I posted more than a year ago about an excellent granting of a habeas corpus petition by Judge Brian McCarville. The defendant is William Richards. His case number is FVI00826. The essence of the case is that he was accused of murdering his wife by bashing her head in. After three mistrials, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Then he was able to obtain favorable DNA evidence, and show that there were serious with the evidence presented against him at his trial. I mean, serious. Like, they framed him. Oh, and an expert that was hot and heavy against him kind of fully recanted his testimony and/or it was all shown to be BS. Mostly anyway. One of the few times it has happened, and certainly the only time that I have seen it, Judge McCarville granted the habeas corpus petition. It is CERTAIN that if he is retried, he cannot be convicted. Not with what we now know.
Then, on 11-19-2010, the California Court of Appeal wrote and unpublished decision REVERSING Judge McCarville's excellent opinion. Appelleate Court Justice Hollenhorst wrote the opinion, and he was joined by McKinster and Richli. All three are right wing Republican tools. The opinion is as terrible as it is disingenuous. Here is my summary of the opinion:
Too bad, so sad. We don't believe your new "evidence." You may have fooled Judge McCarville, but you won't fool us. This new "evidence" should have been brought forward at trial, and in fact some of it was. So it isn't really new "evidence." And the jury didn't believe the defense then, so, again, too bad, so sad. Oh, and just because someone who is crucial to your conviction is later found to be a complete liar and kind of, sort of, mostly admits it, to some extent or another, again, too bad, so sad. You lose. Yeah, we suppose that "actually innocent" people are kind of, sort of entitled at least to a new trial. But not your guy. Oh, and did I mention that we think your new "evidence" isn't very good? Oh, and Judge McCarville didn't apply the correct standard. We could tell you the correct standard, but we are pretty busy up here, denying all your silly motions. The standard is something like: The new evidence must undermine the prosecution's entire case and unerringly point towrd his innocence. We realize this is an impossible standard, but we're going to hold you to it. Oh, and stop spending so many days on these stupid hearings for murderers, Judge McCarville - we're just going to crap on whatever you rule on anyway.
Oh, and there were a LOT of case citations - I'll spare you those. I suppose that I shouldn't get too indignant over this local travesty of justice, but I can't help myself. Let me clarify: I KNOW Judge McCarville. He isn't some bleeding heart liberal. He calls them mostly like he sees them, but like most judges in this county, he is pro-prosecution. Remember, they are all elected, and they don't get re-elected by letting people charged with crimes go free. If Judge McCarville spends the time to do a habeas corpus petition and grants it, you had better damned sure believe that that was the right thing to do.
The case is currently before the California Supreme Court. I don't expect the Court to reverse the Appellate Court. I have just about zero faith in the California Supreme Court on criminal justice issues. They are a mostly zombie-controlled, Republican-appointed bench. I met the Chief Justice recently and she seemed nice, but she is another former prosecutor plucked from convicting people and put on the bench. Some of the justices aren't too bad. I like some of Justice Kennard's opinions. Justice Werdegar too, sometimes. The newest Justice, who hasn't been confirmed yet, Goodwin Liu, is promising. But he is just one guy. I am giving the California Supreme Court short shrift here because they have written some awful opinions in the criminal defense world for about 16 years now, when Rose Bird was forced off the bench. If they reverse the 4th Circuit, Division 2, I will be amazed. I will personally sing their praises. But I fully expect them to follow Justice Scalia's dissent (joined by Justice Thomas) in In re Davis (2009) 130 S.Ct. 1, wherein Scalia stated: "This Court has NEVR held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is "actually innocent."
In other words: Fuck you. We don't care how "actually innocent" you may be. So long as you got a "fair trial," you will be punished. Period. Finality is king. Never mind whether witnesses recant their testimony. Who cares? By the way, the remedy in the Troy Davis case was to remand the case back to the district court for a new habeas petition, which everyone agreed was without any power. Said petition was promptly denied, and the denial was then affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. Troy Davis is now getting closer to execution. He got his "actual innocence hearing," and he got to call various witness that showed 9 of 11 witnesses who testified against him at trial recanted their testimony. 9 of 11? Really? Would 10 of 12 have done the trick? How about if all 11 had recanted? The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Mr. Davis's appeal from the habeas petition denial. Here is a good discussion of where Troy Davis is at now: http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/04/another-dead-end-for-troy-anthony-davis/
The lesson here? Don't get convicted the first time. Because if you do, even if you can later prove you were actually inocent, to just about ANY degree of certainty, so long as you got a "fair trial," you're guilty. Period.
Dennis R. Wilkins
Oh, and I suppose that I am now the New PD Dude.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
I was fooled
I admit it. I supported Barack Obama. I was fooled. He is a corporatist, and he does not have the interests of most Americans at heart. Don't get me wrong - I am a Democrat, a liberal, a progressive, and I can't stand any of the Republicans running. But I am really and truly disappointed in Barack Obama. I will vote for him come next November. I have to. Any of the Republican pinheads running will appoint monstrosities to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices Elene Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor have turned out okay for the criminal defense field. Not great, but it could have been a LOT worse.
But it will be with a sad and heavy heart that I will push the button for this man. He cares only about his campaign contributions, and he isn't interested in helping the poor, or even the middle calss. Hillary would have been better. Joe Biden wouldn't have, of course, but at least it would have been honest. That said, Biden would have protected unions. In fairness, I was pulling for John Edwards while he was putting it into that other woman, while his dying wife was, well, dying. So I've been fooled before.
All of that said, I can honestly say that as I have grown older, it seems clearer and clearer that our system is hopelessly corrupted toward the wealthy, and capable of only a minimum of fairness toward those seeking justice who don't have cash. More often than not, the poor who are charged with a crime get jailed and have to await a trial that stretches further and further out. The division isn't between guilt or innocence many times, but on whether the person charged is savvy enough to know the rules of the system. But overall, the system that I have seen, and keep seeing is blanketed with a hateful attitude toward the poor, a distaste for those of color, and most seriously, an anipathy towards the rule of law, the presumption of innocence and the requirement that DA's have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I also see the Public Defender as an entity more and more under attack. Whatever my feelings toward a particular administration, there is a constant and growing fear that the Public Defender will be outsourced to those who will do the job far cheaper, and with just about zero care for clients.
I will talk later.
Dennis R. Wilkins
The Guest Blogger
Public Defender Dude
But it will be with a sad and heavy heart that I will push the button for this man. He cares only about his campaign contributions, and he isn't interested in helping the poor, or even the middle calss. Hillary would have been better. Joe Biden wouldn't have, of course, but at least it would have been honest. That said, Biden would have protected unions. In fairness, I was pulling for John Edwards while he was putting it into that other woman, while his dying wife was, well, dying. So I've been fooled before.
All of that said, I can honestly say that as I have grown older, it seems clearer and clearer that our system is hopelessly corrupted toward the wealthy, and capable of only a minimum of fairness toward those seeking justice who don't have cash. More often than not, the poor who are charged with a crime get jailed and have to await a trial that stretches further and further out. The division isn't between guilt or innocence many times, but on whether the person charged is savvy enough to know the rules of the system. But overall, the system that I have seen, and keep seeing is blanketed with a hateful attitude toward the poor, a distaste for those of color, and most seriously, an anipathy towards the rule of law, the presumption of innocence and the requirement that DA's have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I also see the Public Defender as an entity more and more under attack. Whatever my feelings toward a particular administration, there is a constant and growing fear that the Public Defender will be outsourced to those who will do the job far cheaper, and with just about zero care for clients.
I will talk later.
Dennis R. Wilkins
The Guest Blogger
Public Defender Dude
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Connect the Dots
I haven't posted in a long time, so let me make a short post to observe a few "connect the dots" observations - I want to connect two pieces of news and sort of juxtapose them, so that people can draw their own conclusions.
First, there have been numerous articles about Chief Justice George retiring from the California Supreme Court. There is a long list of his "accomplishments." Here is an example: http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_15514924?nclick_check=1 I am sure he is proud of himself. And it is true that he tried hard to modernize California's huge judicial system and make it more uniform. But along with his kudos, he should get knocks for some of the many, many crappy decisions that his court has made that defy logic, most especially in the realm of criminal justice. The most recent example: People v. Low - link here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S151961.PDF , and People v. Gastello - link here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S153170.PDF. Both were handed down on June 24, 2010. Both are listed in PDF format because everyone has Adobe Acrobat.
In both Gastello and Low the defendants were charged with a statute that California has called Penal Code section 4573. In essence, it is illegal to bring drugs into a jail. But what if a person is arrested, and has drugs on them, and THEY are brought to a jail? Well, in the intake area of pretty much all jail facilities in Californi, there is a sign that advises the defendant of PC 4573, and essentially tells the defendant that he has to fess up that he has drugs, or else he faces a straight felony when the deputies find them.
In California, possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor, unless it's for sale. Possession of methamphetamine can be a misdemeanor, at the DA's discretion. Possession of cacaine is a stright felony. But a defendant facing a charge of simple possession of any drug, even cocaine, can often get into PC 1000 diversion, or Prop. 36, or even drug court, depending on his/her record. Most simple possession cases do not result in prison time, not even for 3rd strikers. Remember, I said most simple possession cases - some still get prison based on their prior strikes, their records, other charges, etc. It all depends on the facts, the DDA, the court, the temperature outside, the relative humidity, the defendant correctly guessing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, etc. But not so with a PC 4573 charge. That is a straight felony for which there is no diversion, or Prop. 36. Maybe drug court. But certainly a felony that cannot be reduced to a misdemeanor at some point. Thus, having a simple possession charge amped up to a stright felony PC 4573 charge can be a serious issue. In Low, the defendant lied to the cop, claiming that he had no drugs on him. A search found the drugs. In Gastello the defendant said nothing, after having been Mirandized at some point, and the drugs were found in a search. In both cases the defendants were convicted on straight felonies. Low was the longer opinion, dealing with the various Constitutional and statutory issues. Gastello is much shorter and pretty applies Low.
