Posts
A band of cheerleaders at a public school in Texas have made national headlines for making banners including bible verses. Before every football game, the players all run through the banners as they enter the field. An anonymous complainant called the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison, WI organization. Consequently, the FFRF took legal action to prohibit the cheerleaders from using the banners.
From what I have seen, internet sentiment seems to be largely with the poor, oppressed cheerleaders who aren't being allowed to express their religious views. Most of the comments I waded through on this article thought it was very unfair that the cheerleaders would be bullied in this way. Some were particularly annoyed that the person who complained was remaining anonymous. The community has rallied around the cheerleaders, even creating a Facebook group. On that Facebook page, one can read lots of posts and see lots of pics about kids in that East Texas community standing up for their faith and read lots of comments about how no one will tell them they can't show their faith. Etc., etc.
But what I am not finding much of is concern for kids at that public high school who don't share that Christian faith. Judging from the overwhelming support for the cheerleaders who want to spread their bible verses at football games, no one seems to worry much if there might be a cheerleader who doesn't support the banner use. Or worse, that there might be a girl in that school who would be a cheerleader, wants to be a cheerleader, but isn't welcome because she isn't Christian. Or that there might be a football player who only wants to defend on the field without having to defend his lack of faith as well. Individual students in the stands can display all the signs they want. Individual players and cheerleaders can put their bible verses in their eye black or on their socks, etc. But the cheerleaders as an official school thing need to be open to all, which means they don't get to have a religious identity. Even if every single one of the cheerleaders really and truly is a Christian because that still creates an atmosphere where other girls who might want to be cheerleaders won't feel welcome. Being the majority doesn't make it ok to promote one religious faith in a public school setting.
It's not surprising in the least that the original complainant has concealed his or her identity. In a town like this, where the cheerleaders get this kind of support and those of us who aren't Christian get so much flak, it takes a very strong character to stand up and take the abuse. When I was in high school, I was in a position to take action when some members of FCA got a little too preachy at school. They would put up signs around school urging us to find our savior. I would take them down. They were being allowed to participate in homecoming week activities until my friends and I said something to the administration. I'm contrary enough that I didn't care if people didn't like me. Plus, I knew I had friends on my side. And I didn't grow up in a small Texas town where it would seem everyone is expected to be Christian and woe unto him or her who dissents.
All the Christians in Kountze are free to shout their faith from every hilltop and building roof they can find. Heck, they're even free to have contempt for those of us who don't share their faith, shun us from their homes, or try to testify to us so our everlasting souls will be saved. But that all has to stop when they're on public high school time. Because not everyone is a Christian. And those of us who aren't get to participate, too.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Terrance Williams lives!
For now, anyway. Even though a clemency board declined his clemency petition, a judge in Philadelphia has thrown out Williams' death sentence and granted him a new sentencing trial. Remember, this is the case where the prosecution alleged the motive was robbery while blocking the defense from presenting evidence that the victim had sexually abused the defendant (who was 18 at the time of the killing).
The judge accused the prosecution of "gamesmanship" in its efforts to win a death sentence at trial. The prosecutor's own files were filled with nuggets about the victim's sexual exploitation and abuse of teenage boys, including Williams, but none of that ever made it to the defense. (On a side note, a court has previously found that Williams received constitutionally deficient assistance of counsel at trial, yet somehow the death sentence wasn't vacated.) From the clemency petition considered earlier this month, we learned that numerous jurors from the original trial have said their verdict on sentence would have been different had they known then what they know now. So, yeah, this execution, scheduled for Oct. 3, really can't happen.
There is a lot to talk about with this case. It highlights so many of the problems that exist in capital cases. But for this evening, what I really want to focus on is this: if the prosecution will work so hard to keep the jury from hearing some evidence at the penalty phase of a capital trial, it has to be because they know the sentence verdict will be for life if the jury hears it. And if they know that there is evidence that will result in a life sentence, then shouldn't that also mean that they should know a life sentence is the right outcome in the case?
