 |
 |
 |
« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »
Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 14:21:32
How to get a job in the Bush White House
I love me some Bill Maher.....I bet you don't get a mint on your pillow though
For $82 a Day, Booking a Cell in a 5-Star JailNew York Times, April 20, 2007
ANA, Calif., April 25 — Anyone convicted of a crime knows a debt to society often must be paid in jail. But a slice of Californians willing to supplement that debt with cash (no personal checks, please) are finding that the time can be almost bearable.
For offenders whose crimes are usually relatively minor (carjackers should not bother) and whose bank accounts remain lofty, a dozen or so city jails across the state offer pay-to-stay upgrades. Theirs are a clean, quiet, if not exactly recherché alternative to the standard county jails, where the walls are bars, the fellow inmates are hardened and privileges are few.
Many of the self-pay jails operate like the secret velvet-roped nightclubs of the corrections world. You have to be in the know to even apply for entry, and even if the court approves your sentence there, jail administrators can operate like bouncers, rejecting anyone they wish.
“I am aware that this is considered to be a five-star Hilton,” said Nicole Brockett, 22, who was recently booked into one of the jails, here in Orange County about 30 miles southeast of Los Angeles, and paid $82 a day to complete a 21-day sentence for a drunken driving conviction.
Ms. Brockett, who in her oversized orange T-shirt and flip-flops looked more like a contestant on “The Real World” than inmate, shopped around for the best accommodations, travel-ocity.com-style.
“It’s clean here,” she said, perched in a jail day room on the sort of couch found in a hospital emergency room. “It’s safe and everyone here is really nice. I haven’t had a problem with any of the other girls. They give me shampoo.”
For roughly $75 to $127 a day, these convicts — who are known in the self-pay parlance as “clients” — get a small cell behind a regular door, distance of some amplitude from violent offenders and, in some cases, the right to bring an iPod or computer on which to compose a novel, or perhaps a song.
Many of the overnighters are granted work furlough, enabling them to do most of their time on the job, returning to the jail simply to go to bed (often following a strip search, which granted is not so five-star).
The clients usually share a cell, but otherwise mix little with the ordinary nonpaying inmates, who tend to be people arrested and awaiting arraignment, or federal prisoners on trial or awaiting deportation and simply passing through.
The pay-to-stay programs have existed for years, but recently attracted some attention when prosecutors balked at a jail in Fullerton that they said would offer computer and cellphone use to George Jaramillo, a former Orange County assistant sheriff who pleaded no contest to perjury and misuse of public funds, including the unauthorized use of a county helicopter. Mr. Jaramillo was booked into the self-pay program in Montebello, near Los Angeles, instead.
“We certainly didn’t envision a jail with cellphone and laptop capabilities where his family could bring him three hot meals,” said Susan Kang Schroeder, the public affairs counsel for the Orange County district attorney. “We felt that the use of the computer was part of the instrumentality of his crime, and that is another reason we objected to that.”
A spokesman for the Fullerton jail said cellphones but not laptops were allowed.
While jails in other states may offer pay-to-stay programs, numerous jail experts said they did not know of any.
“I have never run into this,” said Ken Kerle, managing editor of the publication American Jail Association and author of two books on jails. “But the rest of the country doesn’t have Hollywood either. Most of the people who go to jail are economically disadvantaged, often mentally ill, with alcohol and drug problems and are functionally illiterate. They don’t have $80 a day for jail.”
The California prison system, severely overcrowded, teeming with violence and infectious diseases and so dysfunctional that much of it is under court supervision, is one that anyone with the slightest means would most likely pay to avoid.
“The benefits are that you are isolated and you don’t have to expose yourself to the traditional county system,” said Christine Parker, a spokeswoman for CSI, a national provider of jails that runs three in Orange County with pay-to-stay programs. “You can avoid gang issues. You are restricted in terms of the number of people you are encountering and they are a similar persuasion such as you.”
Most of the programs — which offer 10 to 30 beds — stay full enough that marketing is not necessary, though that was not always the case. The Pasadena jail, for instance, tried to create a little buzz for its program when it was started in the early 1990s.
“Our sales pitch at the time was, ‘Bad things happen to good people,’ ” said Janet Givens, a spokeswoman for the Pasadena Police Department. Jail representatives used Rotary Clubs and other such venues as their potential marketplace for “fee-paying inmate workers” who are charged $127 a day (payment upfront required).