In both the Low and Gastello cases the California Supreme Court, the George court, discussed the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and the idea that neither of the defendants "voluntarily" went to jail. Both defendants would much rather have been somewhere else. Thus, they didn't "bring drugs into a jail" - they were brought to jail while possessing drugs. The George court ruled against both Gastello and Low, and pretty much gave short shrift to the Fifth Amendment argument. In Gastello, in fact, the better of the two cases (he remained silent, after all), the George court simply could not understand how the Fifth Amendment was implicated at all. They acted as if they had never heard of the "cruel trilemma" - the basis of Miranda. The "cruel trilemma" is as follows: A defendant has three choices when questioned by the police. 1) He can remain silent, and be thought guilty, because if he wasn't guilty he would have said something, 2) He can confess, thereby proving his guilt, or 3) He can lie, which will likely convict him as well, because his lies will be found out. This is one of the bases for the 5th Amendment and for Miranda. Like it or hate it, it is blackletter law. Instead, the Goerge court said that the defendant was correctly prosecuted for PC 4573 BECAUSE he remained silent - a "nontestimonial act." Beg pardon? His REFUSAL to confess his guilt was a "nontestimonial act" for which he could be prosecuted? Wow - that really turns the law on its head, huh?
The George court simply couldn't understand how the Fifth Amendment was implicated at all. I mean, if the defendant has drugs on him, and reads that sign, all he has to do at that point, to prevent a charge of PC 4573, is to confess to the cops that he has drugs. And, wallah, there can be no PC 4573 charge. Wow, I never thought of that. What a great idea. Next time, I will advise my client who faces a potential crime and who is afraid of the police charging him with a more serious crime to confess his crime to the police and waive his Miranda rights. That way, he won't have to worry about new charges. And I guess then I can wait to be disbarred or something.
Is the George court really this dumb? The only way to prevent a PC 4573 charge is to confess, and that doesn't implicate the Fifth Amendment? At least one unanimous appellate court thought it did. Oh, and of seven members on the Goerge court, guess how many dissented. None. Yeah, I guess that happens when everyone uses the same law clerks. Note that both Gastello and Low were written by the court's most conservative member, J. Baxter. But George gets to assign the opinion to whomever he wants, since the opinion was unanimous. And I am sure that George also had some influence on the opinion, again because it was unanimous.
Chief Justice George announced his retirement now so that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a guy with the lowest approval ratings ever (even lower than Gray Davis before his recall), can name his replacement. I suppose that this is just in case Jerry Brown, the Democrat who put Rose Bird onto the court, wins over Meg Whitman in November (that race is a tossup at this point). It is no wonder that California's judiciary, especially it Supreme Court, has become the laughingstock of the free world. The trial judges in California hand out horribly punitive sentences, then the appellate court and the California Supreme Court simply affirms them, all the while the prison system is in tatters due to massive growth. Meanwhile, the Legislature dithers and passes tougher and tougher laws with longer and longer sentences, with the electorate every once in awhile one-upping them. It is no wonder that our criminal justice system has become the shame of the free world.
So, connect the dots. Chief Justice George is retiring, and the newspapers say he is a really great guy because he helped convict the Hillside Strangler. But many of his court's opinions, especially many of his court's recent opinions, really suck and are pretty much devoid of honest reasoning. Yeah, I suppose that many in California will really miss Chief Justice George. I won't.
Dennis Wilkins
Deputy Public Defender
The Guest PD Blogger
First, there have been numerous articles about Chief Justice George retiring from the California Supreme Court. There is a long list of his "accomplishments." Here is an example: http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_15514924?nclick_check=1 I am sure he is proud of himself. And it is true that he tried hard to modernize California's huge judicial system and make it more uniform. But along with his kudos, he should get knocks for some of the many, many crappy decisions that his court has made that defy logic, most especially in the realm of criminal justice. The most recent example: People v. Low - link here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S151961.PDF , and People v. Gastello - link here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S153170.PDF. Both were handed down on June 24, 2010. Both are listed in PDF format because everyone has Adobe Acrobat.
In both Gastello and Low the defendants were charged with a statute that California has called Penal Code section 4573. In essence, it is illegal to bring drugs into a jail. But what if a person is arrested, and has drugs on them, and THEY are brought to a jail? Well, in the intake area of pretty much all jail facilities in Californi, there is a sign that advises the defendant of PC 4573, and essentially tells the defendant that he has to fess up that he has drugs, or else he faces a straight felony when the deputies find them.
In California, possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor, unless it's for sale. Possession of methamphetamine can be a misdemeanor, at the DA's discretion. Possession of cacaine is a stright felony. But a defendant facing a charge of simple possession of any drug, even cocaine, can often get into PC 1000 diversion, or Prop. 36, or even drug court, depending on his/her record. Most simple possession cases do not result in prison time, not even for 3rd strikers. Remember, I said most simple possession cases - some still get prison based on their prior strikes, their records, other charges, etc. It all depends on the facts, the DDA, the court, the temperature outside, the relative humidity, the defendant correctly guessing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, etc. But not so with a PC 4573 charge. That is a straight felony for which there is no diversion, or Prop. 36. Maybe drug court. But certainly a felony that cannot be reduced to a misdemeanor at some point. Thus, having a simple possession charge amped up to a stright felony PC 4573 charge can be a serious issue. In Low, the defendant lied to the cop, claiming that he had no drugs on him. A search found the drugs. In Gastello the defendant said nothing, after having been Mirandized at some point, and the drugs were found in a search. In both cases the defendants were convicted on straight felonies. Low was the longer opinion, dealing with the various Constitutional and statutory issues. Gastello is much shorter and pretty applies Low.
In both the Low and Gastello cases the California Supreme Court, the George court, discussed the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and the idea that neither of the defendants "voluntarily" went to jail. Both defendants would much rather have been somewhere else. Thus, they didn't "bring drugs into a jail" - they were brought to jail while possessing drugs. The George court ruled against both Gastello and Low, and pretty much gave short shrift to the Fifth Amendment argument. In Gastello, in fact, the better of the two cases (he remained silent, after all), the George court simply could not understand how the Fifth Amendment was implicated at all. They acted as if they had never heard of the "cruel trilemma" - the basis of Miranda. The "cruel trilemma" is as follows: A defendant has three choices when questioned by the police. 1) He can remain silent, and be thought guilty, because if he wasn't guilty he would have said something, 2) He can confess, thereby proving his guilt, or 3) He can lie, which will likely convict him as well, because his lies will be found out. This is one of the bases for the 5th Amendment and for Miranda. Like it or hate it, it is blackletter law. Instead, the Goerge court said that the defendant was correctly prosecuted for PC 4573 BECAUSE he remained silent - a "nontestimonial act." Beg pardon? His REFUSAL to confess his guilt was a "nontestimonial act" for which he could be prosecuted? Wow - that really turns the law on its head, huh?
The George court simply couldn't understand how the Fifth Amendment was implicated at all. I mean, if the defendant has drugs on him, and reads that sign, all he has to do at that point, to prevent a charge of PC 4573, is to confess to the cops that he has drugs. And, wallah, there can be no PC 4573 charge. Wow, I never thought of that. What a great idea. Next time, I will advise my client who faces a potential crime and who is afraid of the police charging him with a more serious crime to confess his crime to the police and waive his Miranda rights. That way, he won't have to worry about new charges. And I guess then I can wait to be disbarred or something.
Is the George court really this dumb? The only way to prevent a PC 4573 charge is to confess, and that doesn't implicate the Fifth Amendment? At least one unanimous appellate court thought it did. Oh, and of seven members on the Goerge court, guess how many dissented. None. Yeah, I guess that happens when everyone uses the same law clerks. Note that both Gastello and Low were written by the court's most conservative member, J. Baxter. But George gets to assign the opinion to whomever he wants, since the opinion was unanimous. And I am sure that George also had some influence on the opinion, again because it was unanimous.
Chief Justice George announced his retirement now so that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a guy with the lowest approval ratings ever (even lower than Gray Davis before his recall), can name his replacement. I suppose that this is just in case Jerry Brown, the Democrat who put Rose Bird onto the court, wins over Meg Whitman in November (that race is a tossup at this point). It is no wonder that California's judiciary, especially it Supreme Court, has become the laughingstock of the free world. The trial judges in California hand out horribly punitive sentences, then the appellate court and the California Supreme Court simply affirms them, all the while the prison system is in tatters due to massive growth. Meanwhile, the Legislature dithers and passes tougher and tougher laws with longer and longer sentences, with the electorate every once in awhile one-upping them. It is no wonder that our criminal justice system has become the shame of the free world.
So, connect the dots. Chief Justice George is retiring, and the newspapers say he is a really great guy because he helped convict the Hillside Strangler. But many of his court's opinions, especially many of his court's recent opinions, really suck and are pretty much devoid of honest reasoning. Yeah, I suppose that many in California will really miss Chief Justice George. I won't.
