If the DNA evidence shows that they are innocent, why not let them free?
Friday, August 19, 2011
'West Memphis 3' May Be Freed in Plea Deal - WSJ.com
This appears to be a bizzare situation --'West Memphis 3' May Be Freed in Plea Deal - WSJ.com
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Immigration Processing at LAX
Tourism is big business, travel is a huge business, and these combined businesses employ a lot of people and bring in tremendous tax revenue and foreign exchange to help offset our balance of payments.
Homeland Security and immigration/customs control is also important to our country. However it appears to me that we have been unwilling to spend adequate resources to make our immigration check points --particularly at airports--friendly. I believe that to a person entering the country that they would feel like they are going into a prison. Long, sterile hallways ending up with very long lines --and signs forbidding the use of cell phones during the long, painful wait in line. It isn't friendly, and it is very intimidating to visitors to our country. I also think it is almost an insult to American citizens to be treated this way when they return from overseas.
All travelers are now paying a steep additional security tax to cover the costs of the additional security. I believe that just a small investment and a few changes would dramatically improve these checkpoints and help improve our face to the rest of the world, and treat our citizens better. For foreign visitors, this is their first "taste" of America -- we should try our best to make it reasonably comfortable!
Here are my suggestions:
1. Improve the processing speed through immigration--shorten the wait in lines! I understand queuing theory and know how difficult it is to schedule employees and processing stations for a totally random volume of arrival of passengers. However the INS is in the position of knowing far in advance of exactly how many people are going to arrive, and probably even knows how many are US citizens vs foreigners. Passenger manifests are available far in advance. With this knowledge at their fingertips, why doesn't INS schedule adequate staff to handle all stations during the peak periods? At a grocery store, if a queue get's too long, the store may lose business. However since everyone must go through the immigration checkpoint, there is no "cost" to INS to let the lines get unreasonably long. Since everyone must be processed, the long line simply serves as a "buffer" to the processing.
2. Improve the "ambiance" of the waiting area: The appearance of the hallways and waiting room is really sad! The line is unnecessarily compressed into the "snake" configuration and could be spread out over the whole facility--with lines going back into the hallway. Signage in the area is also limited, doesn't cover all languages. Why not have large TV monitors that display the instructions in every possible written language so arriving passengers can read them while standing in lines?
3. Allow use of cell phones in line! Yes, I agree it is annoying to have people on cell phones talking while in line. It is also annoying and impolite to be using a phone while being processed. Why not just forbid cell phones beyond some point in the lines--a minute or so prior to being processed? People have just arrived and need to confirm ground transportation, connect with their hosts etc. This is a perfect time for arriving passengers to do that. We should make it convenient, and do whatever is necessary to make sure cell phone reception is good in the waiting area.
Homeland Security and immigration/customs control is also important to our country. However it appears to me that we have been unwilling to spend adequate resources to make our immigration check points --particularly at airports--friendly. I believe that to a person entering the country that they would feel like they are going into a prison. Long, sterile hallways ending up with very long lines --and signs forbidding the use of cell phones during the long, painful wait in line. It isn't friendly, and it is very intimidating to visitors to our country. I also think it is almost an insult to American citizens to be treated this way when they return from overseas.
All travelers are now paying a steep additional security tax to cover the costs of the additional security. I believe that just a small investment and a few changes would dramatically improve these checkpoints and help improve our face to the rest of the world, and treat our citizens better. For foreign visitors, this is their first "taste" of America -- we should try our best to make it reasonably comfortable!
Here are my suggestions:
1. Improve the processing speed through immigration--shorten the wait in lines! I understand queuing theory and know how difficult it is to schedule employees and processing stations for a totally random volume of arrival of passengers. However the INS is in the position of knowing far in advance of exactly how many people are going to arrive, and probably even knows how many are US citizens vs foreigners. Passenger manifests are available far in advance. With this knowledge at their fingertips, why doesn't INS schedule adequate staff to handle all stations during the peak periods? At a grocery store, if a queue get's too long, the store may lose business. However since everyone must go through the immigration checkpoint, there is no "cost" to INS to let the lines get unreasonably long. Since everyone must be processed, the long line simply serves as a "buffer" to the processing.