“People might have brothers, sisters, cousins, etc., who might have had a lapse in judgment and do not want to go to county jail,” Ms. Givens said.
The typical pay-to-stay client, jail representatives agreed, is a man in his late 30s who has been convicted of driving while intoxicated and sentenced to a month or two in jail.
But there are single-night guests, and those who linger well over a year.
“One individual wanted to do four years here,” said Christina Holland, a correctional manager of the Santa Ana jail.
Inmates in Santa Ana who have been approved for pay to stay by the courts and have coughed up a hefty deposit for their stay, enter the jail through a lobby and not the driveway reserved for the arrival of other prisoners. They are strip searched when they return from work each day because the biggest problem they pose is the smuggling of contraband, generally cigarettes, for nonpaying inmates.
Most of the jailers require the inmates to do chores around the jails, even if they work elsewhere during the day.
“I try real hard to keep them in custody for 12 hours,” Ms. Holland said. “Because I think that’s fair.”
Critics argue that the systems create inherent injustices, offering cleaner, safer alternatives to those who can pay.
“It seems to be to be a little unfair,” said Mike Jackson, the training manager of the National Sheriff’s Association. “Two people come in, have the same offense, and the guy who has money gets to pay to stay and the other doesn’t. The system is supposed to be equitable.”
But cities argue that the paying inmates generate cash, often hundreds of thousands of dollars a year — enabling them to better afford their other taxpayer-financed operations — and are generally easy to deal with.
“We never had a problem with self pay,” said Steve Lechuga, the operations manager for CSI. “I haven’t seen any fights in years. We had a really good success rate with them.”
Stanley Goldman, a professor of criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, has recommended the program to former clients.
“The prisoners who are charged with nonviolent crimes and typically have no record are not in the best position to handle themselves in the general county facility,” Professor Goldman said.
Still, no doubt about it, the self-pay jails are not to be confused with Canyon Ranch.
The cells at Santa Ana are roughly the size of a custodial closet, and share its smell and ambience. Most have little more than a pink bottle of jail-issue moisturizer and a book borrowed from the day room. Lockdown can occur for hours at a time, and just feet away other prisoners sit with their faces pressed against cell windows, looking menacing.
Ms. Brockett, who normally works as a bartender in Los Angeles, said the experience was one she never cared to repeat.
“It does look decent,” she said, “but you still feel exactly where you are.”
Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 22:18:25
Following the Huckabee for Vice President or a Cabinet Position 2008 Fiasco
You know your pitiful excuse for a presidential bid is in deep trouble when:April 20: You make stupid comments that advocate college students carrying concealed loaded weapons on campus as a method of preventing mass murder.
April 25: Your son tries to sneak a loaded gun onto a commercial airline.
( both articles in the extended entry)
Governor Huckabee has said: "Americans ought to be allowed to [own guns] as long as they are law abiding, legal citizens." And also: "That's where the crackdown needs to be (on criminals). [Gun control is] cracking down on law abiding citizens, and turning their heads at people who break the law."
So, if you bring a loaded gun in an airport - are you a law abiding legal citizen? If you plead guilty to a crime - does that make you a criminal? Or maybe he thinks bringing guns on a plane should be legal.
Part of an interview w/ the Huckster:
HH:…What about assault weapons, or what is called assault weapons in the law? Should Americans be allowed to have them?
MH: Absolutely. Americans ought to be allowed to have anything they want to have, as long as they’re law abiding, legal citizens. The 2nd Amendment was not there for hunting. I get so offended when Democrats talk about it as if you don’t need an assault weapon to hunt. Well truthfully, most Democrats wouldn’t know an assault weapon from a BB gun. I’m a hunter, I have been my whole life. But the 2nd Amendment is not just about hunting. It’s about protecting your family, your property, and it’s honestly about defending ourselves against a tyrannical government, should it ever go haywire on us.
HH:…What about assault weapons, or what is called assault weapons in the law? Should Americans be allowed to have them?
MH: Absolutely. Americans ought to be allowed to have anything they want to have, as long as they’re law abiding, legal citizens. The 2nd Amendment was not there for hunting. I get so offended when Democrats talk about it as if you don’t need an assault weapon to hunt. Well truthfully, most Democrats wouldn’t know an assault weapon from a BB gun. I’m a hunter, I have been my whole life. But the 2nd Amendment is not just about hunting. It’s about protecting your family, your property, and it’s honestly about defending ourselves against a tyrannical government, should it ever go haywire on us.