Dennis Wilkins
Deputy Public Defender
The Guest PD Blogger
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Further Reflections on the Marijuana Legalization Initiative in California
I posted in the wee hours (I couldn't sleep) about my beliefs about the coming marijuana legalization initiative on the November 2010 ballot. I haven't found the actual text of the initiative, or even the number just yet, but here is a link to a site called Ballotpedia, a website that seems to have a fair description of the initiative: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_(2010)
My post this morning generated a pretty cool response from a site called Legal Blog Watch. Here is the post: http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2010/05/public-defender-laments-inevitable-failure-of-pot-legalization-referendum.html I am treated pretty faily by the writer of the piece, an attorney named Eric Lipman. His discussion of what I said is on his blog, at the site listed above. He takes me to task a bit for what I said, but he reminded me of something improtant: Don't make a comment on the web unless you are prepared to support it. And even if you can support it, prepare to take some heat anyway. Read his post - it's pretty good.
Well, then I started looking and I found the Marijuana Policy Project at: http://www.mppcalifornia.org/home/ I must admit that the articles seem pretty well-reasoned on that site. And there is a neat little video by a guy named Mike Meno at http://www.mpp.org/ This young guy is VERY well spoken. In fact, he should be the spokesperson for at least some of the legalization effort.
My opinion on whether the initiative will pass hasn't changed - the recent drop of support for the legalization initiative indicates to me that Californians are still pretty skeptical. A comment to my last post at Public Defender Dude illustrates this. I believe that many people will let fear guide their decision-making. After al, we don't know how bad things will get when we open this box, right? And when the vast overwhelming majority of police agencies say that marijuana legalization is bad, well, who wants to disagree with the police, right?
But if spokespeople like Mike Meno are able to get their voices out there, and if prominent people actually actually start to take note of some of the silly things that those on the prohibition side are saying, then maybe things will change. For example, the U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerklikowske just said within the last few days that, as to marijuana, the Obama administration is "not exploring prohibition." Well, that's just plain stupid. What we currently have, like it or hate it, IS prohibition. The issue is whether the marijuana prohibition should continue. Because I don't believe that the U.S. Drug Czar is an idiot (No one appoints a complete idiot for such a high profile office in this day and age), I have to believe that he is a liar. How could he not know what prohibition means? If more high-profile discussions start about the rhetoric on the other side, maybe, just maybe, legalization will stand a chance.
We can only hope, right?
Dennis R. Wilkins
The Guest PD Blogger
My post this morning generated a pretty cool response from a site called Legal Blog Watch. Here is the post: http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2010/05/public-defender-laments-inevitable-failure-of-pot-legalization-referendum.html I am treated pretty faily by the writer of the piece, an attorney named Eric Lipman. His discussion of what I said is on his blog, at the site listed above. He takes me to task a bit for what I said, but he reminded me of something improtant: Don't make a comment on the web unless you are prepared to support it. And even if you can support it, prepare to take some heat anyway. Read his post - it's pretty good.
Well, then I started looking and I found the Marijuana Policy Project at: http://www.mppcalifornia.org/home/ I must admit that the articles seem pretty well-reasoned on that site. And there is a neat little video by a guy named Mike Meno at http://www.mpp.org/ This young guy is VERY well spoken. In fact, he should be the spokesperson for at least some of the legalization effort.
My opinion on whether the initiative will pass hasn't changed - the recent drop of support for the legalization initiative indicates to me that Californians are still pretty skeptical. A comment to my last post at Public Defender Dude illustrates this. I believe that many people will let fear guide their decision-making. After al, we don't know how bad things will get when we open this box, right? And when the vast overwhelming majority of police agencies say that marijuana legalization is bad, well, who wants to disagree with the police, right?
But if spokespeople like Mike Meno are able to get their voices out there, and if prominent people actually actually start to take note of some of the silly things that those on the prohibition side are saying, then maybe things will change. For example, the U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerklikowske just said within the last few days that, as to marijuana, the Obama administration is "not exploring prohibition." Well, that's just plain stupid. What we currently have, like it or hate it, IS prohibition. The issue is whether the marijuana prohibition should continue. Because I don't believe that the U.S. Drug Czar is an idiot (No one appoints a complete idiot for such a high profile office in this day and age), I have to believe that he is a liar. How could he not know what prohibition means? If more high-profile discussions start about the rhetoric on the other side, maybe, just maybe, legalization will stand a chance.
We can only hope, right?
Dennis R. Wilkins
The Guest PD Blogger
The Marijuana Legalization Initiative on the November Ballot
It's on the ballot for November 2010. It is a great idea, and it is a well-written initiative. The drug war has failed, [Here is the May 11, 2010 AP article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLZNYd6C9SGpa2oeiZIqT-HKVrCQD9FMCM103 - and here's what Grits for Breakfast, an excellent PD Blog had to say: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/05/news-flash-drug-war-colossal-failure.html ]and the marijuana front has been an even bigger failure. Marijuana is not even as dangerous as alcohol, which has been legal since Prohibition.
And it will fail at the ballot box. Here's why:
1) Marijuana legalization is soundly opposed by most old people. Old people vote religiously. California politics has been skewed by the opinions of older voters for decades. There is no reason for older people to want to legalize marijuana - they can get vicodin easily with their prescrption drug benefits. And alcohol is even more easily available at the corner store/local liquor barn. Oh, and one last thing - all old people know very well that only DFH's use marijuana. And anything that DFH's want, old people are opposed to.
2) There are no good spokespersons for legalizing marijuana. Take a look on the web and you will find that of the many, MANY opinions that are written in response to articles about marijuana legalization, the ones in favor are usually riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. What does this mean? They are "normal people." Not NORMAL, as in the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, but just ordinary, non-college-educated folk. Who want to smoke pot. Most rational people who have a degree of some kind won't say ANYTHING about marijuana legalization because they fear being branded as "one of them." You know - druggies. DFH's. Pot smokers. And as just about ANYONE will tell you, that is the kiss of death for just about any professional. Oh, an occasional professional person can admit that he/she smokes pot, and might even be caught with/smoking pot. But to advocate for legalization publicly? No, that professional will suffer. I won't suffer in my profession because I already defend murderers, rapists and child molesters - supporting legalization is the least of my professional "sins."
Full disclosure: I don't smoke pot. I would smoke pot occasionally, if it were legal. But it isn't, so I don't and I won't. Why? Because I am a Deputy Public Defender, an officer of the court, and I don't want to get my house searched. I don't need the headlines. And I genuinely do my best to obey the law, however stupid it may be at times.
But I despise the ruins my country has made of itself over the ever-escalating drug war. I despise the corruption in the various police departments that the new prohibition has brought us. I despise the fact that the public schools, public schools that my children go to and will continue to go to, lack funds because my government has to feed the criminal justice beast, of which the drug war plays no small part. I got a letter a week ago that said that the school district can no longer afford to bus one of my children because of budget cuts. If given the choice, I would much rather not have ANYONE do time for marijuana-related "crimes," so that our state can afford to bus children who should be bused to school.
3) Police agencies and prison guards are, or soon will be, all over this one. They NEED marijuana offenses to be a crime. If decriminalization were to happen, within 2 years we would see the effects: nothing. That's right - nothing adverse will happen. People will smoke pot like they currently do, and the only guys who will see business cuts are the marijuana dealers, the various growers (the profit incentive will be greatly reduced, so it won't be as lucrative), the middle men, the police agencies who used to enforce the drug war laws, the prison guards who will have less peope to guard, etc. The various police, sheriffs, and the California Correctional Peace Officer's Association, will end up contributing heavily against this initiative.
Another reason they will attack it? God forbid it works, because then it will become a gateway of a different kind. A gateway to legalization of almost all drugs. Remember when the speed limit was 55 MPH throughout the country? That took forever to change, with several states essentially stating that they would abandon a portion of their highway funds by allowing cars within their state to speed. When the federal government considered changing the speed limit, police and highway patrol agencies from across the nation objected loudly, predicting that the sky would fall, and that there would be an avalanche of speed related deaths. When the law was finally changed, within two years the numbers were in: deaths didn't go up appreciably. People had been speeding already - now they were just doing so legally.
The same thing will happen with drug legalization. All that we have now is a new Prohibition, one where the drug companies, the police, and criminal dealers and producers (organized or otherwise) benefit. And taxpayers pay the tab.
But the initiative, unfortunately, will fail. Because no one who sounds coherent will stick their neck out to defend it. And that is sad.
Dennis R. Wilkins
The Guest PD Blogger
And it will fail at the ballot box. Here's why:
1) Marijuana legalization is soundly opposed by most old people. Old people vote religiously. California politics has been skewed by the opinions of older voters for decades. There is no reason for older people to want to legalize marijuana - they can get vicodin easily with their prescrption drug benefits. And alcohol is even more easily available at the corner store/local liquor barn. Oh, and one last thing - all old people know very well that only DFH's use marijuana. And anything that DFH's want, old people are opposed to.
2) There are no good spokespersons for legalizing marijuana. Take a look on the web and you will find that of the many, MANY opinions that are written in response to articles about marijuana legalization, the ones in favor are usually riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. What does this mean? They are "normal people." Not NORMAL, as in the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, but just ordinary, non-college-educated folk. Who want to smoke pot. Most rational people who have a degree of some kind won't say ANYTHING about marijuana legalization because they fear being branded as "one of them." You know - druggies. DFH's. Pot smokers. And as just about ANYONE will tell you, that is the kiss of death for just about any professional. Oh, an occasional professional person can admit that he/she smokes pot, and might even be caught with/smoking pot. But to advocate for legalization publicly? No, that professional will suffer. I won't suffer in my profession because I already defend murderers, rapists and child molesters - supporting legalization is the least of my professional "sins."
