| User Blox 4 |
|
- Put stuff here
|
Barack Obama  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.
|
Dave McAlpin
Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 20:38:17 PM MST
|
|
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that convicted criminals don't have a "constitutional right to demand DNA testing of evidence that remains in police files."
Fortunately, relatively few people will be negatively impacted by the decision - 47 states and federal government already have laws "providing access to post-conviction DNA testing" - but it seems like an odd stance to take. Justice Stevens, in his dissent:
The State of Alaska possesses physical evidence that, if tested, will conclusively establish whether respondent William Osborne committed rape and attempted murder. If he did, justice has been served by his conviction and sentence. If not, Osborne has needlessly spent decades behind bars while the true culprit has not been brought to justice. The DNA test Osborne seeks is a simple one, its cost modest, and its results uniquely precise. Yet for reasons the State has been unable or unwilling to articulate, it refuses to allow Osborne to test the evidence at his own expense and to thereby ascertain the truth once and for all.
Doesn't the Supreme Court think it has an obligation to ensure that justice is carried in the country's court system? And frankly, there's a pervasive problem surrounding prosecutors fighting DNA analysis in these cases. The New York Times:
A recent analysis of 225 DNA exonerations by Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, found that prosecutors opposed DNA testing in almost one out of five cases. In many of the others, they initially opposed testing but ultimately agreed to it. In 98 of those 225 cases, the DNA test identified the real culprit.
The mind reels. Blocking DNA testing is not about the money; in the SCOTUS case in question, Osborne offered to pay for the test himself. And it's certainly not about justice. Innocent convicts can be freed, and the real culprit can still be convicted for the crimes.
And DNA testing is the only sure method of forensic science. That is, convictions based on other forensic methods - fingerprints, ballistics, handwriting analyses, etc - aren't based on scientific fact. At least, that's what a recent National Academy of Sciences study reported:
For decades, forensic scientists have made sweeping claims in court about fingerprints, ballistics, handwriting, bite marks, shoe prints and blood splatters that lack empirical grounding and have never been verified by science.
This is just one conclusion of a two-year study by the National Academy of Sciences, which on Wednesday called for a wholesale overhaul of the crime lab system that has become increasingly critical to American jurisprudence.
The academy, the preeminent science advisor to the federal government, found a system in disarray: labs that are underfunded and beholden to law enforcement, lacking independent oversight and without consistent standards.
The report concludes that the deficiencies pose "a continuing and serious threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice," imperiling efforts to protect society from criminals and shield innocent people from wrongful convictions.
It would seem, then, that the SCOTUS would have a vested interest that all defendants - including those already convicted - should have full access to the DNA evidence in their case for testing. The court, after all, has the obligation to ensure that all citizens have a right to due process in the law.
On a slightly different note, while many prosecutors are (apparently) attempting to save their professional reputations by preventing citizens from using a valid scientific method to challenge their convictions, it would behoove current state attorney generals - especially Montana's Steve Bullock - to ensure that their crime labs are fully cognizant of the problems of forensic sciences. Montana should be especially sensitive, of course, because we've already been burnt by an overzealous (incompetent? corrupt?) crime lab director, Arnold Melnikoff, who used fantastic and invented statistics based on inexact hair analysis to ramrod innocent men into jail.
A solid Crime Lab based on hard science not only ensures that the right people go to jail, it'll both salvage the reputation of Montana's judicial reputation and ensure that convictions in the state won't be as subject to costly challenges. While Steve Bullock's nomination to head the state's Crime Lab, Dave McAlpin, is a smart political appointment - the Crime Lab director, after all, needs to navigate both the state bureaucracy and the legislature - McAlpin lacks any forensics experience. It's a fair question to ask, then, what Bullock and McAlpin plan to do in reaction to the National of Academy of Sciences report, to ensure that only the best scientific work is performed at the crime lab and used in prosecuting Montana's legal cases...
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:33:48 PM MST
|
|
A bill introducing community benefit agreements (also known as "Good Neighbor Agreements") as part of the standard process for big box stores got shot down mighty quickly today in House committee, where Republicans were apparently troubled by a default standard that big box stores be good neighbors.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Dave McAlpin, was pretty basic. It said big businesses coming into communities from the outside, expecting to put massive demand on public infrastructure (like roads and sewers), ought to negotiate with the county some basics, like pay and benefits packages (preventing low pay from rich corporations from turning employees into public assistance recipients) and an estimation of the environmental impact of building.
This stuff is common sense and Rep. McAlpin included baseline measures. But here's the thing - McAlpin's bill doesn't shove these measures down anyone's throat. If a community wants a higher bar or a lower bar, it is allowed to negotiate a separate deal with the business. The Good Neighbors bill simply changes the default from "do whatever the Hell you want, no matter the cost to Montana" to "be a good neighbor," while preserving the freedom of local communities.
Why was it shot down?
That'd be a good question to ask your GOP legislators.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 17:26:15 PM MST
|
|
Well, never in a million years did I think the Republicans would put someone like Scott Sales in charge of their House caucus. But they did. Consider this the beginning of a big wandering into the wilderness. Already, Sales is pissing on everyone's shoes -- fellow House Republicans, Senate Republicans, the Governor. And he seems to think that now is a time to make himself known as the state's roadblock, declaring that Republicans "have to know who our enemy is and who our friends are."
My gut says that the far right's take over of the House Republican caucus is a good sign. Sales won't be able to keep his caucus unified. He's too crazy.
Senator Mike Cooney is set to be President and Representative John Parker is set to be Speaker. Senator Corey Stapleton will be minority leader.
Update -- Just heard most of the rest of the leadership teams. In addition to Speaker Parker, Dems will be led by Speaker Pro Tem Bergren, Majority Leader Art Noonan, Majority Whips Dave McAlpin and Margie Campbell, and Caucus Chair Dan Villa. In the Senate, in addition to President Mike Cooney, we have President Pro Tem Dan Harrington, Majority Leader Carol Williams, and Majority Whips Lynda Moss and Lane Larson. In the Senate GOP caucus, Dan McGee and Greg Barkus will be Minority Whips.
|
|
Discuss
:: (5
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
| Poll |
| Voting. Useful or not? |
|
|
|
Results
|
|