2. Improve the "ambiance" of the waiting area: The appearance of the hallways and waiting room is really sad! The line is unnecessarily compressed into the "snake" configuration and could be spread out over the whole facility--with lines going back into the hallway. Signage in the area is also limited, doesn't cover all languages. Why not have large TV monitors that display the instructions in every possible written language so arriving passengers can read them while standing in lines?
3. Allow use of cell phones in line! Yes, I agree it is annoying to have people on cell phones talking while in line. It is also annoying and impolite to be using a phone while being processed. Why not just forbid cell phones beyond some point in the lines--a minute or so prior to being processed? People have just arrived and need to confirm ground transportation, connect with their hosts etc. This is a perfect time for arriving passengers to do that. We should make it convenient, and do whatever is necessary to make sure cell phone reception is good in the waiting area.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Courts nationwide hold hearings with video - BusinessWeek
This article on Bloomberg today points out that video conferencing is being used more and more for judicial hearings, and it is saving lots of money!
Courts nationwide hold hearings with video - BusinessWeek
Maybe this is a good trend and will increase confidence in the use of video for justice. It may also help lead us to true videotapeded jury trials.
Courts nationwide hold hearings with video - BusinessWeek
Maybe this is a good trend and will increase confidence in the use of video for justice. It may also help lead us to true videotapeded jury trials.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Prosecutor Misconduct in Florida and Arizona
Today's USA Today and Arizona Republic describe serious and probably intentional errors made by US Federal prosecutors in court cases.
In the USA Today article, Businessman Nino Lyons spent three years in jail after a prosecutor hid evidence that would have exonerated him. The judge who finally released Nino Lyons, declared him innocent. However the prosecutor was only required to attend a one day ethics class as his punishment. The prosecutor ruined a mans life, sent him to prison for 3 years, all the while knowing that he had bribed false inmate witnesses to testify against Nino.
In the Arizona Republic article, A federal judge found Tommy de Jong, a Buckeye dairy farmer, not guilty of felony pollution charges. The judge ruled that U.S. attorneys continued their prosecution despite knowledge of de Jong's innocence. De Jong was reimbursed for his legal costs. The article also said that there have been 201 criminal cases since 1997 where judges determined that U.S. Justice Department prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules.
One of the problems is that the only solution for errors made by prosecutors is to sometimes let a guilty person go free. Again, the prosecutor never appears to be tried or punished for the crimes committed while prosecuting the criminal. Yes, prosecutors need to be protected somewhat in order to do their job. They do need additional powers because the criminals will try everything they can too. However the "win at all cost" actions done by prosecutors needs to be held in check. Right now there doesn't appear to be any method of holding Federal, State or County prosecutors accountable for intentional misconduct.
In the USA Today article, Businessman Nino Lyons spent three years in jail after a prosecutor hid evidence that would have exonerated him. The judge who finally released Nino Lyons, declared him innocent. However the prosecutor was only required to attend a one day ethics class as his punishment. The prosecutor ruined a mans life, sent him to prison for 3 years, all the while knowing that he had bribed false inmate witnesses to testify against Nino.
In the Arizona Republic article, A federal judge found Tommy de Jong, a Buckeye dairy farmer, not guilty of felony pollution charges. The judge ruled that U.S. attorneys continued their prosecution despite knowledge of de Jong's innocence. De Jong was reimbursed for his legal costs. The article also said that there have been 201 criminal cases since 1997 where judges determined that U.S. Justice Department prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules.
One of the problems is that the only solution for errors made by prosecutors is to sometimes let a guilty person go free. Again, the prosecutor never appears to be tried or punished for the crimes committed while prosecuting the criminal. Yes, prosecutors need to be protected somewhat in order to do their job. They do need additional powers because the criminals will try everything they can too. However the "win at all cost" actions done by prosecutors needs to be held in check. Right now there doesn't appear to be any method of holding Federal, State or County prosecutors accountable for intentional misconduct.
Friday, September 17, 2010
It's time for Video Trials
There is controversy right now about whether or not trials, or even the Supreme Court cases should be televised. I believe we should! As soon as any Government action is done behind closed doors (even when spectators are permitted), there is room for misunderstanding and mistrust. Video recording is so easy and inexpensive now. In fact, I believe it would make sense to eliminate the "court reporter" and replace with video.
