The Dallas Morning News has a 5-part investigative piece on murder defendants placed on probation. Here is the link.
The premise seems to be that no one should ever get probation for the crime of murder. Why, then, did the Legislature make probation a possible part of the punishment range?
An interesting development this last session was the amendment of the probation laws to take away probation eligibility for the crime of murder, at least from a jury. It is still available from a judge if the probation is deferred adjudication.
The other unspoken premise seems to be that all murderers should get the same punishment. That's like saying that all reporters are the same and write equally well.
I thought part 1 provided some good insight for the public into the types of settlement decisions/factors prosecutors are faced with not only in murder cases, but cases in general. I also thought it contains a pretty good description of how murders are typically defended. The funny thing is it dealt hardly at all with misdemeanor murder (which of course no longer exists). I must say that I too found it interesting that Dallas County appears to handle its overall caseload somewhat differently. Is that ultimately based on how Dallas County juries have decided cases?
AW beat me to the punch. If that were chosen to be the TDCAA websongtrack, then we'd need Scottie B's disclaimer playing every so often in the soundtrack: "This may be painful".
With a few notable exceptions, it seems the media has been focused on feeling sorry for criminals the past few years. Why is this, do you think? The recent folks who "feel sorry" for sex offenders prohibited from roaming on Halloween, the folks who "feel sorry" for murderers who they feel shouldn't be killed via the DP, and so on.
Like many of you, I have always had strong feelings for the victim's rights. I have always felt sorry for the victims of crimes, not those who victimize. Although I often feel sympathy for the innocent families of offenders, as they are just another victim of the defendant's crime(s), that's about as far as I go.
I believe also that the public concern is for the victims as well. I think the media enables the "supporters of the crooks" (for lack of a better term) to claim that folks share that concern simply because of the media saturation of the issue. But I think this mostly exists in the mind of the media adnd not in reality.
How do we refocus the media attention to the victims and their rights? Andy Kahan, PMC (Parents of Murdered Children), MADD, JFA (Justice for All), to name but a few, have all done a great job in the past of focusing public concern on the victims (which I do believe leads to legislative action in many ways that benefit victims). But the overwhelming hue and cry lately seems to be "Poor heinous criminals".
Like each of you, I want true justice, fairness and due process for the offender. But I say, what about the victims and their rights?
Posts: 2578 | Location: The Great State of Texas | Registered: December 26, 2001
Greg, didn't you read the letters section of the latest State Bar Journal? Someone was actually criticizing a victim's rights group for focusing on the victims as the only innocents dragged into the criminal justice system. He said that all of his poor innocent clients need to get some of that sympathy too.
I'd give an exact quote, but I was too disgusted to keep a copy lying around.
Posts: 1116 | Location: Waxahachie | Registered: December 09, 2004
Here's what I love about this: the reporter writes an article in which a murderer admits lying at his revocation hearing, and the article is one of several documenting shortcomings in the justice system. But guess what happens if the prosecutor subpoenas the reporter to cooperate in prosecuting the murder for perjury? That's right, the reporter will immediately lawyer up and refuse to testify, etc. (esp. if the Lege gives journalists a shield law).
Posts: 2429 | Location: TDCAA | Registered: March 08, 2002
Engraved on the front of the DMN building here in downtown Dallas are the words of their founding publisher, G.B. Dealey, to wit:
�Build the news upon the rock of truth and righteousness. Conduct it always upon the lines of fairness and integrity. Acknowledge the right of the people to get from a newspaper both sides of every important question."
I have had two death row inmates' guilt confirmed by DNA testing in the last month. Where is THAT story in the DMN ? (hint: it wasn't).
The media has created its own reality that the justice system is hopelessly broken. It is a scare tactic to sell stories that is applied to all news issues, not just criminal justice.
What I found funny about the DMN series is how they seem to bend over backwards to find some sinister thread linking these probation cases to a prosecutorial plot. I can't tell if they think it's a windfall for folks who kill certain victims or just prosecutors not doing their job or something else. But they are clearly struggling to find the "scare story." I wonder if they teach that in reporter school.
So, saying that two death row inmates were rightly convicted just doesn't scare anyone or sell anything. Perhaps this is just the most recent manifestation of the old complaint that there is never any good news anymore. Heck, my folks have been saying that for decades. But the media should no longer hold themselves out as neutral informers, that's for sure.
[This message was edited by KSchaefer on 11-16-07 at .]
[This message was edited by KSchaefer on 11-16-07 at .]
Posts: 146 | Location: Dallas, Texas USA | Registered: November 02, 2001
Ken, you should send that in a letter to the editor. You are absolutely on the mark. And point out the words engraved on the building to shame them into printing it.
Posts: 1089 | Location: UNT Dallas | Registered: June 29, 2004
You know, I have had a lot of private conversations with myself about this. I was taught that it was "unseemly" for a prosecutor to seek media coverage, but I seethe at the injustice of it. Likewise, I cringe when I read the website of my DP inmates who claim to be innocent and print only half the story--or worse, a similar website put up by some gullible ideologue masquerading as a "news" source.
I always wonder if I could start my own website to give the other half of the story. Something like lyingconvicts.com. And I always conclude: no, prosecutors don't do that sort of thing.
Sometimes, maintaining these ethical standards feels like going to a gun fight armed with a Q-tip.
[BTW, it's Kim, not Ken.]
Posts: 146 | Location: Dallas, Texas USA | Registered: November 02, 2001