I'm not sure I get that tyrannical part. Is he saying we need guns to use against this hypothetical tyrannical government? Wouldn't that mean shooting tyrannical police officers or members of the tyrannical national guard? Fight the Power !!! Of course, guns are helpful for other things:
In 1998, Huckabee was among two boys fired from a Boy Scout camp after a stray dog was killed after wandering onto camp property. Huckabee, 17 at the time, said the dog appeared ill; no charges were filed. The elder Huckabee said then that politics was behind the dog-killing accusation.
In addition to the criminal charge, TSA can seek separate civil penalties of up to $10,000,
_________________________________________________________
At the recent democratic presidential debate, the candidates were asked about their guns
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The eight Democratic presidential candidates were asked by a show of hands how many of them in their adult lives have had a gun in the house. Former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, Sens. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, and Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, raised their hands.
What a lame question -- who has ever had a gun in their house I have - and I'm not sure where it is anymore ( probably in its case at my parents house - a Ruger 10/22 isn't the best home defense weapon in my opinion )
The Freedom of Information Act isn't free - but it's close
Free Freedom of Information Advice
I think the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act is great. So do most people, except maybe.....Mike Huckabee and lawyers at the U of A. The FOI is simple, citizen friendly, and surprisingly effective. You don't have to a journalist to use it. Anyone can send a request to most state agencies requesting most documents. Of course, not everything is available but correspondence, emails, phone logs, reports, lots of stuff is available for inspection and copying. They will copy it for you but they can charge a small fee per page of course. You can't get most personnel records, "working papers" current investigation records, most juvenile records, most medical records, and similar materials. Who do you send it to ? While in theory to the "FOI officer" you can send it to just about state employee and they should instantly flip it to someone who knows how to respond.
So for example - I want to look for any arrest records for gun running, attempted hijacking, or similar crimes by the Huckabee family. I can first call the Little Rock Police Department, records department, and see if they will confirm they have the records I want and they are available. Did you know you can even get things like mug shots? Then I write my letter. To be efficient - I would enclose a check for estimated copy fees ( hopefully 10 cents a page) I would throw in a self- addressed stamped envelope to be polite. Of course some records tend to get lengthy so if you want say, the last five years of Frank Broyles expense accounts, you should probably get an estimate ahead of time and make arrangements. They are supposed to get the records in 3 days but, again, as long as they are making good faith efforts I'd give them a break -
If anyone ever gets some fun records through FOI - and wants it published without their name being published - send it my way. Of course, you would need to scan them first.
For an Arkansas specific FOI request generator, go here:
http://www.rcfp.org/foi_letter/generate.php
or use this generic sample letter.
Agency Head [or Freedom of Information Act Officer]
Name of Agency
Address of Agency
City, State, Zip Code
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear ______________:
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
I request that a copy of the following documents [or documents containing the following information] be provided to me: [identify the documents or information as specifically as possible ].
In order to help to determine my status to assess fees, you should know that I am (insert a suitable description of the requester and the purpose of the request).
[Sample requester descriptions:
an individual seeking information for personal use and not for a commercial use. I am a resident of Arkansas.
[Optional] I am willing to pay fees for this request up to a maximum of $_____. If you estimate that the fees will exceed this limit, please inform me first.
[Optional] I request a waiver of all fees for this request. Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in my commercial interest. [Include a specific explanation.]
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone number [Optional]
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 22:28:29
ISOO4U
There are some rich and powerful people who love to use their lawyers to scare poor and powerless people into submission. Houston Nutt's lawyer has strongly hinted at legal action because a hog fan wrote a letter to some trustees. He included a 48 page summary of texts, emails and phone calls Nutt made to various people. I can't say it any better than McAfee's lawyer, Nate Coulter, said it:Nutt is a public figure, he said, and the little guy has a right to question those in power. "They don't like that he said the emperor has no clothes," Coulter said. "You're not supposed to say a word about the Razorback coach. You're supposed to genuflect."
Ok, I don't even know what genuflect means.