Full disclosure: I don't smoke pot. I would smoke pot occasionally, if it were legal. But it isn't, so I don't and I won't. Why? Because I am a Deputy Public Defender, an officer of the court, and I don't want to get my house searched. I don't need the headlines. And I genuinely do my best to obey the law, however stupid it may be at times.
But I despise the ruins my country has made of itself over the ever-escalating drug war. I despise the corruption in the various police departments that the new prohibition has brought us. I despise the fact that the public schools, public schools that my children go to and will continue to go to, lack funds because my government has to feed the criminal justice beast, of which the drug war plays no small part. I got a letter a week ago that said that the school district can no longer afford to bus one of my children because of budget cuts. If given the choice, I would much rather not have ANYONE do time for marijuana-related "crimes," so that our state can afford to bus children who should be bused to school.
3) Police agencies and prison guards are, or soon will be, all over this one. They NEED marijuana offenses to be a crime. If decriminalization were to happen, within 2 years we would see the effects: nothing. That's right - nothing adverse will happen. People will smoke pot like they currently do, and the only guys who will see business cuts are the marijuana dealers, the various growers (the profit incentive will be greatly reduced, so it won't be as lucrative), the middle men, the police agencies who used to enforce the drug war laws, the prison guards who will have less peope to guard, etc. The various police, sheriffs, and the California Correctional Peace Officer's Association, will end up contributing heavily against this initiative.
Another reason they will attack it? God forbid it works, because then it will become a gateway of a different kind. A gateway to legalization of almost all drugs. Remember when the speed limit was 55 MPH throughout the country? That took forever to change, with several states essentially stating that they would abandon a portion of their highway funds by allowing cars within their state to speed. When the federal government considered changing the speed limit, police and highway patrol agencies from across the nation objected loudly, predicting that the sky would fall, and that there would be an avalanche of speed related deaths. When the law was finally changed, within two years the numbers were in: deaths didn't go up appreciably. People had been speeding already - now they were just doing so legally.
The same thing will happen with drug legalization. All that we have now is a new Prohibition, one where the drug companies, the police, and criminal dealers and producers (organized or otherwise) benefit. And taxpayers pay the tab.
But the initiative, unfortunately, will fail. Because no one who sounds coherent will stick their neck out to defend it. And that is sad.
Dennis R. Wilkins
The Guest PD Blogger
Monday, May 24, 2010
Update on William Richards
I posted last year in "DNA Exoneration Close to Home." The defendant's name is William Richards. His case number is FVI00826. I have not been following the case closely. But after reading some of my posts, I realized that I wanted to know what had happened with this case. Well, I found out.
According to a news artical, and then confirmed by reading the court minutes, William Richards remains in jail. The San Bernardino DA is appealing Judge McCarville's decision, I gather on the grounds that he did not have jurisdiction. In other words, even if William Richards WAS wrongly convicted (the DA does NOT concede that he was), their claim is that a California Superior Court judge lacks the power under California law to grant him a new trial. I hope that they are wrong.
But in the meantime, William Richards remains in county jail. He was transported from prison and is now in county jail. He apparently has cancer, and he is receiving treatment for cancer while in jail. This is his second bout with cancer. It would be very sad indeed if he died either while awaiting a decision from the appellate court about whether Judge McCarville's actions were correct, or pending a retrial if it comes to that.
It is unfortunate that our system comes to this: If a man is convicted, he is forever presumed guilty, and he must move heaven and earth to get someone, anyone, to hear his plea that he has been wrongly convicted. But if a man is acquitted, he will forever be suspect as having committed the crime. The search for the truth that our system is often boasted as being all about, especially those in law enforcement and prosecution circles, is far more than not a search for punishment of those of whom are convicted.
But hey, we really are getting the kind of justice that we, as a society, have publicly demanded. Laws are rarely, if ever, seen as too punitive. Rarely, if ever, is there a cry from the citizens that laws have become too harsh (and they have, in my opinion, become far too harsh). There is far more often a cry that the laws are too soft; that judges are too "soft on crime"; that legislators are "coddling criminals." We have come to a time where we have just about bankrupted our state.
What have we spent this largesse on, you might ask? Was it that we built too many schools? Staffed too many libraries? Maintain too many parks? Run too many hospitals? No, not even close. I can't wait for all of the illegal alien haters to join in and tell me how "soft" and "stupid" I am (Some are such nice folk in person, but with the anonymity of the web, their words can become like acid), and claim that it's the illegal aliens who are bankrupting us. No. It's the prisons and jails that's doing us in.
Don't worry, though. This debate will keep on going. The new discussions of "outsourcing" our prisoners to other states, or even Mexico (I'm sure that will fly with the California taxpayers - we pay to build and staff prisons in Mexico while we go bankrupt here - sure thing, Arnie!) to come in line with the 9th Circuit's ruling on overcroding and medical care is actually good for our system. I mean, why should we pay for schools? Why should we pay for universities? After all, we have all those prisons to fill.
Just a few more years of this, and the electorate of California is gonna get mighty tired of paying a fortune to house and feed "criminals." We'll see if that becomes a clarion call for getting people the hell out of prison. We'll see.
Dennis Wilkins
The Guest PD Blogger
According to a news artical, and then confirmed by reading the court minutes, William Richards remains in jail. The San Bernardino DA is appealing Judge McCarville's decision, I gather on the grounds that he did not have jurisdiction. In other words, even if William Richards WAS wrongly convicted (the DA does NOT concede that he was), their claim is that a California Superior Court judge lacks the power under California law to grant him a new trial. I hope that they are wrong.
But in the meantime, William Richards remains in county jail. He was transported from prison and is now in county jail. He apparently has cancer, and he is receiving treatment for cancer while in jail. This is his second bout with cancer. It would be very sad indeed if he died either while awaiting a decision from the appellate court about whether Judge McCarville's actions were correct, or pending a retrial if it comes to that.
It is unfortunate that our system comes to this: If a man is convicted, he is forever presumed guilty, and he must move heaven and earth to get someone, anyone, to hear his plea that he has been wrongly convicted. But if a man is acquitted, he will forever be suspect as having committed the crime. The search for the truth that our system is often boasted as being all about, especially those in law enforcement and prosecution circles, is far more than not a search for punishment of those of whom are convicted.
But hey, we really are getting the kind of justice that we, as a society, have publicly demanded. Laws are rarely, if ever, seen as too punitive. Rarely, if ever, is there a cry from the citizens that laws have become too harsh (and they have, in my opinion, become far too harsh). There is far more often a cry that the laws are too soft; that judges are too "soft on crime"; that legislators are "coddling criminals." We have come to a time where we have just about bankrupted our state.
What have we spent this largesse on, you might ask? Was it that we built too many schools? Staffed too many libraries? Maintain too many parks? Run too many hospitals? No, not even close. I can't wait for all of the illegal alien haters to join in and tell me how "soft" and "stupid" I am (Some are such nice folk in person, but with the anonymity of the web, their words can become like acid), and claim that it's the illegal aliens who are bankrupting us. No. It's the prisons and jails that's doing us in.
Don't worry, though. This debate will keep on going. The new discussions of "outsourcing" our prisoners to other states, or even Mexico (I'm sure that will fly with the California taxpayers - we pay to build and staff prisons in Mexico while we go bankrupt here - sure thing, Arnie!) to come in line with the 9th Circuit's ruling on overcroding and medical care is actually good for our system. I mean, why should we pay for schools? Why should we pay for universities? After all, we have all those prisons to fill.
Just a few more years of this, and the electorate of California is gonna get mighty tired of paying a fortune to house and feed "criminals." We'll see if that becomes a clarion call for getting people the hell out of prison. We'll see.
Dennis Wilkins
The Guest PD Blogger
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Thinking about Kyles v. Whitley
I went to a California Public Defenders Association conference this weekend. It was the first one I had been to in a long, LONG time. It was in Palm Springs, and I had a really good time. It was their 41st annual convention. The speakers were good the first day, but the next day they were AWESOME. I was really impressed with Brian Waite, a deputy PD from Orange County. His presentation on opening statements and closing arguments was simply magical. This man had a gift.
But the first day's presentation by DPD Charles Denton, of Alameda County, I think, was an excellent hands-on presentation. It was great because he talked discovery, which is something that defense attorneys like myself never get enough good insight on. The more discovery we get, the more triable a case can become. The less discovery, the worse.
Charles Denton did something that there never seems to be enough of - he talked extensively about a particular case: Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). If you haven't read Kyles v. Whitley, read it. You should also read In re Brown (1998) 17 Cal.4th 873, where Justice Janice Rogers Brown, now on a federal appellate court somewhere, really applied the holding of Kyles v. Whitley. The key holding of Kyles v. Whitley is the fact that the DA heads something called the "prosecution team" which includes the police and other entities that, while the prosecution may not control, the prosecution is certainly responsible for. Per Kyles v. Whitley, the prosecutor must seek out exculpatory evidence that the "prosecution team" holds.
The backstory to Kyles v. Whitley is simply amazing. Long story short (if that is even possible now), Curtis Lee Kyles is charged with murdering a woman, and the key witness is a guy called "Beanie." The problem is that "Beanie" also has a motive for the murder, and his whereabouts and actions are very questionable. It is also kind of apparent that he very well could have planted every bit of evidence used against Kyles, with the exception of some lineups by witnesses that end up being coaxed by the cops to testify falsely.
