A short while ago I wrote a blog about the motion before the Michigan Supreme Court on setting a time limit on submitting new evidence. There were a couple of interesting articles in the Free Press this week discussing said amendment--which I mention only because both are excellent examples of why this piss poor motion should be dismissed.
One is by Jeff Gerritt--who has the admirable job of being the Free Press' ombudsmen for prisoners (and what a fun job that must be in our current tea party hate-filled nation). He points out the case of one Dwayne Provience, who was convicted in 2001 of murder, but thanks to the Michigan Innocence Clinic, his wrongful conviction was overturned. Had the current motion for time limits been in effect, Mr. Provience would still be in prison for a crime he did not commit. Mr. Gerritt is exactly right when he explains that keeping innocent people out of prison is a far more compelling moral claim than the expense of "frivolous" (bet Mr. Provience doesn't think his new evidence was frivolous) new evidence claims.
The second was a piece by the always thoughtful Leonard Pitts (if any op-ed writer is writing finer pieces than Mr. Pitts in America today, I've yet to find him)--on the plight of one Anthony Graves, who recently won a new trial in what may be another in an unfortunate cycle of convicting innocent people of murder. Mr. Pitts aptly points out that outraged citizens demanding the death penalty for outrageous crimes may be a compelling case for abolishing the death penalty--emotion gets in the way of reason, logic, and fairness. And I might add, even worse, putting innocent people to death.
Just sayin'....
Peace,
emaycee
Showing posts with label Michigan Innocence Clinic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michigan Innocence Clinic. Show all posts
Friday, October 1, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Questions, I Got Questions
Some depressing news--the poverty rate in the U.S. is at its highest in 16 years. Ummmm.....why do you suppose it is that for as much as republicans are hammering Democrats on the economy, they're not mentioning this fact? Don't you think the Dems would be pounding the republicans on this were the shoe on the other foot? Don't you think this speaks volumes about where the republicans' interest lies?
The Free Press occasionally runs a pair of pieces on their op-ed page(s), called "Opposing points of view" which are sometimes interesting (and sometimes not). This week's dealt with a proposal to limit appeals of conviction to one year (with our shoddy justice system, I didn't even have to read the opposing views to know where I stood--against!). The first piece, by David A. Moran of the Michigan Innocence Clinic, is a well written and compelling argument against setting a time limit. The opposing piece, by Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney Kym Worthy, argues in favor of the time limit because, of all things, justice demands finality. While I have no doubt that some sort of finality is important, shouldn't the real goal of our justice system be to make sure we aren't incarcerating innocent people? Or how about not wasting thousands of taxpayer dollars incarcerating innocent people? Or, hell, even making sure that we have the actual guilty criminals behind bars and not continuing their crimes on our streets? Why is it that it sure as hell seems prosecutors are a lot more interested in adding another victory notch to their belt on their way to running for higher office than justice?
I've read this piece by Brian Dickerson and I'm honestly not sure what point he's making about the tea party--I'm not even sure it's necessarily your usual mainstream media goop about the tea party. Outwardly, he is discussing the success of the tea party and its seeming lack of leaders, but is he subtly questioning this assumption? How come he never made mention of the New Yorker's Jane Mayer's piece about the Koch brothers' stealth financial support of the tea party? How come there was no mention of Dick Armey's Freedomworks and their behind the scenes structuring of the tea party? No idea, but I have a feeling he missed a good opportunity to educate his readers.
Quote of the week: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." Often attributed to the first American Literature Nobel Laureate, Sinclair Lewis (interesting discussion of the source of the quote here), has anyone seen or heard a quote that better sums up the tea party ("Fucking idiots!" doesn't count)? Check this out for its "newfound" ties to the religious right....
Peace,
emaycee
The Free Press occasionally runs a pair of pieces on their op-ed page(s), called "Opposing points of view" which are sometimes interesting (and sometimes not). This week's dealt with a proposal to limit appeals of conviction to one year (with our shoddy justice system, I didn't even have to read the opposing views to know where I stood--against!). The first piece, by David A. Moran of the Michigan Innocence Clinic, is a well written and compelling argument against setting a time limit. The opposing piece, by Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney Kym Worthy, argues in favor of the time limit because, of all things, justice demands finality. While I have no doubt that some sort of finality is important, shouldn't the real goal of our justice system be to make sure we aren't incarcerating innocent people? Or how about not wasting thousands of taxpayer dollars incarcerating innocent people? Or, hell, even making sure that we have the actual guilty criminals behind bars and not continuing their crimes on our streets? Why is it that it sure as hell seems prosecutors are a lot more interested in adding another victory notch to their belt on their way to running for higher office than justice?
I've read this piece by Brian Dickerson and I'm honestly not sure what point he's making about the tea party--I'm not even sure it's necessarily your usual mainstream media goop about the tea party. Outwardly, he is discussing the success of the tea party and its seeming lack of leaders, but is he subtly questioning this assumption? How come he never made mention of the New Yorker's Jane Mayer's piece about the Koch brothers' stealth financial support of the tea party? How come there was no mention of Dick Armey's Freedomworks and their behind the scenes structuring of the tea party? No idea, but I have a feeling he missed a good opportunity to educate his readers.
Quote of the week: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." Often attributed to the first American Literature Nobel Laureate, Sinclair Lewis (interesting discussion of the source of the quote here), has anyone seen or heard a quote that better sums up the tea party ("Fucking idiots!" doesn't count)? Check this out for its "newfound" ties to the religious right....
Peace,
emaycee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
