum sentences.
The Morning Call -Riley Yates
August 21, 2011
From the bench of the Northampton County courtroom, a judge sentencing a 27-year-old man for a harrowing home invasion in Bethlehem cited a statistic sure to ease the mind of anyone worried about violent criminals returning to the streets.
Judge Edward Smith told Luis Nestor Martinez he'll probably be forced to serve at least 85 percent of his up-to-50-year sentence — that's 421/2 years — for tying a couple in their basement and ransacking their house on Father's Day 2010.
There's one problem, however.
The figure Smith highlighted last month is a myth, without basis in state parole policy or practice.
In fact, according to a 2007 report by the Board of Probation and Parole, nearly half the violent offenders in Pennsylvania's prison system are released at their minimum sentences, which for Martinez — who is also serving time for a separate Lehigh County case — would be 261/2 years.
Even those convicted of the most serious crimes tend to be paroled at about the same point in their sentences as other convicts, if not slightly sooner, according to 2010 data provided by the board to The Morning Call. An inmate sentenced to five to 10 years for a crime like aggravated assault was out in six years on average, not 81/2 years as many judges and lawyers believe.
But the false number — sometimes given as 85 percent of the maximum sentence, sometimes as 80 percent — is one you're sure to hear if you sit in courtrooms in Northampton, Lehigh and other counties. It is often raised by defense attorneys, and occasionally crops up in newspapers — among them The Morning Call.
"It's intellectual laziness on people's part," said Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler, a former president judge who labels it "baloney" that someone on the bench would cite a number for which he's never seen statistical backing.
"And you can quote me on that," Heckler said. "They used to be my colleagues, but that's wrong."
Call it an urban legend, the courthouse's version of claims that Walt Disney was cryogenically frozen (he was cremated), or that downing Pop Rocks and cola will cause your stomach to explode (it won't).
The claim "has been persistent for years," said Mark Bergstrom, executive director of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, which advises the state on sentencing policy. "It's pretty embedded. … It sort of takes on a life of its own."
Northampton County Court Administrator James Onembo acknowledged there is no statistical backing for claims that violent offenders usually serve 80 percent or 85 percent of their maximum sentences.
Comments by judges about future parole decisions are "speculation" based on factors like defendants' prior records, their crimes and their treatment needs, Onembo said. It is ultimately the parole board that determines how much time offenders will serve beyond their minimum sentences, he said.
"A member of the court may be giving his or her opinion," Onembo said, but it is only an opinion.
Smith, a respected judge in his 10th year on the bench, is just one of many who have used the mistaken stat. He declined to be interviewed for this story.
The bad information can gum up plea bargains, with defendants unwilling to take a deal they worry will be harsher than it is in reality. It also can lead victims to expect that their assailants will be locked away longer than is actually likely.
Pennsylvania Victim Advocate Carol Lavery said her office regularly gets calls from across the state from victims who were told by prosecutors or the court that their perpetrators would serve 80 percent or 85 percent of their sentences. Instead, the victims have learned, the defendants are up for a parole hearing after serving their minimum sentences.
"They are very, very unhappy people who feel that they have maybe agreed to a plea agreement based on misinformation," Lavery said, adding: "We often call that re-victimization, the concept that the system failed them."
The parole board, which bases its calculations on an offender's minimum sentence, says the myth has no backing.
For the class of crimes that include third-degree murder, manslaughter, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and arson, the average inmate served 119 percent of his minimum sentence last year, or not more than 60 percent of his maximum.
The average sex offender also didn't reach 85 percent of his sentence, though he came closer. Last year, he served 148 percent of his minimum, or not more than 74 percent of his maximum.
By comparison, an inmate for a class of offenses such as forgery, simple assault, drunken driving and fraud served an average of 123 percent of his minimum — higher than for the class of more serious crimes, though less than for sex offenses.
Those imprisoned for drugs usually got out earlier, at 112 percent of their minimums last year.
Bergstrom and the Board of Probation and Parole trace the mistaken violent-crime figure to the 1990s, when the federal government encouraged states to enact "truth-in-sentencing" laws that more strictly regulated when convicts got out.
