Time for Texas to End Barbarous Death Penalty

Were it not for last minute action by a federal appeals court yesterday, August 15, 2019, the State of Texas would likely have executed Dexter Johnson for the murders of Maria Aparece and Huy Ngo in Harris County in 2006.  Earlier in the week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his motion for a stay of execution and his habeas petition without reviewing the merits of the claims he raised, including evidence of his intellectual disability and the false and misleading testimony of a State’s witness at trial. Unlike the Texas justices, the federal court did consider the evidence suggesting intellectual disability and sent the case back to state courts for further review on that issue.

Over the next four months 12 other Texas inmates are scheduled for execution. Next week, on Wednesday, August 21, the State of Texas is scheduled to execute Larry Swearingen. Since his conviction in 2000 he has consistently maintained his innocence of the 1998 murder of 19-year-old Melissa Trotter. Swearingen was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone, there is no forensic evidence tying him to the murder, nor eye witness testimony.

Since 1973, 166 people have been exonerated from death row on innocence grounds. The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. That’s about one exoneration for every hundred executed. How many of those who were executed weren’t exonerated simply because they didn’t have adequate representation? How many were like Larry Swearingen and just didn’t have an alibi to prove they didn’t commit the crime? Once again Texas is at risk of executing an innocent man. It is unacceptable for the state in service to the people to kill someone when so many doubts about his guilt exist.

Many supporters of the death penalty claim it is a deterrent however criminologists will tell you it isn’t because either the murder is committed in a moment of passion when such considerations aren’t in play or the perpetrator simply doesn’t believe they’ll get caught.

Other supporters of the death penalty claim it is the ultimate punishment but think about this a moment, as soon as the prisoner is executed they are free of all hunger, pain, loneliness, and fear. They no longer suffer punishment at all. Ask someone like Anthony Graves, a man who was exonerated after spending 18 years on death row, he’ll tell you that many of those with life sentences longed for execution so it would end their misery. If this was truly about punishment we’d just hand out life sentences knowing that the suffering would last for decades. A death sentence just lets the worst criminals off the hook while not giving society a chance to walk back injustices when innocent people are executed for crimes they didn’t commit.

Finally some death penalty supporters claim that it gives closure to the families of victims. In reality most families get no such closure regardless of the penalty imposed on the convicted individual. In fact some find peace in forgiving the murderer after meeting with them and sharing their grief.

Since none of the so-called justifications for the death penalty actually exist neither should the death penalty. It is time for Texas to join much of the rest of the United States and developed world and end the barbarous practice of state sanctioned murder.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - August 16, 2019

Trump and Republicans to Blame

There are lots of problems in this country that our legislators fail to address, last weekend one event that is an example of how two of them are often intertwined occurred here in Texas. Yet another right wing white supremacist used a gun to kill 22 people, at last count, in El Paso. Trump and Republicans in Congress are responsible for this incident in the same way that a parent is responsible when a child follows their example and does something wrong.

If Trump made a few racially insensitive jokes in private it wouldn’t be such a problem, however he makes claims that certain ethnicities are “bad people” at political rallies, in televised speeches, and in tweets. He minimizes the perceived dangerousness of neo-Nazis by saying “many of them or good people”. Whether he believes these things or not doesn’t matter, he is the President of the United States and sets an example that unfortunately many Americans are keen to follow. Certainly a large fraction of those already felt that way before he started his run for president but his repeated statements have given them permission to be vocal as well. Like any mob when a loud voice starts calling for an action others take up that call and act on it.

It isn’t just that Trump uses racist tropes and scapegoats immigrants, or that congressional Republicans or for that matter Texas Republicans haven’t called him out for it. I’m truly saddened that Trump and Republicans from Congress, state legislatures, on down to some city halls would rather use his hateful, divisive rhetoric to win office than work to heal the nation and their communities.

A year ago, while right wing terror attacks were on the rise, the Trump administration dismantled a Department of Homeland Security intelligence unit focusing on domestic terrorism and reassigned the staff to different positions within the DHS. That wasn’t the first time Republicans forced dissolution of a DHS analysis group focused on domestic terror not committed by Islamists. Congressional Republicans pushed DHS to shut down a group run by Daryl Johnson not long after President Obama took office in 2009. Johnson produced a report called Right-Wing Extremism and Republicans went nuts.

Stopping research and information gathering on right-wing violence is the same sort of head in the sand behavior we see with Republicans on gun violence where they have defunded efforts to study the issue at the Centers for Disease Control. It’s also very similar to how they hide from the global climate change crisis be defunding research by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and other federal and state agencies.

It’s truly sad that the party of Lincoln, who did everything in his power to maintain the union, has chosen division and strife as a means to retain power. I fault not just Republican elected officials in this, it is the responsibility of Republican voters too for if they don’t repudiate Trump and his enablers at the ballot box they are in fact supporting them just like good little Nazis. Oddly enough George W. Bush’s claim around the time of the Iraq war that “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” is very true in this instance.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - August 9, 2019

Impeachment How and Why

Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees regarding his team’s investigation of the Donald Trump and his associates it is time to consider what impeachment means and how it works. For the purposes of this discussion I have cited the various paragraphs of the constitution and provided their text including the archaic spelling used at the time.

Article I, Section 2, paragraph 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

We should think of this duty of the House as similar to that of a grand jury, meaning that House’s job isn’t to determine guilt or innocence but rather to determine if there is enough evidence of impeachable offenses to proceed to trial.

Article I, Section 3, paragraph 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

If the House finds that there is sufficient evidence of impeachable offenses it is the Senate which must then hold the trial and it requires at least 67 members to vote convict assuming that all 100 Senators are present.

Article I, Section 3, paragraph 7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Impeaching the President is specifically limited to removal from office with no other penalties attached. The constitution is also clear that anyone removed from office is subject to criminal trial and attendant penalties, such as imprisonment or fines as appropriate to the charges, if there is evidence of criminal acts just like anyone else.

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Any federal official including judges but not members of Congress are subject to impeachment and if convicted are removed from office. Treason and bribery are just the crimes spelled out in the constitution but it includes the vague “high crimes and misdemeanors” phrase to give future legislatures the flexibility to impeach for actions not imagined by the authors of the constitution.

If you haven’t read the Mueller report yet you really should, the first section regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election is enlightening though dry. While it doesn’t name Trump or others in his orbit it is part of the evidence of the conspiracy which evidence described later in the report suggests a conspiracy. Note the legal term is conspiracy, not collusion, so no Mueller’s team found no evidence of collusion because they weren’t looking for it, they were looking for conspiracy and found some evidence of it. As Mueller testified last week they also found that Trump and his lackeys withheld documents and testimony that might have provided further evidence for conspiracy.

Withholding those documents and testimony in addition to Trump’s efforts to fire James Comey are all the evidence the House should need that Trump obstructed justice and that is an impeachable offense.

Congressman Vicente Gonzalez hasn’t yet made a public statement on his position regarding impeachment.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - July 1, 2019