For an interesting perspective on how we count the truly exonerated, read this blog. Written, by Josh Marquis (an elected DA in Oregon), it is a more balanced response to the wail and cry about a system supposedly all broken.

By the way, blogs are an interesting place to read discussions nowadays. At least two of them proclaim to be Texas prosecutors. Check out:


Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center

and


da blog.

Interesting and timely.

I like and read fairly regularly Life at HCCJ. Even the majority of the comments left are well thought out and make for good reading, often of both sides of whatever topic is up for discussion.

The other blog IMHO is pretty juvenile and reads more like what a television writer would blog if pretending to be a prosecutor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
By the way, blogs are an interesting place to read discussions nowadays. At least two of them proclaim [sic?]to be Texas prosecutors.

---

I read several criminal justice blogs on a regular basis. However, unless a blogger's identity can be confirmed, I file anything that blogger says under "maybe, maybe not."

Caveat emptor.

Seller beware?

[This message was edited by David Newell on 05-02-08 at .]

I've read Moxie off and on for several years. She is that rare conservative living in the middle of L.A., and she writes very well. Here's a recent blog post on a DNA issue in California, and I like her stance on the issue:

"California aims to find criminals; ACLU objects
April 26th, 2008
Did I blog about the time I parked my car and was accosted by some libtarded individual, asking me if I had a few minutes to spare to help the ACLU? And I said, absolutely not. I'm sure I did.

Anyway, here's the latest about my favorite organization, from the LAT, emphasis is ALL mine:

California will adopt the most aggressive approach in the nation to a controversial crime-fighting technique that uses DNA to try to identify elusive criminals through their relatives, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown announced Friday.

Employing what is known as familial or partial match searching, the policy is aimed at identifying a suspect through DNA collected at a crime scene by looking for potential relatives in the state's genetic database of about a million felons.

Sounds good, right? I think so.

But here's what the ACLU has to say, and I'll let you figure out what's wrong with the statement:

But Tania Simoncelli, science advisor to the American Civil Liberties Union, called Brown's decision a disappointment and said the organization is exploring its legality. The group has not decided whether to challenge the policy in court.

The fact that my brother committed a crime doesn't mean I should have to give up my privacy, she said.

Silly, silly Tania.

Let's pretend I have a brother, and he murdered someone. So they compare DNA left at the crime scene. My privacy is 100% intact, because I'm not a felon and my DNA is not in that database.

Funny how that works, right?"