At the time, many states were allowing prisoners to significantly reduce their jail time through "good-time credits" for working, taking classes or remaining infraction-free. The federal effort sought to goad states into imprisoning violent offenders for at least 85 percent of their terms, and tied that to federal grants.
But Pennsylvania's sentencing structure, which has fixed minimums and maximums, is different from those that issue a specific sentence. In Pennsylvania, inmates must serve their minimum sentences before becoming eligible for release, with the exception of some nonviolent offenses. That structure provided truth in sentencing and satisfied federal officials, Bergstrom and the parole board said.
When deciding when to release convicts, the parole board considers their social and criminal history and the input of prosecutors, judges and jailers. Inmates need to have reduced their risk of offending again, and gotten the counseling and education they need to stay out of trouble.
The treatment requirements help explain why prisoners for less serious crimes tend to serve a higher percentage of their maximum sentences, said Leo Dunn, a parole board spokesman.
Serious offenders typically have longer sentences, giving them the opportunity to complete the classes they need, Dunn said. Those with short sentences sometimes haven't finished their programs before their parole hearings come up, causing delays.
That reality flies in the face of the mythical violent crime stat that many judges and lawyers cite.
In April, Judge Craig Dally sentenced Michael J. Beaman to six to 14 years for a Forks Township bank robbery, then helpfully calculated that Beaman could spend 11.2 years behind bars.
In explaining his decision, Dally said it is a "matter of fact" that defendants such as Beaman "do serve approximately 80 percent of their maximum sentence."
"You are going away for a long time," Dally told Beaman.
Dally, a former state lawmaker in his second year as judge, did not respond to a request for comment.
Even prominent attorneys get the stats wrong.
Easton lawyer Philip Lauer has argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court and he's also one of the few lawyers in the area to win an acquittal for a defendant charged with murder and facing the death penalty. In appeals, he has used the mistaken 85 percent statistic to try to overturn sentences his clients received, arguing those sentences are harsher than intended.
"Anecdotally, it still appears that particularly in any violent offense, people are doing very close to their maximum sentence," Lauer said in an interview.
When told of the contradictory parole statistics, Lauer said, "That really surprises me."
Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli believes that those convicted of violent crimes used to be jailed longer than they are today. But he admits that's based on his perception, and not hard data.
"You raise the question, 'Where do you get this, out of the air?' " Morganelli said. "And the answer is, 'Sort of.' "
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Cautionary Instruction: The Chilling Effect of the Strauss-Kahn dismissal
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
August 26, 2011
District Attorney Cyrus Vance filed a 25-page memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss the sexual assault charges against French politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Vance’s pleading alleged the victim, “has not been truthful on matters great and small” and has the ability to present “fiction as fact with complete conviction.” Those are strong words. The ramifications for this victim are obvious; however, the ripple effect of Vance’s decision may have consequences for sexual assault victims across the country and around the world.
The Strauss-Kahn investigation "certainly makes it a more challenging environment, both for victims and on the prosecution side," said Scott Berkowitz, president of RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.
According to Department of Justice figures compiled by RAINN, six out of 10 sexual assaults are never reported. "Of the 40 percent that are reported, roughly half will never lead to an arrest -- and of the cases remaining, many of those won't lead to prosecution," Berkowitz said. "So when you boil it down, 15 out of 16 attackers will never spend a day in prison," he added.
Soon after Strauss-Kahn’s arrest the victim’s credibility came into question. Well-heeled investigators retained by Strauss-Kahn’s defense team leaked damaging information to the media and apparently shared it with prosecutors. Victim advocacy groups are alarmed. Vigorous campaigns to undermine the credibility of victims may make sexual assault victims more hesitant to come forward out of fear that they will receive the same treatment.
The idea that only women with a perfect past and a tidy lifestyle will be able to escape the scrutiny that comes with reporting a sexual assault causes a chilling effect that will not only prevent justice from being served, but will keep women from receiving the help and support they need and deserve.
If the victim fabricated her story, it would be unfortunate because "it would perpetuate the stereotype that victims lie about their assaults," said Rita Garza of victim's services agency Safe Horizon.
