---
title: 'Texas Editorial Backs Death Penalty Reforms'
description: 'An editorial in the Austin-American Statesman praised the recommendations of the governor’s advisory council on criminal justice, especially in regard to…'
canonical: 'https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/texas-editorial-backs-death-penalty-reforms'
section: news
date: '2006-02-17T01:35:54-05:00'
updated: '2025-03-14T14:24:12-04:00'
source: 'Death Penalty Information Center'
---

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](/editorials?did=189&scid=43).