The first trial, in 1984, hangs. In the 2nd trial, Kyles is convicted and gets death. It takes 11 years to get the U.S. Supreme Court, where a bare 5-4 majority reverses his conviction. Lots and lots of evidence was hidden by the police, and it trickles out over the decade since Kyles was convicted. The majority concludes, in a lengthy opinion, that the suppressed evidence, as a whole, would have made too much of a difference in the trial. A great case, everyone should read it.
After the presentation I talked to Charles Denton and shared some of the backstory about Curtis Lee Kyles, that I mangled a bit at the time. I will share it with you now. After the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Louisiana tried Kyles again, and there was a hung jury. They tried him again, and again there was a hung jury. One last trial, and it was again a hung jury. Thus, 5 trials in all, 3 of them after the death sentence was reversed. Louisiana finally tired of this, and dismissed the murder case against Kyles. He walked out of prison in 1998. He was on death row for 18 years. He was within 18 hours of being executed at one point. At every single trial, NEW discovery came out that the police had not disclosed. In other words, the police and DA hid evidence before every single one of 5 trials. The final analysis of the case is that it is pretty likely that Beanie was the actual killer, although law enforcement in Louisiana still think otherwise.
One final note. The dissent in Kyles v. Whitley was written by Justice Scalia, joined by (now deceased) Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Kennedy and Thomas. Here is a tiny snippet of what Justice Scalia wrote, which I find fascinating in how wrong he and his fellow dissenters got the case:
"In any analysis of this case, the desperate implausibility of the theory that petitioner put before the jury must be firmly kept in mind. . . . The Court concludes that it is reasonably probable the undisclosed witness interviews would have persuaded the jury of petitioner's implausible theory regarding the incriminating physical evidence. I think neither of those conclusions is remotely true, but even if they were the Court would still be guilty of a fallacy in declaring victory on each implausibility in turn, and thus victory on the whole, without considering the infinitesmal probability of the jury's swallowing the entire concoction of implausibility squared."
Hmmm. In other words, there is NO WAY that this guy culd ever win, so why are we reversing his conviction? Oops.
Dennis R. Wilkins
Guest PD Blogger
But the first day's presentation by DPD Charles Denton, of Alameda County, I think, was an excellent hands-on presentation. It was great because he talked discovery, which is something that defense attorneys like myself never get enough good insight on. The more discovery we get, the more triable a case can become. The less discovery, the worse.
Charles Denton did something that there never seems to be enough of - he talked extensively about a particular case: Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). If you haven't read Kyles v. Whitley, read it. You should also read In re Brown (1998) 17 Cal.4th 873, where Justice Janice Rogers Brown, now on a federal appellate court somewhere, really applied the holding of Kyles v. Whitley. The key holding of Kyles v. Whitley is the fact that the DA heads something called the "prosecution team" which includes the police and other entities that, while the prosecution may not control, the prosecution is certainly responsible for. Per Kyles v. Whitley, the prosecutor must seek out exculpatory evidence that the "prosecution team" holds.
The backstory to Kyles v. Whitley is simply amazing. Long story short (if that is even possible now), Curtis Lee Kyles is charged with murdering a woman, and the key witness is a guy called "Beanie." The problem is that "Beanie" also has a motive for the murder, and his whereabouts and actions are very questionable. It is also kind of apparent that he very well could have planted every bit of evidence used against Kyles, with the exception of some lineups by witnesses that end up being coaxed by the cops to testify falsely.
The first trial, in 1984, hangs. In the 2nd trial, Kyles is convicted and gets death. It takes 11 years to get the U.S. Supreme Court, where a bare 5-4 majority reverses his conviction. Lots and lots of evidence was hidden by the police, and it trickles out over the decade since Kyles was convicted. The majority concludes, in a lengthy opinion, that the suppressed evidence, as a whole, would have made too much of a difference in the trial. A great case, everyone should read it.
After the presentation I talked to Charles Denton and shared some of the backstory about Curtis Lee Kyles, that I mangled a bit at the time. I will share it with you now. After the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Louisiana tried Kyles again, and there was a hung jury. They tried him again, and again there was a hung jury. One last trial, and it was again a hung jury. Thus, 5 trials in all, 3 of them after the death sentence was reversed. Louisiana finally tired of this, and dismissed the murder case against Kyles. He walked out of prison in 1998. He was on death row for 18 years. He was within 18 hours of being executed at one point. At every single trial, NEW discovery came out that the police had not disclosed. In other words, the police and DA hid evidence before every single one of 5 trials. The final analysis of the case is that it is pretty likely that Beanie was the actual killer, although law enforcement in Louisiana still think otherwise.
One final note. The dissent in Kyles v. Whitley was written by Justice Scalia, joined by (now deceased) Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Kennedy and Thomas. Here is a tiny snippet of what Justice Scalia wrote, which I find fascinating in how wrong he and his fellow dissenters got the case:
"In any analysis of this case, the desperate implausibility of the theory that petitioner put before the jury must be firmly kept in mind. . . . The Court concludes that it is reasonably probable the undisclosed witness interviews would have persuaded the jury of petitioner's implausible theory regarding the incriminating physical evidence. I think neither of those conclusions is remotely true, but even if they were the Court would still be guilty of a fallacy in declaring victory on each implausibility in turn, and thus victory on the whole, without considering the infinitesmal probability of the jury's swallowing the entire concoction of implausibility squared."
Hmmm. In other words, there is NO WAY that this guy culd ever win, so why are we reversing his conviction? Oops.
Dennis R. Wilkins
Guest PD Blogger
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A DNA Exoneration close to home.
An amazing thing happened in my courthouse yesterday: http://blogs.cwsl.edu/news/2009/08/10/california-innocence-project-obtains-reversal-of-12-year-old-murder-conviction/ Here is the text:
"Today, 16 years to the day after the murder of Pamela Richards, San Bernardino County Judge Brian McCarville granted the California Innocence Project’s request to reverse the murder conviction of her husband William Richards. Finding that new evidence points “unerringly to innocence,” Richards’s 1997 conviction of murdering his wife in their Hesperia, Calif., home was thrown out. Richards was convicted for the 1993 murder after two trials ended in hung juries.
The reversal marks the successful conclusion to an eight year-long process. In 2001, Richards contacted the California Innocence Project at California Western School of Law, a non-profit clinical program in which law professors, lawyers, and law students work to free wrongfully convicted prisoners in California. He maintained his innocence in the murder and sought the Project’s help in requesting a reversal of his conviction.
The California Innocence Project obtained new DNA testing on the murder weapon. Test results revealed that an unidentified male held the murder weapon and struggled with the victim. DNA testing on hair from under the victim’s fingernails also pointed to another person other than Richards. This evidence countered the prosecution’s claim that no one other than Richards or his wife were at their home on the night of the murder.
During the Richards trial, evidence was presented indicating that a “bite mark” on the victim’s hand could have only come from Richards or two percent of the population. However, the testimony provided by the bite mark expert was based on incomplete information and poor photos. Experts obtained by the Project were able to correct the distortion in the photographs and testify that Richards could not have been the person responsible for the “bite mark.”
The California Innocence Project also argued that fiber evidence may have been falsified by someone employed by the County. The prosecution claimed that a tuft of 15 light-blue fibers were found in a tear in the victim’s fingernail. According to the prosecution, the fibers matched those of the shirt Richards was wearing the night of the murder. However, members of the California Innocence Project discovered that photos taken just after the victim’s autopsy clearly showed no such fibers in the fingernail. After the autopsy, the victim’s fingers were severed and sent to a county criminalist for review. Sometime after that, the fibers appeared.
“We have been working on this case almost as long as the California Innocence Project has been in existence,” said Justin Brooks, Professor at California Western and Director of the California Innocence Project. “To say that I’m ecstatic with today’s decision is an understatement. William Richards has been living a nightmare for 16 years. First he had to deal with the murder of his wife and then he had to face his wrongful conviction and incarceration for the crime. What could be worse?”
Jan Stigltiz, Professor at California Western and Co-Director of the California Innocence Project argued successfully in his closing that the case was purely circumstantial.
“Other than the fact that Richards came home and found his wife, there was no evidence linking him to the crime. These cases are hard to win,” said Stiglitz. “But if you get a judge like McCarville who is willing to take a fresh look at the evidence, then wrongful convictions can be corrected.”
Founded in 1999, the California Innocence Project is a law school clinical program dedicated to the release of wrongfully convicted inmates and providing an outstanding educational experience for students enrolled in the clinic. The California Innocence Project reviews more than a 1,000 claims from inmates each year and has earned the exoneration of eight wrongfully convicted clients since its inception."
I have only a few notes. First, good job Judge McCarville. It takes courage to make the right ruling, and he clearly made it. Second, how, EXACTLY, did the photos showing that the fiber evidence was fraudulent get found, and why weren't they produced before trial? The key piece of evidence that likely lead the jury to convict was the fiber on the victim's broken fingernail, that was likely from D's shirt. That sounds big to me. There are photos of the V's fingers, cut off after the autopsy, that show the fibers in the broken nail. Pretty damning. But, behold, apparently sometime after the trial the autopsy photos show up, and the autopsy photos show the fingers before they were removed from the body, and there are no fibers in the broken fingernail. In other words, the fiber was not present at the autopsy, but was there AFTER the fingers were cut off and sent to the crime lab. How were those autopsy photos not produced before the trial? Third, How was the DNA missed? Was this a case where the DNA wasn't as reliable as it is now? Was it too expensive?
