Blog #7: Todd Willingham - Arsonist or Innocent?

    In Texas, capital punishment, or the execution of a convicted criminal (mostly imposed on murderers) (Newell),  some would say "reflects a heritage of frontier justice" (Walpin) as we continue to lead the nation in execution rates. There are many reasons why Texas has become "ground zero for capital punishment", but for legal reasons, more particularly because "there are three procedures unique to [Texas'] judicial system that enable[s] it to execute convicted murderers with astonishing frequency" (Walpin):

1. "Texas' appellate judges are elected to office and hence serve according to the pleasure of the public." While these elected judges nearly "require a record of toughness on criminals... there are many indications that elected appellate judges generally are of lesser quality than their appointed counterparts in other states" as most of these judges seem to "not carefully consider the complexities of each specific death penalty case.... [and] tend to dismiss habeas corpus appeals even in cases where there appears to be glaring unanswered questions about the defendant's guilt" (Walpin).

2. "Texas does not have a public defender system for indigent defendants, and instead relies upon court-appointed lawyers who likely do not have experiences in capital murder defenses or appeals. While "bad lawyering is hard to prove[,]... the amount the state is willing to pay lawyers for these appeals is sufficiently low" (Walpin) so, it makes "bad lawyering" seem a bit more believable in most cases.

3. "Until the early 1990's, Texas did not permit jurors to adequately consider mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase of the trial." Meaning,  "people currently on death row that may well not be there had information about their mental illness or youth been weighed" (Walpin). 

     On December 23, 1991 in small-town Corsicana, Texas, the home of Stacy and Todd Willingham went up in flames while their three little girls were still inside.  Stacy was out shopping when Todd was left at home with the children. With the Willingham's neighbors as witnesses, Todd was discovered outside, panicking for his daughters' lives, but seemed reluctant to go back inside after them, even after the neighbors advised him to attempt to save them (Wiser). By the time the fire department arrived, it was too late for the three little girls. Later, the fire department (who's job is to extinguish fire), not some sort of an arson or fire science specialist (who would be truly educated with the properties of fire) served as a kind of scene investigator, so most of the evidence that the firemen believed to be seen as proof of arson (such as "pour patterns" on the floor), were strictly observational (and later disproved)(Wiser). Unfortunately for Todd, he also had a reputation for abusing Stacy, and in addition to his questionable behavior revolving around the incident,  the initial evidence collected by the fire department was enough to suspect Todd Willingham as an arsonist and a murderer. 
     During his trial (he was twenty-three at the time), his attorney urged him to plea guilty to avoid the death penalty (bad lawyering, anyone?), but Willingham refused. As the trial went to the jury, a former prison mate testified against him (and later recanted his testimony, then, recanted his recantation). Although this prison mate was known to be untrustworthy, the jury still found Willingham guilty and received the death penalty with at least "20 indicators of arson"(Wiser).
     Gerald Hurst, a leading fire science expert and chemist, decided to further investigate Willingham's case, and found many flaws within the so-called arsonist act, and concluded that the fire, had it been properly investigated initially, would have been found to have been ignited accidentally; that there was no real proof tying Todd to actually starting the fire (Wiser). Just days before Todd's execution, Hurst sent an appeal to Governor Rick Perry in an attempt to delay the execution to prove Willingham's innocence. Unfortunately with Willingham's reputation as an alleged wife beater, in addition to the initial evidence, Governor Rick Perry decided not to jeopardize his own reputation, and "[dismissed the] habeas corpus [appeal to delay the execution]" even though there were remaining  "unanswered questions about the defendant's guilt" (Walpin). 
     As much as I would like to convince myself that Willingham was guilty, the evidence gathered proceeding his death row sentence implicate not an act of arson, but an act of cowardice and consequent guilt. This does not mean that he was an altogether innocent guy, but I believe the evidence that Hurst rebuked seemed worthy enough to reconsider this man's life. So, although I can agree that Willingham could have been at times a bad man, and at first glance the incident may seem questionable, I believe that he was not guilty. It's in cases like these that Texas' streamlined "process between conviction and execution" (Walpin) makes it too easy to wrongfully convict a person.


Citations

Newell, Charldean, David F. Prindle, and James W. Riddlesperger. Texas Politics. 11th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Walpin, Ned. "Why Is Texas #1 In Executions?" PBS.com. Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/texas.html>.