I will never understand how people can fight so hard for the right to kill someone. So they can show their own (and society's) moral superiority and assuage their own (and society's) outrage over the killing of someone. But worse than that is fighting so hard for the right to kill someone that society might not want killed if they knew the whole truth. Fortunately for Terrance Williams, the whole truth is finally coming to light while his sentence can still be corrected.
The judge accused the prosecution of "gamesmanship" in its efforts to win a death sentence at trial. The prosecutor's own files were filled with nuggets about the victim's sexual exploitation and abuse of teenage boys, including Williams, but none of that ever made it to the defense. (On a side note, a court has previously found that Williams received constitutionally deficient assistance of counsel at trial, yet somehow the death sentence wasn't vacated.) From the clemency petition considered earlier this month, we learned that numerous jurors from the original trial have said their verdict on sentence would have been different had they known then what they know now. So, yeah, this execution, scheduled for Oct. 3, really can't happen.
There is a lot to talk about with this case. It highlights so many of the problems that exist in capital cases. But for this evening, what I really want to focus on is this: if the prosecution will work so hard to keep the jury from hearing some evidence at the penalty phase of a capital trial, it has to be because they know the sentence verdict will be for life if the jury hears it. And if they know that there is evidence that will result in a life sentence, then shouldn't that also mean that they should know a life sentence is the right outcome in the case?
I will never understand how people can fight so hard for the right to kill someone. So they can show their own (and society's) moral superiority and assuage their own (and society's) outrage over the killing of someone. But worse than that is fighting so hard for the right to kill someone that society might not want killed if they knew the whole truth. Fortunately for Terrance Williams, the whole truth is finally coming to light while his sentence can still be corrected.
First do no harm
This headline brought some cheer to my day. I've always been troubled by the connection of any sort of medical professionals with executions. Well, I've always been troubled by the logistics of executions period. There is something so troubling about people calmly and coolly deciding the mechanics of carrying out the premeditated killing of a human being. I have always believed that whether people acknowledge it or not, participating in this process has to have a negative effect on people.
If I were involved in the manufacturing of some otherwise innocuous product that corrections officials decided would work well as part of an execution protocol, I'd certainly balk at having my work product used in that way. So I applaud the manufacturer of this drug who is now refusing to sell the product to a corrections department. If drug manufacturer, who are at least theoretically in the business of helping people, rise up and say they don't want their medications used in this way, that would throw a wrench in the capital punishment works. And I am A-Ok with that!
If I were involved in the manufacturing of some otherwise innocuous product that corrections officials decided would work well as part of an execution protocol, I'd certainly balk at having my work product used in that way. So I applaud the manufacturer of this drug who is now refusing to sell the product to a corrections department. If drug manufacturer, who are at least theoretically in the business of helping people, rise up and say they don't want their medications used in this way, that would throw a wrench in the capital punishment works. And I am A-Ok with that!
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Does this guy deserve clemency?
How many people think the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for someone who sexually abuses children? Read any story about a man accused of molesting a 6 year-old and you'll see comment after comment calling for all manner of horrific ends for that man. To some people, no form of torturous death is too cruel. And they'd line up to administer the punishment themselves. Or throw a parade for the person who did.
Unless that person happens to be an 18 year-old black man in Philly. Who was once the 6 year-old victim. Who grew up in chaos, with adults everywhere continuing to abuse him. When that guy beats his abuser to death, he gets the death penalty.
Terrance Williams was convicted of murdering Amos Norwood in 1984. At trial, the prosecution alleged the motive was robbery and persuaded a jury to sentence Williams to death. The prosecution made sure the jury never heard any of the sexual abuse history of Williams. Or of Norwood's part in that abuse.
Williams is now scheduled to be executed on October 3. His lawyers took his case to the Pennsylvania State Board of Pardons this week, seeking clemency. They hoped that hearing about the history of sexual abuse and hearing from 5 jurors who now say they wouldn't have voted for death had they known about Williams' history would persuade the board. But the board vote had to be unanimous and not all 5 members agreed. So Terrance Williams will probably die in two weeks.