Finally, how many times will this have to happen for everyone else to realize that our criminal justice system is badly broken? How many guys are out there who didn't get their case before a decent judge? Who didn't have DNA evidence to "prove" that they were wrongly convicted? William Richards is lucky that the California Innocence project exists, that they took an interest in his case, and that they worked their asses off for him. Too many times, I am certain, the wrong guy gets convicted because everyone is in a foul mood about the crime, the defense attorney is not on the ball or is overworked, the DA is focused solely on convicting the guy rather than doing what is right, the police are too interested in closing their books to investiagte properly, and the judge is too focused on making sure the DA gets a fair trial, rather than the D. The juries are made up of ordinary, but usually conservative, people who want to do "justice," rather than follow the law. Reasonable doubt gets forgotten in the shuffle. In other words, the entire system evades accountability because no one is actually accountable. And even if the right guy does get convicted, when corners are cut, we lose any sense of certainty that we are, in fact, being just in punishing this person. That isn't right.
I know that our system is not perfect. But we should not have such drastic sentences, and certainly should not have the death penalty, when there is so much uncertainty and unfairness in our system. I wouldn't want to treat those accused of crime any worse than I would expect to be treated if I were accused. William Richards got screwed, and it is our fault.
What are we going to do about it?
Dennis R. Wilkins
The Guest Blogger
"Today, 16 years to the day after the murder of Pamela Richards, San Bernardino County Judge Brian McCarville granted the California Innocence Project’s request to reverse the murder conviction of her husband William Richards. Finding that new evidence points “unerringly to innocence,” Richards’s 1997 conviction of murdering his wife in their Hesperia, Calif., home was thrown out. Richards was convicted for the 1993 murder after two trials ended in hung juries.
The reversal marks the successful conclusion to an eight year-long process. In 2001, Richards contacted the California Innocence Project at California Western School of Law, a non-profit clinical program in which law professors, lawyers, and law students work to free wrongfully convicted prisoners in California. He maintained his innocence in the murder and sought the Project’s help in requesting a reversal of his conviction.
The California Innocence Project obtained new DNA testing on the murder weapon. Test results revealed that an unidentified male held the murder weapon and struggled with the victim. DNA testing on hair from under the victim’s fingernails also pointed to another person other than Richards. This evidence countered the prosecution’s claim that no one other than Richards or his wife were at their home on the night of the murder.
During the Richards trial, evidence was presented indicating that a “bite mark” on the victim’s hand could have only come from Richards or two percent of the population. However, the testimony provided by the bite mark expert was based on incomplete information and poor photos. Experts obtained by the Project were able to correct the distortion in the photographs and testify that Richards could not have been the person responsible for the “bite mark.”
The California Innocence Project also argued that fiber evidence may have been falsified by someone employed by the County. The prosecution claimed that a tuft of 15 light-blue fibers were found in a tear in the victim’s fingernail. According to the prosecution, the fibers matched those of the shirt Richards was wearing the night of the murder. However, members of the California Innocence Project discovered that photos taken just after the victim’s autopsy clearly showed no such fibers in the fingernail. After the autopsy, the victim’s fingers were severed and sent to a county criminalist for review. Sometime after that, the fibers appeared.
“We have been working on this case almost as long as the California Innocence Project has been in existence,” said Justin Brooks, Professor at California Western and Director of the California Innocence Project. “To say that I’m ecstatic with today’s decision is an understatement. William Richards has been living a nightmare for 16 years. First he had to deal with the murder of his wife and then he had to face his wrongful conviction and incarceration for the crime. What could be worse?”
Jan Stigltiz, Professor at California Western and Co-Director of the California Innocence Project argued successfully in his closing that the case was purely circumstantial.
“Other than the fact that Richards came home and found his wife, there was no evidence linking him to the crime. These cases are hard to win,” said Stiglitz. “But if you get a judge like McCarville who is willing to take a fresh look at the evidence, then wrongful convictions can be corrected.”
Founded in 1999, the California Innocence Project is a law school clinical program dedicated to the release of wrongfully convicted inmates and providing an outstanding educational experience for students enrolled in the clinic. The California Innocence Project reviews more than a 1,000 claims from inmates each year and has earned the exoneration of eight wrongfully convicted clients since its inception."
I have only a few notes. First, good job Judge McCarville. It takes courage to make the right ruling, and he clearly made it. Second, how, EXACTLY, did the photos showing that the fiber evidence was fraudulent get found, and why weren't they produced before trial? The key piece of evidence that likely lead the jury to convict was the fiber on the victim's broken fingernail, that was likely from D's shirt. That sounds big to me. There are photos of the V's fingers, cut off after the autopsy, that show the fibers in the broken nail. Pretty damning. But, behold, apparently sometime after the trial the autopsy photos show up, and the autopsy photos show the fingers before they were removed from the body, and there are no fibers in the broken fingernail. In other words, the fiber was not present at the autopsy, but was there AFTER the fingers were cut off and sent to the crime lab. How were those autopsy photos not produced before the trial? Third, How was the DNA missed? Was this a case where the DNA wasn't as reliable as it is now? Was it too expensive?
Finally, how many times will this have to happen for everyone else to realize that our criminal justice system is badly broken? How many guys are out there who didn't get their case before a decent judge? Who didn't have DNA evidence to "prove" that they were wrongly convicted? William Richards is lucky that the California Innocence project exists, that they took an interest in his case, and that they worked their asses off for him. Too many times, I am certain, the wrong guy gets convicted because everyone is in a foul mood about the crime, the defense attorney is not on the ball or is overworked, the DA is focused solely on convicting the guy rather than doing what is right, the police are too interested in closing their books to investiagte properly, and the judge is too focused on making sure the DA gets a fair trial, rather than the D. The juries are made up of ordinary, but usually conservative, people who want to do "justice," rather than follow the law. Reasonable doubt gets forgotten in the shuffle. In other words, the entire system evades accountability because no one is actually accountable. And even if the right guy does get convicted, when corners are cut, we lose any sense of certainty that we are, in fact, being just in punishing this person. That isn't right.
I know that our system is not perfect. But we should not have such drastic sentences, and certainly should not have the death penalty, when there is so much uncertainty and unfairness in our system. I wouldn't want to treat those accused of crime any worse than I would expect to be treated if I were accused. William Richards got screwed, and it is our fault.
What are we going to do about it?
Dennis R. Wilkins
The Guest Blogger
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Wow, what a long time
I have been very busy with life, so I haven't posted in 6 months. I see that PDDude hasn't posted either.
I am very burned out with being a deputy public defender. I used to enjoy the job, but now I don't. Suffice to say that I am an employee, and an employee who has been taught to fear for his job. Very sad that it has come to this.
There was a time when I didn't care. But now I have kids to support. A mortgage to pay. I have to conform to what the bosses want. I have come to realize that I must do exactly what they say, or I will be fired. It isn't about protecting my clients. It is about satisfying my bosses.
I believe that this country, and the State of California, are at a very crucial stage. Our legal system is melting down. The current budget crisis is goign to get worse and worse because it is the natural result of a defective system. We require an informed and motivated citizenry to make our democracy work. But we are overwhelmed on the one hand with ill-informed older people who "think" they understand what is going on, but really don't, and a swelling population of illegal aliens who have no say in the system. The poor are rapidly forgetting that that they have the power to vote, the illegals have no power to vote, and the old white guys who still have sway want something that is impossible to get - a rollback to the 1950s. we have a system that is beset with gridlock and preyed upon by those wealthy interests, such as banking and insurance industries, and the prison-industrial system, who can control our state government with a pittance of corrupt dollars. The disconnect is amazing.
Okay, enough whining, I guess. I still hate those old-style liberals who would constantly moan about things but would never actually try solve them. How about some predictions:
Predictions #1: The budget crisis will get worse. The only way to save our system is to honestly re-think how we do just about everything in Calfornia. Too long we have allowed ourselves to think "the little things don't matter." They do. WE CANNOT AFFORD THREE STRIKES - IT IS KILLING US. I was against Three Strikes before it was popular to be against it. I have railed against Three Strikes for moral reasons and for fairness reasons. Now we are actually closing schools to feed the beast. It's time to re-think crimes, sentencing, prisons, jails, mental health as it relates to crimes, the works. We cannot afford the system that we have, and destroying our future to keep people locked up is madness.
Prediction #2: The feds will not be able to get california to release inmates. In a way, it is a blessing. The anti-federal government attitude is going to harden the already bankrupt Republican Party in california, further alienating them from normal people. The 9th Circuit just ordered the release of 45,000 prisoners within 2 years. Count on the state to appeal, and the U.S. Supremes to REVERSE. It will be 5-4, but it will be reversed. And this is a good thing. Because then the State will be forced to solve this crisis.
Funny thing about crises - they often make the impossible possible. At some level too many people are actually worrying about services in California. Like Schools. Or libraries. Or electricity. Or garbage collection. Or health care. The costs of these things are set to spiral out of control in the next few years. We will have to fix these things. And in doing so, I think that it will make us stronger as a State.
Dennis R. Wilkins
The Guest Blogger
I am very burned out with being a deputy public defender. I used to enjoy the job, but now I don't. Suffice to say that I am an employee, and an employee who has been taught to fear for his job. Very sad that it has come to this.
There was a time when I didn't care. But now I have kids to support. A mortgage to pay. I have to conform to what the bosses want. I have come to realize that I must do exactly what they say, or I will be fired. It isn't about protecting my clients. It is about satisfying my bosses.