Many professional sports have adopted video replay to assist in making sure that the game is judged fairly. Why shouldn't American Justice take advantage of technology also?
I believe it is time to go one step further - to actually record the trial, and then have the jury view the video prior to making their decision. It is very difficult to get good jurors. Jurors end up wasting a lot of time because of the typical schedule of trials, and the times they are excused because of special hearings over the validity of evidence. When evidence is introduced to the Jury incorrectly, the Judge instructs the Jury to "disregard" that evidence--but is that even possible? Wouldn't it be more fair to have the complete trial recorded with all "non-admissible" evidence removed from the video. Then the Jurors could be selected and presented with the resulting video. If a retrial is necessary, the new jury could view the exact same video, or it could be edited as permitted by the judge, for new evidence, for example.
The whole process could then be made a public record for all citizens to view.
Yes the additional video equipment will add a small cost to each trial. However the cost to the Jurors will be much less since their time will be used more efficiently.
Many professional sports have adopted video replay to assist in making sure that the game is judged fairly. Why shouldn't American Justice take advantage of technology also?
I believe it is time to go one step further - to actually record the trial, and then have the jury view the video prior to making their decision. It is very difficult to get good jurors. Jurors end up wasting a lot of time because of the typical schedule of trials, and the times they are excused because of special hearings over the validity of evidence. When evidence is introduced to the Jury incorrectly, the Judge instructs the Jury to "disregard" that evidence--but is that even possible? Wouldn't it be more fair to have the complete trial recorded with all "non-admissible" evidence removed from the video. Then the Jurors could be selected and presented with the resulting video. If a retrial is necessary, the new jury could view the exact same video, or it could be edited as permitted by the judge, for new evidence, for example.
The whole process could then be made a public record for all citizens to view.
Yes the additional video equipment will add a small cost to each trial. However the cost to the Jurors will be much less since their time will be used more efficiently.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Gay Rights in the Workplace
Thanks to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with disabilities Act, most Americans are treated fairly in the workplace and are free from harassment. However only one group are not protected: Gay, Lesbian and trans-gendered employees. Twenty-one states have passed laws to protect this group, but there are no federal laws to protect those in the other states. A new bill is being considered in Congress: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). It does need to be passed.
It will be interesting however what ENDA will mean for the military. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has always been a problem in my mind, since I thought it might be unconstitutional. It is a "thought crime" in that if a person let anyone know that they felt they might have homosexual tendencies, even if they had never done anything, they could be forced out of the military. Since when is thinking about something a crime? If the ENDA does pass, it would seem that the US military will be forced to change the horrible "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
It will be interesting however what ENDA will mean for the military. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has always been a problem in my mind, since I thought it might be unconstitutional. It is a "thought crime" in that if a person let anyone know that they felt they might have homosexual tendencies, even if they had never done anything, they could be forced out of the military. Since when is thinking about something a crime? If the ENDA does pass, it would seem that the US military will be forced to change the horrible "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Bruce Lisker-- Possible Injustice?
Bruce Lisker was accused, and eventually convicted of killing his mother and spent 26 years in prison. Finally a judge reviewed the evidence and released him. It appeared that the prosecution distorted the truth, hid evidence of another suspect, and that Bruce did not have good defense or a fair trial.
Lisker has been out of prison, but "on bail" for some reason. Now Deputy Attorney General Bob Breton as filed an appeal to put him back in prison. His appeal is based upon a minor technicality that says that prisoners are not allowed to file "late appeals."
If Lisker is put back into prison, I think this will be another example where a prosecution drive to "win the case at all costs" will affect jury decisions forever and possibly allow the guilty to go free. If potential jurors see that prosecutors will hide evidence and deny ever making a mistake to keep innocent people in prison, they will be much more reluctant to convict.
Lisker has been out of prison, but "on bail" for some reason. Now Deputy Attorney General Bob Breton as filed an appeal to put him back in prison. His appeal is based upon a minor technicality that says that prisoners are not allowed to file "late appeals."
If Lisker is put back into prison, I think this will be another example where a prosecution drive to "win the case at all costs" will affect jury decisions forever and possibly allow the guilty to go free. If potential jurors see that prosecutors will hide evidence and deny ever making a mistake to keep innocent people in prison, they will be much more reluctant to convict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)