Wiser, Mike, and Micheal Kirk. "Death By Fire." Frontline. Dir. Jessie Deeter. Prod. Jessie Deeter. PBS. WGBH, Boston, 19 Oct. 2010. PBS.com. Public Broadcasting Service, 19 Oct. 2010. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/>.

Blog #6 - Internet Censorship

The Internet, which began to be publicly accessed only about twenty years ago, has become more embedded within our present culture, nonetheless, our everyday lives. Serving conveniency to our society on a variety of levels, the Internet has undeniably been a major innovation of our time. As a form of media, the Internet, just like television, video games, and music, has received many criticisms regarding to the censorship and regulation of their content. On a more particular level, the Internet, which has lubricated accessibility to copyrighted materials (movies, CD's, books, etc.) has been more recently criticized for the rise of internet piracy, which can be defined as "unlawfully transmitting software or other copyrighted material; or providing infringing material that enables users to violate copyright protection mechanism in software over the Internet" (Student SAT Glossary). 

Noticeably, it seems safe to assume the entertainment industry especially falls victim to the actions of Internet piracy, which has been difficult to regulate without infringing upon the First Amendment and it's protection from censorship. After the unforgettable attack of Napster as a contributory infringer and proceeding another decade of file sharing over the internet, the Stop Internet Piracy Act, or SOPA was introduced to "give more power to the U.S. law enforcement to fight the online selling of copyrighted materials (movies, music) and counterfeit goods..." (Crabtree). Introduced on October 26, 2011 by Texas’ Republican United States Representative Lamar Smith, Smith believes that “online piracy is damaging the United States economy and putting American lives at risk” by accusing “foreign web sites that distribute American-made entertainment and counterfeit products… [for] ‘stealing our profits… our jobs, and… endangering the health of Americans’” (Aaronson).

Although SOPA would enable government to become “more capable of pursuing copyright violations that occur on the web,” and allow “ government more authority in prosecuting those who produce counterfeit goods and sell them online,” which would in turn “boost revenues for the entertainment industry” (McCarty), SOPA would still seem to be more detrimental than helpful to our economy as a whole, especially to "Texas' growing technology sector" (Aaronson).  To exaggerate “the bill will prevent innovations, move Internet sites and services offshore, scare away investors, and make it difficult for sites as common as Google and Twitter to operate,” (Crabtree) but in turn, at least we would make Hollywood more wealthy. 
        While cyber crimes such as internet piracy are undeniably becoming more of an issue that needs to be addressed, I believe the restrictions under SOPA and other such acts, if passed by legislation, would then bump heads with our civil liberties as respected under the First Amendment by censoring "search engines from listing [sites] and [forcing] Internet Service Providers to block access to [sites]" that have been "accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement" (Crabtree). After an"Internet Blackout" which attracted attention all over the nation, Congress halted debate and post-poned SOPA. Have we seen the last of it? I doubt it, especially when Internet piracy "drains hundreds of millions of dollars from the entertainment industry, but this form of government meddling is not the solution" (McCarty).

Citations

Aaronson, Becca. "Texan's Anti Piracy Bill Gets Home State Pushback." Nytimes.com. The New York TImes, 12 Jan. 2012. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/us/anti-piracy-bill-sopa-by-lamar-smith-gets-texas-pushback.html?pagewanted=all>.

Crabtree, Travis. "SOPA: The Debate in Plain English." Emedialaw.com. EMedia Law Insider, 14 Dec. 2011. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://www.emedialaw.com/sopa-the-debate-in-plain-english/>.

McCarty, Kent. "Pros and Cons of SOPA and PIPA." Thedysfunctionjunction.com. The Dysfunction Junction, 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://www.thedysfunctionjunction.com/2012/01/18/pros-and-cons-of-sopa-and-pipa/>.

"Student SAT Glossary." Infosat.tamu.edu. TAMU Information Technology Issues Management. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://infosat.tamu.edu/students/glossary.htm>.

Blog #4 - Van Orden v. Perry

     The Establishment Clause, among the key provisions within the First Amendment, ensures that Congress is forbidden to pass laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (Newell, 341). Throughout history, this clause has been "interpreted to mean either (1) that there should be a 'wall of separation' between church and state, and that government may not help or even acknowledge religion in any way, or (2) that government may aid religion, at least indirectly, as long as it shows 'no preference' among the various religious beliefs" (Newell, 341). Although the federal government has been interpreted by law to show now bias among religious beliefs and to protect exercises of religious variety, "in practice it has allowed the states to provide a variety of aids to religion- for example, school lunches and public facilities for church-run schools and tuition grants for church-run colleges- as long as government agencies do not show a preference for one church over another" (Newell, 341).