I believe that this country, and the State of California, are at a very crucial stage. Our legal system is melting down. The current budget crisis is goign to get worse and worse because it is the natural result of a defective system. We require an informed and motivated citizenry to make our democracy work. But we are overwhelmed on the one hand with ill-informed older people who "think" they understand what is going on, but really don't, and a swelling population of illegal aliens who have no say in the system. The poor are rapidly forgetting that that they have the power to vote, the illegals have no power to vote, and the old white guys who still have sway want something that is impossible to get - a rollback to the 1950s. we have a system that is beset with gridlock and preyed upon by those wealthy interests, such as banking and insurance industries, and the prison-industrial system, who can control our state government with a pittance of corrupt dollars. The disconnect is amazing.
Okay, enough whining, I guess. I still hate those old-style liberals who would constantly moan about things but would never actually try solve them. How about some predictions:
Predictions #1: The budget crisis will get worse. The only way to save our system is to honestly re-think how we do just about everything in Calfornia. Too long we have allowed ourselves to think "the little things don't matter." They do. WE CANNOT AFFORD THREE STRIKES - IT IS KILLING US. I was against Three Strikes before it was popular to be against it. I have railed against Three Strikes for moral reasons and for fairness reasons. Now we are actually closing schools to feed the beast. It's time to re-think crimes, sentencing, prisons, jails, mental health as it relates to crimes, the works. We cannot afford the system that we have, and destroying our future to keep people locked up is madness.
Prediction #2: The feds will not be able to get california to release inmates. In a way, it is a blessing. The anti-federal government attitude is going to harden the already bankrupt Republican Party in california, further alienating them from normal people. The 9th Circuit just ordered the release of 45,000 prisoners within 2 years. Count on the state to appeal, and the U.S. Supremes to REVERSE. It will be 5-4, but it will be reversed. And this is a good thing. Because then the State will be forced to solve this crisis.
Funny thing about crises - they often make the impossible possible. At some level too many people are actually worrying about services in California. Like Schools. Or libraries. Or electricity. Or garbage collection. Or health care. The costs of these things are set to spiral out of control in the next few years. We will have to fix these things. And in doing so, I think that it will make us stronger as a State.
Dennis R. Wilkins
The Guest Blogger
Friday, January 02, 2009
The Meltdown Continues
Two articles sum up what's going on with the prison crisis in California. The prison crisis is best understood when we juxtapose our ridiculous sentencing policies, such as 3 Strikes, with our ongoing unreality of finances in California. They are both part and parcel of denial of reality by those who really run this state - the People of the State of California.
First the budget crisis. From "California Progress Report," an online publication about California politics and issues:
"Schrag: A Series of Bad Decisions Have Compounded Current Crisis
By Peter Schrag
This is usually the time for looking ahead, making resolutions, wishing for greater things. But in California we've locked ourselves into a mind-set and governmental processes that look like nothing so much as deliberate attempts to avoid thinking about the future, much less dealing with it.
Through term limits, we've created a Legislature that has neither an institutional memory nor members who can expect to be rewarded for long-term success, and thus, with rare exceptions, lack any motivation for leadership or inclination to sacrifice and compromise in the present.
We have refused to change a supermajority requirement, one of the few such absurdities in America, which allows any minority to veto any budget or tax increase. If five Republicans – three in the Assembly and two in the Senate – had been willing to negotiate such a compromise, the state would have had a budget long ago.
Their loyalty to an ideology trumps all others. This is the ideology of Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform: Starve the beast. It is that ideology as much as any that has put the country into the fiscal and regulatory mess it's in now.
We have tied ourselves into knots with a combination of governmental decisions and waves of voter initiatives whose most common characteristic, whether liberal or conservative, is short-sightedness. Among others:
• Unfunded multibillion-dollar bond issues for stem cell research, high-speed rail, children's hospitals and for paying off past debts. With interest, the long-term cost of each will be double the advertised price.
• A $6 billion annual "spending increase" to replace local government funding lost through an impulsive cut in the car tax.
• Autopilot sentencing laws hastily passed in the wake of one heinous crime that continue to cost billions in prison expenses.
• An inflexible class-size reduction program pushed through without study or serious debate by a petulant governor wishing to punish the teachers unions. It costs $2 billion a year.
• An unfunded initiative extending pre- and after-school programs that costs close to $500 million a year.
• Corporate tax loopholes written into the tax code in flush times that easily matched the increased spending on education and other programs that were enacted in the same years.
• And the grandfather of them all: the convoluted, accountability-defying, state-local tax and revenue system spawned thirty years ago by the passage of Proposition 13 and the long string of state measures to bail out the locals that have been enacted in the years since.
Those bailouts inadvertently taught all the wrong lessons: that you can have your local property tax limitations and good services, too; that the way to solve any major problem was through the initiative, not through electoral politics; that the legislature and governor who bailed you out were irrelevant and often worse; that the citizen's first concern was not community but what he could get from it.
Those ballot measures were almost always designed not to be respectful of political minorities – their very essence was to get a 51 percent majority – or to serve the state's long-term interests.
They were usually drawn by deep-pockets groups, and advertised to address an issue of the moment. As new problems arise, the remedy is a fix for problems present, rarely for problems yet to come.
It's long been a truism that we're living on the investments and foresight of the past: our once-pioneering highway systems, now in terrible disrepair; the state's unmatched public universities, now increasingly struggling against the effects of declining public support; the statesmanship that created a great water system by linking the need for water supplies in the south to flood control in the north.
Like much of the rest of the state's infrastructure, that too is now superannuated, the victim of chronic neglect. The miracle of the infrastructure – and the tribute to its farsighted creators – is that it served the state so well for so long.
It helped drive the great California boom of the postwar decades – attracted the talented, ambitious men and women who made California the great center of technology and creativity it became. They didn't come for low taxes, but for good schools, outstanding research universities, parks, recreation and transportation.
California historian Kevin Starr asks where the great leaders of California's future will come from. Where are the Pat Browns, the Clark Kerrs, the Earl Warrens, the Goodwin Knights, the Phil Burtons? Where are visionaries like the philosopher Josiah Royce, born in 1855 in Grass Valley, who believed that Californians would always understand that their interests lay in community, not self-aggrandizement?
What they shared was a vision of the future, a fundamental optimism about this place. It's that kind of hope and optimism, and that kind of people that, at this time of year especially, are so much worth wishing for.
Peter Schrag is the former editorial page editor of the Sacramento Bee. This article is published with his permission. Posted on December 30, 2008." Here is the website where I got this from:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/12/schrag_a_series.html
Juxtapose this with the prison crisis. From an online article by New American Media.
"Prison Overcrowding Crisis Unhealthy for All Californians
New America Media, Commentary, Donna Willmott, Posted: Dec 04, 2008
Editor's Note: California prisons have become the largest mental health system for the poor, the largest battered women's shelter, and the largest system of public housing, observes NAM contributing writer, Donna Willmott, M.P.H. Willmott is the Family Advocacy Coordinator at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and teaches in the Health Education and Community Health Studies Department of City College of San Francisco.
As a public health professional who has spent over 10 years advocating for prisoners' rights, I am dismayed to see the health of prisoners once again become a political football.More than two years ago, the federal courts acknowledged what every prisoner in California already knew – that there has been an "unconscionable degree of suffering and death" in our prisons. With all due respect to those who are working under the federal receivership to reform prison medical care, most of the systemic issues that underlie substandard care have, in our clients' experience, remained essentially unchanged. While the Receivership has succeeded in hiring a new cadre of qualified medical providers, the fact remains that progress has been painfully slow for the 178,000 prisoners trapped in this system, and many will continue to suffer needlessly in the meantime.
Overcrowding is at the root of this paralysis. The Receivership proposes to build 10,000 new medical and mental health beds, at a construction cost to taxpayers of over $7 billion dollars. Even if this project had the support of the legislature and received the required money, the crisis would not be solved. It's not possible to build and maintain these facilities, then recruit and retain sufficient numbers of well-trained staff for this constantly expanding enterprise without bankrupting the state. Without shrinking the prison system, it will be impossible to provide the required constitutional level of medical care to prisoners.
Decades of failed public policy frame this crisis. Years of a tough-on-crime approach have spelled disaster for the health and well-being of poor people and people of color who are incarcerated at dramatically disproportionate rates. We have tried to use prisons as an answer to social problems, with devastating results. Our prisons have become the largest mental health system for the poor, the largest battered women's shelter, and the largest system of public housing. The social cost of decimating our already frayed safety net in order to expand prisons is beyond calculation. We sacrifice precious community resources to maintain a prison system that creates instability, ill health and disease, while failing to keep us safe.
Perhaps taking a page from history will help us envision a new solution to this crisis. Over 150 years ago, Rudolf Virchow, the founder of "social medicine," was sent by the German government to report on the causes of a devastating 1848 typhus epidemic. Instead of recommending the simple solution of more doctors and more hospitals to avoid catastrophic loss of life in the future, Virchow called for full employment, universal education, and agricultural cooperatives as the path to preventing future epidemics. He analyzed the root causes of the epidemic, and called for a fundamental reconstruction of society to create conditions in which people could be healthy.
If Virchow were with us today, it's likely that he would be horrified by the idea of building 10,000 beds for prisoners who are extremely frail or mentally ill, people whose incarceration couldn't possibly serve public safety. He would no doubt want us to put our resources into sentencing reform, releasing low-risk prisoners, redirecting our state budget towards universal healthcare, quality public education, training and employment opportunities, and expanding drug treatment. In short, we should be ensuring the conditions in which people can be healthy as the basis for safe communities.