Nutt's lawyer, a "tall building lawyer" responded in an interview, "Most people have something to do for a living rather than pore through 500 pages," He said. "This is not life or death. It's football. "If people took as much interest in their government, we'd be a lot better off." The irony is obvious here, coming from someone representing a college coach who makes nearly $1 million a year. Of course -- Nutt's hired gun has no proof that McAfee made the 48 page summary -- he is just making, dare I say, reckless allegations? Of course, McAfee was the one who asked for the records and admits he passed them on. Here are a few paragraphs of the letter that Nutt's lawyers says is not a threat:
I am writing to address the malicious and defamatory statements in your email dated thursday, Mach 15, 2007, to members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas, President Alan Sugg, Chancellor John White, and members of the media. We do not typically respond to these types of false accusations, but feel it is appropraite in this instance. ( i.e., we don't have anything better to do to with our time but respond ) After a review of your email dated March 15, 2007, it appears that you have intentionally made defamatory statements about Coach Nutt with the intent to harm his reputation with the public and the Board of Trustees. Coach Nutt realizes that his coaching performance is fair game for any fan or citizen of the State. However, when you intentionally make false statements about to persons that you have never met and have no first-hand knowledge of their relationship or activities, you have crossed the line from legally permissible criticism to defamation. In addition, we are of the opinion that your actions constitute an illegal attempt to interfere with Coach Nutt's contract with the University. There is no other reason for you to send such a letter to the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas, the President, the Chancellor, and the media, except to harm Coach Nutt's employment relationship with the University and other associated contractual relationships. Please have your attorney contact me as soon as possible. I would like to set up a meetin g with you and your attorney so that we can discuss the defamatory statements you have made about my client. Coach Nutt and I prefer to do business face to face so that there is no misunderstanding about the facts, your intentions, and any future actions which we may take on behalf of Coach Nutt. We consider this to be a very serious matter and hope that you will respond appropraitely.
Best Regards,
Tall Building Laywer ( you can see the whole article here:
www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=446740419&context=set-72157600048695186&size=o )
Face to face is always better -- can't record the conversation - no paper trail -- can always use plausible denial later if someone claims someone made (another) veiled threat. Tall building lawyer followed up demanding that McAfee save his text messages and email postings from message boards. How do you do that?
Do you know who else loves to threaten defamation suits? Al Sharpton, but thats a different issue. As I said in my last post - this unseemly threat of legal action has totally backfired. It has drawn more attention to the matter. Objectively speaking - did writing this letter increase or decrease Nutt's reputation? I have some great advice - if you don't want to dignify something with a response - just don't respond - don't make some lame claim about "illegal attempts" to interfere with contracts. I don't think Nutt was having an affair - and I'm sure all of the explanations his lawyer gives are true. Of course they only cover about 10% of the oddly timed calls - but I agree - who cares? Of course, the answer is - lots of people care.
Since this is, in theory, a legal blog, not a sports blog, I'm going to ramble on a while about defamation. Don't confuse defamation with libel, which is reserved for the press.
Each state views defamation slightly differently. In Arkansas, "Defamation" means making, publishing, disseminating, or circulating, directly or indirectly, or aiding, abetting, or encouraging the making, publishing, disseminating, or circulating of any oral or written statement or of any pamphlet, circular, article, or literature that is false or maliciously critical of or derogatory to the financial condition of any person and that is calculated to injure that person;
But - that is too simple. You have to do more than spread false information. The plaintiff has to prove in court that not only has his reputation been damaged - but that he suffered economically because of his loss.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1964 in New York Times v. Sullivan, that where a public official was defamed, the plaintiff had to prove not just that an untruthful statement was made, but also that it was made with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This is practically the same as the standard for punitive damages Punitive damages are to be a penalty for conduct that is malicious or done with the deliberate intent to injure another.
Nutt's attorney, even though he claims he wasn't threatening legal action, by coincidence uses all the legal buzzwords. Nutt's attorney says there is no other reason for McAfee to send such a letter" ..."except to harm Coach Nutt's employment relationship." No other reason? None?
Lets say a commoner, who is a state employee, sends 1000 emails and numerous text messages to a female who is not his co-worker or his wife, some at 2am. Someone finds my phone records and sends them to my boss and says they are concerned about this. Can you imagine me threatening legal action because - I know I spent a wad of taxpayer cash on text messages and late night phone calls - but the only possible reason for my boss to be told was to hurt my character. Not only that -- He would have to prove that whatever McAfee was alleging was false. That would mean a trial of course.