     The validation of separation between church and state, however, is still a debatable issue since the Establishment Clause leaves room for misinterpretation. For example, in "1961, the Fraternal Order of the Eagles, a national social, civic, and political organization, presented the State of Texas with a monument containing the Ten Commandments,"(Di Iorio) which was placed near the state capitol building along with sixteen other monuments. Although the monument was intended to represent Texas' history, in 1999 "Thomas Van Orden sued Texas in federal district court, arguing a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol building represented an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion" (Van Orden). Making it's way to the Supreme Court, the case questioned if the monument of the Ten Commandments "[violated] the First Amendment's Establishment Clause" (Van Orden). With a resulting "no," Van Orden unfortunately lost the case as the Court "held that the Establishment Clause did not bar the monument on the grounds of Texas' state capitol building" because the "plurality deemed the Texas monument part of the nation's tradition of recognizing the Ten Commandments' historical meaning" (Van Orden).
     From my perspective, it seems that Van Orden definitely had a reason to be upset. For decades, our country has fought for religious discretion, but here, in the state of Texas, it seems that the dominant Judeo-Christian culture is forever embedded and protected because of our altruistic, traditionalistic history. Through my eyes this act obviously defies the Establishment Clause, as it seems to represent some sort of religious favoritism, whether it be direct or indirect. Also, the state capitol is not a church-run facility, but a government facility, so, why is this government property allowed to aid to a certain religious belief? This exception seems to reverse the point of the Establishment Clause, be it a part of Texas history or not. Although Texas undeniably has a history reflecting upon the representation of the Ten Commandments, the monument would have had made more sense to be placed within or near an establishment that is intended explicitly to reveal information upon our state's history. Not in front of the state capitol, a true representation of our culture and history where we center-point much of our legislative action. What kind of symbolism does that show about our state's mindset? Seems pretty preferred, to me.


Citations

Di Iorio, William. "Van Orden v. Perry: The Establishment Clause and an Inconsistent Supreme Court." Lexisnexis.com. LexisNexis, 2006. Web. 29 Mar. 2012. <https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=14+Digest+97&key=3cd24444dab26a1cd2cde31584dcf40b>.

Newell, Charldean, James W. Riddlesperger, and David F. Prindle. Texas Politics. 11th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2011. Print

Van Orden v. Perry. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 29 March 2012. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1500>.

Blog #3 - Libertarian Party

     The Libertarian party, one of the most active third political parties, has become prevalent in Texas politics especially throughout the late 1990's and early 2000's. "Qualifying for every [national] ballot since 1986, the Libertarians are a part of a consistant antigovernment party, opposing any kind of regulation of the economy (more conservative than Republicans) and equally opposing regulation of personal life and social issues (more liberal than Democrats)" (Newell, p.132). To exaggerate, Libertarians share super leftist beliefs on the topics such as reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, and the war on drugs, while also partaking in very conservative ideas towards any kind of government regulation pertaining to gun control, corporations, and public services, as well as rejecting any kind of federal economic involvement with a very rightist fiscal policy (About.com).
     Although I feel that it is imperative to sustain an "individuals 'right to liberty'," (Britannica.com) it seems that most Libertarians express a some-what egotistical, self-serving mindset that radiates to extremities beyond the sensibility of our capitalist democracy, especially with their concerns towards corporations and public services. To put it in perspective, can you imagine a future where our public schools are ran by privately owned businesses like Toys R' Us?  What about getting rid of the anti-trust laws that have prevented monopolizing behavior within corporations as well as encourage fair competition?  As a Libertarian, one would support the elimination of "all federal subsidies to private corporations, as well as all antitrust laws," (About.com) which I believe would make-way for such potential results and even further corruption within big business. Carrying a heavy representation of antigovernment and privatization ideals,  Libertarians pursue to "transfer all government services, from schools to landfills, to private ownership" (About.com) and elaborate "the replacement of most government-provided services, including Social Security and the post office"(Britannica.com) to follow in the same fashion. With a similar ultra-conservative point of view, Libertarians extend their disregard for regulation towards "minimum wage and gun-control laws"(Britannica.com). To their party, not only should minimum wage regulations be decreased, but completely eliminated. And as for the right to bear arms, Libertarians strongly believe that the Second Amendment implies a "[strong opposition to] all gun control, as well as regulation..."(About.com) ridding, for instance, the concept of a gun-free school zone.
     Libertarians represent one of the largest third parties which believes in "the rights of individuals to exercise virtual sole authority over their lives and sets itself against the traditional [public] services and regulatory and coercive powers of federal, state, and local governments" (Britannica.com). While their liberal beliefs generally seemed appealing at first glance, upon researching I discovered even within their pro-choice consideration towards abortion, Libertarians still tightly grasp their antigovernment ideals by stating that although they believe that what a person does is their own business, they still "oppose all federal funding of abortion and most federal entitlements for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term" (About.com). As stated previously, I do believe that our individual rights should be protected, but I feel I would not be able to partake in the Libertarian party's beliefs. Being a part-time student and a part-time employee, it would be hard for me to agree to their platforms.