I confess. I find this one hard to figure out. I get that Terrance Williams shouldn't get a free pass on murder. I am obviously not in the camp of folks who thinks summary execution is justified for child molesters. But I don't understand the lack of sympathy for Williams. Abused since he was 6. Finally big enough to fight back. Clearly, no one else in his life had fought back on his behalf. It makes me sick to think that a kid like this never had any chance at a decent, normal life, never had role models or security or love, but then the second he becomes a legal adult, we'll sentence him to death because he somehow should have learned better life skills on his own.
While we can't condone the method he came up with for fighting back and standing up for himself, maybe we oughta not kill the guy for it.
Unless that person happens to be an 18 year-old black man in Philly. Who was once the 6 year-old victim. Who grew up in chaos, with adults everywhere continuing to abuse him. When that guy beats his abuser to death, he gets the death penalty.
Terrance Williams was convicted of murdering Amos Norwood in 1984. At trial, the prosecution alleged the motive was robbery and persuaded a jury to sentence Williams to death. The prosecution made sure the jury never heard any of the sexual abuse history of Williams. Or of Norwood's part in that abuse.
Williams is now scheduled to be executed on October 3. His lawyers took his case to the Pennsylvania State Board of Pardons this week, seeking clemency. They hoped that hearing about the history of sexual abuse and hearing from 5 jurors who now say they wouldn't have voted for death had they known about Williams' history would persuade the board. But the board vote had to be unanimous and not all 5 members agreed. So Terrance Williams will probably die in two weeks.
I confess. I find this one hard to figure out. I get that Terrance Williams shouldn't get a free pass on murder. I am obviously not in the camp of folks who thinks summary execution is justified for child molesters. But I don't understand the lack of sympathy for Williams. Abused since he was 6. Finally big enough to fight back. Clearly, no one else in his life had fought back on his behalf. It makes me sick to think that a kid like this never had any chance at a decent, normal life, never had role models or security or love, but then the second he becomes a legal adult, we'll sentence him to death because he somehow should have learned better life skills on his own.
While we can't condone the method he came up with for fighting back and standing up for himself, maybe we oughta not kill the guy for it.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Shaken Baby Syndrome: The fake diagnosis we can't seem to shake
The myth of shaken baby syndrome continues. And defense attorneys everywhere go a little bit crazy. Or crazier, I guess. (At least, I hope they do because they're up to date on the medical and legal literature on the topic.)
According to this story, a 19 year-old man in New Jersey has been charged with manslaughter and is accused of shaking his girlfriend's baby to death. There's just one problem: shaken baby syndrome is bunk. For decades now, we've been convicting people of some form of manslaughter or murder for shaking a baby too hard, so hard that the baby suffers massive brain trauma. But the fundamental underlying premise of the syndrome is flawed. Deeply flawed. So flawed that the syndrome has been renamed to Abusive Head Trauma (still a flawed name, though, as it doesn't just identify symptoms but presumes a cause).
I'm not going to get into all the details here. I haven't ever dealt with an SBS case, so I'm not as well-versed in the medical issues as I could be. Instead, I would refer you to this law review article (shameless plug: one of the authors was one of my advisers in law school: go Keith!).
According to this story, a 19 year-old man in New Jersey has been charged with manslaughter and is accused of shaking his girlfriend's baby to death. There's just one problem: shaken baby syndrome is bunk. For decades now, we've been convicting people of some form of manslaughter or murder for shaking a baby too hard, so hard that the baby suffers massive brain trauma. But the fundamental underlying premise of the syndrome is flawed. Deeply flawed. So flawed that the syndrome has been renamed to Abusive Head Trauma (still a flawed name, though, as it doesn't just identify symptoms but presumes a cause).
I'm not going to get into all the details here. I haven't ever dealt with an SBS case, so I'm not as well-versed in the medical issues as I could be. Instead, I would refer you to this law review article (shameless plug: one of the authors was one of my advisers in law school: go Keith!).
Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, and Actual Innocence: Getting It Right
The bottom line is that shaking as a mechanism for causing these head traumas has been debunked. The amount of force that would be necessary would also show massive injuries to the infant's neck. But SBS cases never involve those injuries. The premise is that a triad of symptoms exist (subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and encephalopathy) that trigger a diagnose of this shaking trauma and that the onset of symptoms can be used to pinpoint the time of injury, thus identifying the perpetrator. But none of this is true. This triad of symptoms can occur from all sorts of natural and accidental causes and the onset of symptoms can vary widely.
Understandably, this is a hard topic for medical researchers to investigate because one cannot test the hypotheses on actual infants. So it has taken some time to realize the flaws in the premises behind SBS. But we have enough information now that we ought to have moved past still perpetuating the myth that people shake babies to death. Sadly, though, it is still a widely accepted concept. Then what happens is that a parent or family member or caretaker reeling from the death of an infant is confronted with this medical theory and urged to admit getting frustrated and possibly shaking the baby a little too hard. An awful lot of people have been convicted this way, which ought to trouble all of us.
In this New Jersey case, I have no idea what the circumstances are. Maybe there really are severe neck injuries to the child, but there probably aren't. And if there aren't, it's not a shaking case. (Sort of like the vast majority of purported shaking cases...) Perhaps it is clear that this young man is responsible for the child's death through some form of abuse and the use of the word "shaking" is just loose terminology. He may well be responsible, but we're not going to get any sort of reliable result if the police and prosecutors continue to pursue cases as shaking cases. Because the truth is there really isn't any such thing.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Dark sports days in Kansas City
Oh, Kansas City sports. I want to love you. I do love you. But you make it so hard. It's starting to feel like loving an abuser.
I grew up listening to every Royals game. My parents always let me wear my headphones at the dinner table, as long as I only covered one ear and followed along with the conversation. Oh, and as long a I kept my parents informed. I named my stuffed animals after Royals. I cried when my favorite player got traded away. The Royals winning the World Series in 1985 was the highlight of my childhood. But then Dick Howser got a brain tumor and it's all been downhill since.
And then there are my Chiefs. I have a couple of stuffed animals named after them, too. I've watched every game possible. I have jerseys and hair ties and, yes, even underwear. I make sure I always have my red cowboy boots ready for game day. But none of that matters as they don't seem to know what to do in any phase of the game.
But, damn, you guys just refuse to reciprocate. You lose and you lose and you hire horrible coaches and make awful trades. You get blown out by the Buffalo Bills and get swept by the Minnesota Twins (whose fans are the absolute worst when they come to my stadium). For crying out loud, I'm considering this Royals season fairly decent because we're in 3rd place in our division. We're not last!
Maybe life wouldn't seem so dreary and depressing if I didn't let you drain all my hope and optimism and positive energy year after year. Maybe, just maybe, it's time for me to quit you.
But I won't. I can't. You know I'll keep watching every Royals game til game 162. And I'll still tune in for the next 14 Sundays, even if it's just to watch the Chiefs bumble and stumble their way to a 2-14 record. (Which seems like a lot of wins for the team I'm watching today.) And next March, I'll be optimistic and excited for the new Royals season. And next August, I will eagerly await that first snap. So keep abusing my love, guys, because you know I'll come back every time.
You should probably thank Sporting KC for it if I don't lose all hope. Because they are finally giving KC sports fans what we so desperately want: a winning team with a real shot. They've already won a trophy this season, winning the US Open Cup, which gets them into a tournament involving the premiere teams from all the leagues in our World Cup qualifying region. And we're leading the Eastern Conference with one of the best records in all of MLS. No pressure, Sporting, but I'm pretty sure all of KC's sports hopes rest on your shoulders...
Hey, at least the Chiefs finally scored a touchdown today. So now we're only down by 25 with 6:26 to go.
I grew up listening to every Royals game. My parents always let me wear my headphones at the dinner table, as long as I only covered one ear and followed along with the conversation. Oh, and as long a I kept my parents informed. I named my stuffed animals after Royals. I cried when my favorite player got traded away. The Royals winning the World Series in 1985 was the highlight of my childhood. But then Dick Howser got a brain tumor and it's all been downhill since.