What is interesting is that Nutt's lawyer throws around all these scary words "defamation" "illegal attempt to interfere" "crossed the line from legally permissible criticism" but he leaves out a key ingredient. Where are the damages? How much money has he lost because of this allegation? Maybe a fundraiser is in order. Remember the defamation can't be from merely from the act of passing along taxpayer funded phone calls - there has to be a separate and knowingly false - statement made AND actual harm. Assuming Nutt soon gets his raise - it would be hard to say he was doing worse after the emails were sent than before. I could be mistaken, but is no legal action for ineffective defamation -- usually thats just called being a loudmouth.
Similarly, to prove tortious interference with a contract - there must obviously be a contract, the interfering party must know of the relationship formed by the contract, and there must be an intentional interference inducing or terminating that relationship. Again, there is no "attempted interference with contract."
Most people have something better to do for a living than write baseless threatening letters claiming in painful detail why a unhappy sports fan is not only wrong -- but maliciously wrong - and inferring the possibility of future actions they may take. What else would these future actions be except a lawsuit?
Like a wreck on the side of the highway, I just can't help but look
I say this every time I mention his name, but to be clear, I'm pro-Houston Nutt. What I don't like are some of his followers. I see similarities with Houston and our lame-duck president. They both enjoyed wide popularity for a time but that has steadily waned. Bush won both his elections and should be on top of his political game. Houston just came off of one of the most successful seasons of his career. Both seem to have a need to keep secrets - secrets that they are not necessarily entitled to keep. Bush didn't want to release emails of discussions of firing US prosecutors - but failed. Nutt has transferred his phone records to the U of A Foundation to keep the citizens of this state from seeing how one of their employees is spending their money ( on phone calls at least) I hear you can even get a free personal phone with a 2 year contract - but what do I know? Bush surrounds himself with people willing to do anything to help him get his way. Loyal Bushies, like our short-term US Attorney, Timmy the Unconfirmed. Nutt has a gaggle of laywers, PR types, an athletic director, and loyal friends who seem way too eager to protect him even if he doesn't really need protecting. I say this because I don't think he has done anything wrong, certainly nothing to cause him to lose his job. Similarly, Bush had every right to fire some US attorneys. Its always the cover-up that gets you. In both cases - I don't think there was much that needed to be covered up. Nutt can call anyone he wants, anytime for all I care - even on a state phone. But, once our Attorney General opens his weasel-like mouth he can't seem to tell the truth. He claimed not to be heavily involved in the attorney firings. Why did he say it? Because they wanted to keep their little plan secret and avoid admitting the firings were political. Then they got stupid and threw in the excuse they were fired for job performance. Nutt has his lawyer threaten a fan for merely requesting FOI and sharing it with the board of trustees. Reminds me of a call Bud Cummins got strongly discouraging from voluntarily testifying before congress. In both cases -- the cover up draws far more negative publicity than the underlying issue ever would have. I think Bush needs a newAttorney General and a new chief political advisor. Likewise, maybe Nutt just needs a new PR person and a new lawyer -- ones who can understand that the cover up IS the story and whether true or not - people know where there is smoke there is fire.In the extended entry I have cut and paste more than you will want to read about this entire affair. But I shouldn't use that word because I might get sued.......