"The reality is that very few people lie about sexual assault," Garza said. "It is a low one to three percent."
Women feel vulnerable and alone after sex crimes and need to feel confident someone will believe their stories. "Even if she has had credibility problems outside of that day, a strong prosecutor would have said we are ready to stand up for her because it was a crime," said Diane Rosenfeld, a professor at Harvard Law School.
Visit Ipso Facto
August 26, 2011
District Attorney Cyrus Vance filed a 25-page memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss the sexual assault charges against French politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Vance’s pleading alleged the victim, “has not been truthful on matters great and small” and has the ability to present “fiction as fact with complete conviction.” Those are strong words. The ramifications for this victim are obvious; however, the ripple effect of Vance’s decision may have consequences for sexual assault victims across the country and around the world.
The Strauss-Kahn investigation "certainly makes it a more challenging environment, both for victims and on the prosecution side," said Scott Berkowitz, president of RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.
According to Department of Justice figures compiled by RAINN, six out of 10 sexual assaults are never reported. "Of the 40 percent that are reported, roughly half will never lead to an arrest -- and of the cases remaining, many of those won't lead to prosecution," Berkowitz said. "So when you boil it down, 15 out of 16 attackers will never spend a day in prison," he added.
Soon after Strauss-Kahn’s arrest the victim’s credibility came into question. Well-heeled investigators retained by Strauss-Kahn’s defense team leaked damaging information to the media and apparently shared it with prosecutors. Victim advocacy groups are alarmed. Vigorous campaigns to undermine the credibility of victims may make sexual assault victims more hesitant to come forward out of fear that they will receive the same treatment.
The idea that only women with a perfect past and a tidy lifestyle will be able to escape the scrutiny that comes with reporting a sexual assault causes a chilling effect that will not only prevent justice from being served, but will keep women from receiving the help and support they need and deserve.
If the victim fabricated her story, it would be unfortunate because "it would perpetuate the stereotype that victims lie about their assaults," said Rita Garza of victim's services agency Safe Horizon.
"The reality is that very few people lie about sexual assault," Garza said. "It is a low one to three percent."
Women feel vulnerable and alone after sex crimes and need to feel confident someone will believe their stories. "Even if she has had credibility problems outside of that day, a strong prosecutor would have said we are ready to stand up for her because it was a crime," said Diane Rosenfeld, a professor at Harvard Law School.
Visit Ipso Facto
Perry's Record on Capital Punishment Astounding
Texas Governor Rick Perry, the newest presidential contender, has presided over 234 executions in his nearly 11 years as governor. He has overseen more executions than any governor in modern history. In fact, Perry has presided over more executions than Oklahoma and Virginia combined, the states with the second and third highest execution totals since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.
Perry appears to relish the task. In his book “Fed Up!” Perry wrote, “If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas.”
He vetoed a bill that would have spared the mentally retarded, and sharply criticized a Supreme Court ruling that juveniles were not eligible for the death penalty. He has found during his tenure only one inmate on Texas’s crowded death row he thought should receive the lesser sentence of life in prison.
Perry’s role in the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Wil¬lingham—and subsequent investigation of Willingham’s trial remains a hot-button issue in Texas. When experts were about to testify about faulty forensic science used to convict Willingham, Perry fired several members of the investigatory panel and replaced them with hard-liners. The matter remains under investigation in Texas.
To read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-holds-the-record-on-executions/2011/08/17/gIQAMvNwYJ_story.html
Perry appears to relish the task. In his book “Fed Up!” Perry wrote, “If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas.”
He vetoed a bill that would have spared the mentally retarded, and sharply criticized a Supreme Court ruling that juveniles were not eligible for the death penalty. He has found during his tenure only one inmate on Texas’s crowded death row he thought should receive the lesser sentence of life in prison.
Perry’s role in the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Wil¬lingham—and subsequent investigation of Willingham’s trial remains a hot-button issue in Texas. When experts were about to testify about faulty forensic science used to convict Willingham, Perry fired several members of the investigatory panel and replaced them with hard-liners. The matter remains under investigation in Texas.
To read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-holds-the-record-on-executions/2011/08/17/gIQAMvNwYJ_story.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