And then there are my Chiefs. I have a couple of stuffed animals named after them, too. I've watched every game possible. I have jerseys and hair ties and, yes, even underwear. I make sure I always have my red cowboy boots ready for game day. But none of that matters as they don't seem to know what to do in any phase of the game.
But, damn, you guys just refuse to reciprocate. You lose and you lose and you hire horrible coaches and make awful trades. You get blown out by the Buffalo Bills and get swept by the Minnesota Twins (whose fans are the absolute worst when they come to my stadium). For crying out loud, I'm considering this Royals season fairly decent because we're in 3rd place in our division. We're not last!
Maybe life wouldn't seem so dreary and depressing if I didn't let you drain all my hope and optimism and positive energy year after year. Maybe, just maybe, it's time for me to quit you.
But I won't. I can't. You know I'll keep watching every Royals game til game 162. And I'll still tune in for the next 14 Sundays, even if it's just to watch the Chiefs bumble and stumble their way to a 2-14 record. (Which seems like a lot of wins for the team I'm watching today.) And next March, I'll be optimistic and excited for the new Royals season. And next August, I will eagerly await that first snap. So keep abusing my love, guys, because you know I'll come back every time.
You should probably thank Sporting KC for it if I don't lose all hope. Because they are finally giving KC sports fans what we so desperately want: a winning team with a real shot. They've already won a trophy this season, winning the US Open Cup, which gets them into a tournament involving the premiere teams from all the leagues in our World Cup qualifying region. And we're leading the Eastern Conference with one of the best records in all of MLS. No pressure, Sporting, but I'm pretty sure all of KC's sports hopes rest on your shoulders...
Hey, at least the Chiefs finally scored a touchdown today. So now we're only down by 25 with 6:26 to go.
The new Kansas motto: Have faith, will govern
This article scares the $*&^ out of me. It's everything that is wrong with this new evangelism that has taken over the right wing in this state, which is pretty much the body of power. They really are intent on turning this state into a theocracy, all while maintaining that it's entirely consistent with a democratic republic. Our governor is a C Street guy and the majority of our legislators are with him. After the November elections, it will likely be the vast majority as the right wing targeted the only remaining moderates in the primary and succeeded in kicking them all out.
At first, it seems pretty harmless. This chaplain for Capitol Connection, an organization active in 19 statehouses across the country, sets up prayer chains and groups. They run prayer breakfasts and bible studies over lunch. Of course it's all voluntary, so what's the harm, right?
But keep reading this article, because it gets so much worse. An employee at the Kansas Department for Children and Families died. The supervisor sent out an email that included a portion of the Lord's Prayer and set up a prayer service during office hours. My office once suffered the unexpected loss of a colleague. We were all stunned and sad and looking to each other. If the head of the office had sent out an email with a religious message, I would have been offended. If he had gone a step further and organized a prayer service at work, I would have been angry enough to quit. Religion and the office, especially a state office, just don't mix. The DCF office wisely decided not to go through with the prayer event at the office during office hours. Instead it was held after hours somewhere else. This particular department has been entirely revamped and largely restaffed when the new governor took office in 2011. As a result, there appears to be a broad new emphasis on faith-based services and initiatives that push a view of family structure the governor and his cronies see as biblical.
I can't help but wonder how employees at that agency who didn't participate in the after-hours service were viewed. Or who don't share the biblical views of their department leaders. If I worked in social services, I would certainly not want to promote the notion that marriage is the best way out of poverty for women. What happens to those employees? Are they marginalized and pushed out? And how about legislators or staff members who never attend that weekly prayer breakfast or bible study? Are those employees who don't outwardly profess a Christian faith less valued? Less likely to get their ideas heard or be promoted?
The scariest part of this article is the very end. The pastor who is the focus of the article indicated that some caution needed to be exercised in deciding which religious groups have access to the statehouse. Apparently in the Kansas capitol, not all religions are equal. The Westboro Baptist Church, those crazy picketers based in Topeka, might be a problem, according to the pastor.
