An edi­to­r­i­al in the Austin-American Statesman praised the rec­om­men­da­tions of the gov­er­nor’s advi­so­ry coun­cil on crim­i­nal jus­tice, espe­cial­ly in regard to changes need­ed in the death penal­ty sys­tem. Excerpts from the edi­to­r­i­al appear below:

Affordable steps to jus­tice in Texas
Nobody can blame the pub­lic for becom­ing increas­ing­ly skep­ti­cal about the
Texas crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem in light of the steady stream of folks who
have been released from prison because they were inno­cent.

We cer­tain­ly believe that the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem most often pun­ish­es
the guilty. But in too many cas­es, it has been hard to deter­mine whether a
defen­dant was tru­ly guilty or sim­ply too poor to hire a com­pe­tent lawyer.
The Texas jus­tice sys­tem does­n’t inspire con­fi­dence when it defends sleep­ing
lawyers as well as shod­dy ones and sends peo­ple to prison on false or shaky
evi­dence.

Reasonable peo­ple can dis­agree about the sever­i­ty and effec­tive­ness of
pun­ish­ment — includ­ing the death penal­ty — hand­ed out by the courts. But
every­one wants to get con­vic­tions right. That’s why we wel­come
rec­om­men­da­tions released last week by the gov­er­nor’s advi­so­ry coun­cil on
crim­i­nal jus­tice. The coun­cil’s rec­om­men­da­tions would empha­size fair­ness
with­out com­pro­mis­ing tough­ness.

Several pro­pos­als right­ly focus on expand­ing the use of DNA test­ing dur­ing
tri­als and after con­vic­tions. Forensic test­ing now is lim­it­ed because tri­al
judges are reluc­tant to order DNA test­ing with­out spe­cif­ic statu­to­ry
author­i­ty. We agree with the gov­er­nor’s coun­cil that judges should have that
author­i­ty. In cas­es with DNA evi­dence, there is a sure way to know if the
accused or con­vict­ed is guilty. That makes sense. We have the tech­nol­o­gy, we
should use it.
…
We’re glad the coun­cil did­n’t ignore the qual­i­ty of legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion for
poor defen­dants — espe­cial­ly those accused of cap­i­tal mur­der. Under the
cur­rent sys­tem, defen­dants who are too poor to hire their own lawyers are
appoint­ed ones by the courts. Hampered by a lack of stan­dards and mon­ey, the
court-appoint­ed lawyers sys­tem has large­ly failed to pro­vide poor defen­dants
with expe­ri­enced, and in many cas­es, com­pe­tent lawyers. We’ve wit­nessed
cas­es in which court-appoint­ed lawyers failed to do the basics — inter­view
wit­ness­es, check ali­bis, obtain DNA test­ing or con­duct­ed inves­ti­ga­tions.

The state has made improve­ments in the court-appoint­ed lawyers sys­tem. But
we agree with the coun­cil that Texas might need a total­ly dif­fer­ent sys­tem
to pro­vide legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion for poor defen­dants in cap­i­tal mur­der cas­es.
The coun­cil rec­om­mend­ed fur­ther study on using state mon­ey to estab­lish a
net­work of pub­lic defend­ers offices.
…
The sys­tem can be fair and still be tough. A sys­tem that is tough but unfair
gam­bles its credibility.
(Austin-American Statesman, Editorial, February 15, 2006). See Editorials.
Citation Guide