If Californians continue to pour billions into massive incarceration, it will mean more pink slips to school teachers, more children turned away from their doctors, more seniors denied in-home aid, more families forced into poverty and homelessness. What will it take to bring health care to California prisoners? It'll take a new way of looking at crime and punishment, a fundamental shift in our priorities and a commitment to social equity as the foundation for public safety. Bricks and mortar can't solve this one." Here is the website where I got this from:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=052dc71bc4ce373b68987e05bdcea735
Put these two together and we have a very clear picture of where we are and where we are going: nowhere fast. Our economy is melting down, and we cannot afford to pay for the basics. Our infrastructure has fizzled. And Three Strikes, as well as the bloated, horrifyingly bad and ridiculously expensive prison system in California is still a major cost in all of this. But no one, NO ONE is openly talking about sentencing reform.
Why? Why?
I believe it is because so many people have been such a huge, whopping lie about our cruel, unfair, and unrealistic sentencing policies, and their social costs, that standard reform is now impossible. The system will have to melt down, complete with a massive reduction in social services statewide, coupled with prison riots, for a full sentencing reform commission to be called into action. And even then change will be too slow.
No, folks, I'm afraid that we have to lose a LOT more money in California before we ever agree to actually fix this system. But it will happen. Sooner than you think.
Dennis Wilkins
The Guest PD Blogger
First the budget crisis. From "California Progress Report," an online publication about California politics and issues:
"Schrag: A Series of Bad Decisions Have Compounded Current Crisis
By Peter Schrag
This is usually the time for looking ahead, making resolutions, wishing for greater things. But in California we've locked ourselves into a mind-set and governmental processes that look like nothing so much as deliberate attempts to avoid thinking about the future, much less dealing with it.
Through term limits, we've created a Legislature that has neither an institutional memory nor members who can expect to be rewarded for long-term success, and thus, with rare exceptions, lack any motivation for leadership or inclination to sacrifice and compromise in the present.
We have refused to change a supermajority requirement, one of the few such absurdities in America, which allows any minority to veto any budget or tax increase. If five Republicans – three in the Assembly and two in the Senate – had been willing to negotiate such a compromise, the state would have had a budget long ago.
Their loyalty to an ideology trumps all others. This is the ideology of Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform: Starve the beast. It is that ideology as much as any that has put the country into the fiscal and regulatory mess it's in now.
We have tied ourselves into knots with a combination of governmental decisions and waves of voter initiatives whose most common characteristic, whether liberal or conservative, is short-sightedness. Among others:
• Unfunded multibillion-dollar bond issues for stem cell research, high-speed rail, children's hospitals and for paying off past debts. With interest, the long-term cost of each will be double the advertised price.
• A $6 billion annual "spending increase" to replace local government funding lost through an impulsive cut in the car tax.
• Autopilot sentencing laws hastily passed in the wake of one heinous crime that continue to cost billions in prison expenses.
• An inflexible class-size reduction program pushed through without study or serious debate by a petulant governor wishing to punish the teachers unions. It costs $2 billion a year.
• An unfunded initiative extending pre- and after-school programs that costs close to $500 million a year.
• Corporate tax loopholes written into the tax code in flush times that easily matched the increased spending on education and other programs that were enacted in the same years.
• And the grandfather of them all: the convoluted, accountability-defying, state-local tax and revenue system spawned thirty years ago by the passage of Proposition 13 and the long string of state measures to bail out the locals that have been enacted in the years since.
Those bailouts inadvertently taught all the wrong lessons: that you can have your local property tax limitations and good services, too; that the way to solve any major problem was through the initiative, not through electoral politics; that the legislature and governor who bailed you out were irrelevant and often worse; that the citizen's first concern was not community but what he could get from it.
Those ballot measures were almost always designed not to be respectful of political minorities – their very essence was to get a 51 percent majority – or to serve the state's long-term interests.
They were usually drawn by deep-pockets groups, and advertised to address an issue of the moment. As new problems arise, the remedy is a fix for problems present, rarely for problems yet to come.
It's long been a truism that we're living on the investments and foresight of the past: our once-pioneering highway systems, now in terrible disrepair; the state's unmatched public universities, now increasingly struggling against the effects of declining public support; the statesmanship that created a great water system by linking the need for water supplies in the south to flood control in the north.
Like much of the rest of the state's infrastructure, that too is now superannuated, the victim of chronic neglect. The miracle of the infrastructure – and the tribute to its farsighted creators – is that it served the state so well for so long.
It helped drive the great California boom of the postwar decades – attracted the talented, ambitious men and women who made California the great center of technology and creativity it became. They didn't come for low taxes, but for good schools, outstanding research universities, parks, recreation and transportation.
California historian Kevin Starr asks where the great leaders of California's future will come from. Where are the Pat Browns, the Clark Kerrs, the Earl Warrens, the Goodwin Knights, the Phil Burtons? Where are visionaries like the philosopher Josiah Royce, born in 1855 in Grass Valley, who believed that Californians would always understand that their interests lay in community, not self-aggrandizement?
What they shared was a vision of the future, a fundamental optimism about this place. It's that kind of hope and optimism, and that kind of people that, at this time of year especially, are so much worth wishing for.
Peter Schrag is the former editorial page editor of the Sacramento Bee. This article is published with his permission. Posted on December 30, 2008." Here is the website where I got this from:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/12/schrag_a_series.html
Juxtapose this with the prison crisis. From an online article by New American Media.
"Prison Overcrowding Crisis Unhealthy for All Californians
New America Media, Commentary, Donna Willmott, Posted: Dec 04, 2008
Editor's Note: California prisons have become the largest mental health system for the poor, the largest battered women's shelter, and the largest system of public housing, observes NAM contributing writer, Donna Willmott, M.P.H. Willmott is the Family Advocacy Coordinator at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and teaches in the Health Education and Community Health Studies Department of City College of San Francisco.
As a public health professional who has spent over 10 years advocating for prisoners' rights, I am dismayed to see the health of prisoners once again become a political football.More than two years ago, the federal courts acknowledged what every prisoner in California already knew – that there has been an "unconscionable degree of suffering and death" in our prisons. With all due respect to those who are working under the federal receivership to reform prison medical care, most of the systemic issues that underlie substandard care have, in our clients' experience, remained essentially unchanged. While the Receivership has succeeded in hiring a new cadre of qualified medical providers, the fact remains that progress has been painfully slow for the 178,000 prisoners trapped in this system, and many will continue to suffer needlessly in the meantime.
Overcrowding is at the root of this paralysis. The Receivership proposes to build 10,000 new medical and mental health beds, at a construction cost to taxpayers of over $7 billion dollars. Even if this project had the support of the legislature and received the required money, the crisis would not be solved. It's not possible to build and maintain these facilities, then recruit and retain sufficient numbers of well-trained staff for this constantly expanding enterprise without bankrupting the state. Without shrinking the prison system, it will be impossible to provide the required constitutional level of medical care to prisoners.
Decades of failed public policy frame this crisis. Years of a tough-on-crime approach have spelled disaster for the health and well-being of poor people and people of color who are incarcerated at dramatically disproportionate rates. We have tried to use prisons as an answer to social problems, with devastating results. Our prisons have become the largest mental health system for the poor, the largest battered women's shelter, and the largest system of public housing. The social cost of decimating our already frayed safety net in order to expand prisons is beyond calculation. We sacrifice precious community resources to maintain a prison system that creates instability, ill health and disease, while failing to keep us safe.
Perhaps taking a page from history will help us envision a new solution to this crisis. Over 150 years ago, Rudolf Virchow, the founder of "social medicine," was sent by the German government to report on the causes of a devastating 1848 typhus epidemic. Instead of recommending the simple solution of more doctors and more hospitals to avoid catastrophic loss of life in the future, Virchow called for full employment, universal education, and agricultural cooperatives as the path to preventing future epidemics. He analyzed the root causes of the epidemic, and called for a fundamental reconstruction of society to create conditions in which people could be healthy.
If Virchow were with us today, it's likely that he would be horrified by the idea of building 10,000 beds for prisoners who are extremely frail or mentally ill, people whose incarceration couldn't possibly serve public safety. He would no doubt want us to put our resources into sentencing reform, releasing low-risk prisoners, redirecting our state budget towards universal healthcare, quality public education, training and employment opportunities, and expanding drug treatment. In short, we should be ensuring the conditions in which people can be healthy as the basis for safe communities.
If Californians continue to pour billions into massive incarceration, it will mean more pink slips to school teachers, more children turned away from their doctors, more seniors denied in-home aid, more families forced into poverty and homelessness. What will it take to bring health care to California prisoners? It'll take a new way of looking at crime and punishment, a fundamental shift in our priorities and a commitment to social equity as the foundation for public safety. Bricks and mortar can't solve this one." Here is the website where I got this from:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=052dc71bc4ce373b68987e05bdcea735
Put these two together and we have a very clear picture of where we are and where we are going: nowhere fast. Our economy is melting down, and we cannot afford to pay for the basics. Our infrastructure has fizzled. And Three Strikes, as well as the bloated, horrifyingly bad and ridiculously expensive prison system in California is still a major cost in all of this. But no one, NO ONE is openly talking about sentencing reform.
Why? Why?
I believe it is because so many people have been such a huge, whopping lie about our cruel, unfair, and unrealistic sentencing policies, and their social costs, that standard reform is now impossible. The system will have to melt down, complete with a massive reduction in social services statewide, coupled with prison riots, for a full sentencing reform commission to be called into action. And even then change will be too slow.
No, folks, I'm afraid that we have to lose a LOT more money in California before we ever agree to actually fix this system. But it will happen. Sooner than you think.
Dennis Wilkins
The Guest PD Blogger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)