So the message is that faith is welcomed at the Kansas capitol. Embraced, even. Championed and heralded. As long as it's the right faith. And the right brand of the right faith. Muslims are mean and scary. The WBC is just mean. So they can't come in. One assumes that Buddhists and Jainists, being pretty darn peaceful types, would be ok. But Wiccans are probably too weird.
And, of course, what about those of us of no faith? Would we be more or less welcome than those scary terrorists or the hateful wackos? Do we have any place in the statehouse according to this guy and the great majority of our state legislators? I don't think we do, which is as much a violation of the First Amendment as it is to declare that Muslims and the WBC need not apply for access.
Obviously, one's worldviews and political view are informed by one's religious views or lack thereof. There is no way to remove that individual influence of religion on politics. But those people who are elected to the statehouse have an absolute obligation to remember that not everyone shares those religious views. And we have a right not to have the religious views of others imposed on us. From this article and other things I have observed in the past year and a half in this state, I don't think that a lot of our leaders understand that they're doing anything wrong.
At first, it seems pretty harmless. This chaplain for Capitol Connection, an organization active in 19 statehouses across the country, sets up prayer chains and groups. They run prayer breakfasts and bible studies over lunch. Of course it's all voluntary, so what's the harm, right?
But keep reading this article, because it gets so much worse. An employee at the Kansas Department for Children and Families died. The supervisor sent out an email that included a portion of the Lord's Prayer and set up a prayer service during office hours. My office once suffered the unexpected loss of a colleague. We were all stunned and sad and looking to each other. If the head of the office had sent out an email with a religious message, I would have been offended. If he had gone a step further and organized a prayer service at work, I would have been angry enough to quit. Religion and the office, especially a state office, just don't mix. The DCF office wisely decided not to go through with the prayer event at the office during office hours. Instead it was held after hours somewhere else. This particular department has been entirely revamped and largely restaffed when the new governor took office in 2011. As a result, there appears to be a broad new emphasis on faith-based services and initiatives that push a view of family structure the governor and his cronies see as biblical.
I can't help but wonder how employees at that agency who didn't participate in the after-hours service were viewed. Or who don't share the biblical views of their department leaders. If I worked in social services, I would certainly not want to promote the notion that marriage is the best way out of poverty for women. What happens to those employees? Are they marginalized and pushed out? And how about legislators or staff members who never attend that weekly prayer breakfast or bible study? Are those employees who don't outwardly profess a Christian faith less valued? Less likely to get their ideas heard or be promoted?
The scariest part of this article is the very end. The pastor who is the focus of the article indicated that some caution needed to be exercised in deciding which religious groups have access to the statehouse. Apparently in the Kansas capitol, not all religions are equal. The Westboro Baptist Church, those crazy picketers based in Topeka, might be a problem, according to the pastor.
"That's not the kind of religion we're talking about," DePue said. "We're talking about the good Samaritan kind of religion where you turn the other cheek."Wow. At least he's honest about it. He went on to suggest that Muslims also shouldn't assume they have access.
"They can apply," he said. "The main concern would be security. Probably that would be a valid reason. With security, if they felt it was an insecure situation, they would be told no."
So the message is that faith is welcomed at the Kansas capitol. Embraced, even. Championed and heralded. As long as it's the right faith. And the right brand of the right faith. Muslims are mean and scary. The WBC is just mean. So they can't come in. One assumes that Buddhists and Jainists, being pretty darn peaceful types, would be ok. But Wiccans are probably too weird.
And, of course, what about those of us of no faith? Would we be more or less welcome than those scary terrorists or the hateful wackos? Do we have any place in the statehouse according to this guy and the great majority of our state legislators? I don't think we do, which is as much a violation of the First Amendment as it is to declare that Muslims and the WBC need not apply for access.
Obviously, one's worldviews and political view are informed by one's religious views or lack thereof. There is no way to remove that individual influence of religion on politics. But those people who are elected to the statehouse have an absolute obligation to remember that not everyone shares those religious views. And we have a right not to have the religious views of others imposed on us. From this article and other things I have observed in the past year and a half in this state, I don't think that a lot of our leaders understand that they're doing anything wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