Citations

Head, Tom. "The Libertarian Party Platform." About.com - Civil Liberties. About.com. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. <http://civilliberty.about.com/od/libertarianpolitics/qt/libert_platform.htm>

 "Libertarian Party." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 06 Mar. 2012. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339320/Libertarian-Party>.

Newell, Charldean, James W. Riddlesperger, and David F. Prindle. Texas Politics. 11th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2011. Print

Blog #1 - Thoughts on Governor Perry

     While I was growing up, my dad was able to financially support our family of seven with just his job in pharmaceutical sales. In the late 90's, however, I remember him getting laid off for the first time by a company that he had been working with for nearly ten years. Subsequently, he eventually got a similar job, but with a lower title, with another company.  In the year 2000, I was eight years old, and still in the second grade when Governor Rick Perry took office. Throughout this time, my dad kept falling out of luck with work and went through numerous jobs because of constant layoffs due to budget cuts or company shrinkages. Although he had more than twenty years experience in his field, it seemed he was rendered completely incapable of finding a lasting employment opportunity within his field. 

     By 2004, my dad was no longer on a salary or in his field of interest, but settled for sales representative positions for various retail opportunities. Although my dad stayed with a few companies for a duration of time, his compensation was not making up for the mortgage, nor was he receiving benefits. Now, he is miserably unemployed with no insurance, receiving nearly expired unemployment benefits, and can not even find a job in retail. Why I think negatively of Rick Perry as Governor and as a Presidential candidate is because he seems to embellish a fact that is only half way relevant to the employment situation here in Texas.
     To exaggerate, Rick Perry brags about Texas "being the 'epicenter of job growth'," (cnn.com) which is not only true, but will further be supported as "employment in Texas is forecasted to expand 2.9 percent annually through 2015" (msnbc.com). The hole in this statement, although being true, is the fact that population here has been swiftly rising and "Texas can't create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population" (cnn.com). So, while Perry applauds half the truth about our job growth, it seems he does not pay attention to the fact that "many of the positions that have been created are on the lower end of the pay scale," (cnn.com) and "many don't offer health benefits" (cnn.com). 
   Having witnessed the struggles my dad has been through, I feel strongly about Perry neglecting these more specific facts before the nation's public eye. Conclusively, it seems he is trying to gain more votes while embellishing on one statistic that does not summarize the actuality of Texas employment. Being a Presidential candidate for the 2012 election, I feel that Governor Perry should at least publicly recognize the percentage of Texas citizens that are being affected by the fact that we "[lead] the nation in minimum-wage jobs" (cnn.com) while he boasts about our seemingly prosperous job growth. 


Citations

Luhby, Tami. "Rick Perry and His Texas Jobs Boom: The Whole Story - Aug. 12, 2011." CNNMoney - Business, Financial and Personal Finance News. Cable News Network, 12 Aug. 2011. Web. 9 Feb. 2012. <http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/12/news/economy/perry_texas_jobs/index.htm>.

Badenhausen, Kurt. "Texas Tops the List of the Best States for Jobs - Business - Forbes.com - Msnbc.com." Msnbc.com - Breaking News, Science and Tech News, World News, US News, Local News- Msnbc.com. MicroSoft National Broadcasting Company, 2 Dec. 2011. Web. 9 Feb. 2012. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45527495/ns/business-forbes_com/t/texas-tops-list-best-states-jobs/>.