the hoglawyer
hoglawyer@gmail dot com
Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 00:43:54
Not so lethal injections
I'm fairly on the fence when it comes to executions here in the US. I guess if a jury went by my moral code, there probably would only be the death penalty for those who confessed in court or who were caught on video, where guilt was not questioned. Even then, while I would have little problem with a life sentence, I'm just not sure I could ever approve of taking someone's life as a punishment. On the other hand, I would never say never, so I could sit on a "death qualified" jury for sure - but I'd probably be the first one kicked off by the prosecution ( although I'm a former prosecutor, and probably quicker than most to find someone guilty) Anyway, it seems crazy to me that something as seemingly simple as a lethal injection can't be perfected. Isn't there some instant snake venom or something we could use instead? Executed in U.S. may be awake as they suffocate POSTED: 9:33 p.m. EDT, April 23, 2007 Story Highlights • Execution drugs sometimes don't work as planned, medical review finds • Deaths can be slow, painful, involve suffocation while awake, study says • Method probably violates ban on cruel and unusual punishment, researchers say • 37 states have adopted lethal injection; 11 have suspended its use Adjust font size: Decrease fontDecrease font Enlarge fontEnlarge font (AP) -- The drugs used to execute prisoners in the United States sometimes fail to work as planned, causing slow and painful deaths that probably violate constitutional bans on cruel and unusual punishment, a new medical review of dozens of executions concludes. Even when administered properly, the three-drug lethal injection method appears to have caused some inmates to suffocate while they were conscious and unable to move, instead of having their hearts stopped while they were sedated, scientists said in a report published Monday by the online journal PLoS Medicine. No scientific groups have ever validated that lethal injection is humane, the authors write. Medical ethics bar doctors and other health professionals from taking part in executions. The study concluded that the typical "one-size-fits-all" doses of anesthetic do not take into account an inmate's weight and other key factors. Some inmates got too little, and in some cases, the anesthetic wore off before the execution was complete, the authors found. "You wouldn't be able to use this protocol to kill a pig at the University of Miami" without more proof that it worked as intended, said Teresa Zimmers, a biologist there who led the study. The journal's editors call for abolishing the death penalty, writing: "There is no humane way of forcibly killing someone." Lethal injection has been adopted by 37 states as a cheaper and more humane alternative to electrocution, gas chambers and other execution methods. But 11 states have suspended its use after opponents alleged it is ineffective and cruel. The issue came to a head last year in California, when a federal judge ordered that doctors assist in killing Michael Morales, convicted of raping and murdering a teenage girl. Doctors refused, and legal arguments continue in the case. More than 2,000 executions In 2005 alone, at least 2,148 people have been killed by lethal injection in 22 countries, especially China, where fleets of mobile execution vans are used, the editors write, citing Amnesty International figures. Of the 53 executions in the United States in 2006, all but one were by lethal injection. The new review was written by many of the same authors who touched off controversy when they published a 2005 report suggesting that many inmates were conscious and possibly suffering when the last of the drugs was given. That report was criticized for its methodology, which relied on blood samples taken from prisoners hours after executions. The new paper looked at the executions of 40 prisoners in North Carolina since 1984 and about a dozen in California, plus incomplete information from Florida and Virginia. The authors analyzed details such as the dose the inmates received, their weight and the time they needed to die. Most states use three drugs -- thiopental, an anesthetic; pancuronium bromide, a nerve blocker and muscle paralyzer; and potassium chloride, a drug to stop the heart. Each is supposed to be capable of killing all by itself, but if not, the anesthetic is supposed to render the inmate unconscious while the other drugs do the job. In 33 North Carolina executions, the average death time was 10 to 14 minutes, depending on the combination of drugs used, the authors report. Calculating each inmate's actual dose, based on his or her weight, they concluded that some did not receive enough. "The person would feel either asphyxiation or the burning sensation associated with the potassium," said Dr. Leonidas Koniaris, a surgeon and co-author at the University of Miami. "The potassium would cause extreme discomfort, something like being put on fire." Even the final drug did not always prove fatal as intended. At least one California inmate required a second dose, and the California warden has said additional doses were used in two other executions, the study reports. Death penalty proponents complained the report's conclusions were based on scant scientific evidence. "It's more like political science than medical science," said Mike Rushford, president of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento. Steve Stewart, prosecuting attorney in Clark County, Indiana, where an execution is scheduled for May 4, said the simple solution seemed to be to give a higher dose of the anesthetic, which probably would not satisfy opponents who see all methods as barbaric. "It doesn't matter a whole lot to me that someone may have felt some pain before they were administered poison as a method of execution," he said. Dr. Mark Heath, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University Medical Center who has studied lethal injection cases, took issue with some of the paper's conclusions, but said it generally showed that concerns about lethal injection in its current form "are well-justified." Editors said they sent the manuscript to three independent medical experts for review -- an anesthesiologist, a forensic pathologist and someone in charge of a critical care unit, plus a lawyer. "We were satisfied" with the science, said Dr. Virginia Barbour, a British physician who is managing editor of the journal, published by the nonprofit group Public Library of Science. "The difficulty of a paper like this is that there is very poor evidence for all the kinds of protocols used" in lethal injections, but the authors did a good job analyzing what there is, she said.
 |
  |
| © 2004 - 07 Arkansas Times. All Rights Reserved. |  |
