June, 2009

Yougurt To Death Row To Freedom


TCBYAUSTINThe DNA revolution in Texas continues to evolve creating life altering  havoc for the guilty, innocent and not yet convicted.

On of the most publicized brutal Texas murder sprees  since Charles Whitman gunned down 14 and wounded 32 others from the  28th Floor Observation Deck  at the University of Texas Administration building is back in the news.

Two men, awaiting retrial in the 1991 slayings of four teenage girls at TCBY Austin yogurt shop were released from prison after DNA found in two victims was tested with technology not previously available revealed the possible involvement of an unknown male.tcbyy

The original suspects, Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen, were awaiting re-trial after their original convictions were overturned based on trial error.  Prosecutors maintain that both are still suspects in the case as the DNA match, while adding the specter of a new assailant does not exclude them.

The presiding judge must have felt the state case weak in the extreme as he released both suspects, still facing capital murder re-trials, on their own recognizance with almost non-existent bail restrictions. Both had been incarcerated for the last 10 years on the murder convictions A re-trial will occur sometime in 2010. While the Travis County D.A. maintains that Scott and Springsteen are the assailants, if the prosecution can not identify the owner of the newly discovered DNA, it seems likely both suspects will be acquitted in a new trial.

It appears that whether guilty or not, both Springsteen and Scott can thank the  DNA revolution for their new found freedom.  They are not alone in those benefiting from new DNA technologies and laws in effect to exonerate the wrongly convicted and identify those who have previously escaped justice.

In 1980 James Lee Woodard was convicted of the rape and murder of his girlfriend. He spent the next 27 years in prison paying for the sins of a murderer. The only problem was that the murderer was not James Woodard. DNA testing not available in 1980 has cleared Mr. Woodard. He was the longest serving wrongfully convicted inmate to be cleared by DNA testing. Where is the real murderer?  It is now an open case and there is no statute of limitations on murder but given the passage of time his girlfriend will probably never see justice.

Thomas Clifford McGowan served 23 years of a life sentence for the 1985 rape of a Dallas women before DNA technology finally caught up with the truth. The truth was that he did not commit the rape. The truth was that he did 23 years of hard time for a rapist that will never see justice. The statute of limitations for the rape has since long expired. Mr. McGowan lost his freedom and identity. The rape victim is raped again. She will never see justice. She will carry the knowledge that an innocent person suffered no less than she suffered. A tragic series of events that will tie them together for all time. A reminder that justice is always slow and often unfair in the tragic extreme.

Carrie Krejci was raped in 1985. The serial rapist had attacked several women in her neighborhood. Her attacker has never been apprehended. In 2005 The Dallas Police Department began to use DNA in an attempt to solve cases like Carrie’s even though the statute of limitations has long run. While DNA has not solved her case, her DNA has helped the police link her rapist to numerous other rapes. Maybe one day he will be caught. Carrie will never see justice but her DNA may help others who will.

Donald Andrew Bess 59, was charged last April in connection with a brutal 1984 murder of a 20-year-old Southern Methodist University. The case had gone cold after six months of investigation. Mr. Bess was apprehended because preserved DNA evidence from the crime scene was matched to Mr. Bess through a national database in 2007.  He is already serving a life sentence on unrelated convictions but a trial and conviction on the new capital charge could bring the death penalty.

In another DNA revolution development, the Texas legislature  recently passed a bill which allows un-prosecuted rape suspects DNA links to their criminal history.dna

Should those who are successfully able to evade law enforcement for a period of time walk free forever as their reward? Many states are answering in the negative. They are enacting legislation extending or eliminating the statute of limitations for certain violent crimes where DNA evidence is available.  Some are eliminating the statute limitations completely for certain violent crimes such as aggravated rape. This is something that had been traditionally reserved for murder. The general rationale as been that the law must finally catch up with science. Some states now allow arrest warrants to be issued based on a “DNA profile” where the suspect is unknown but DNA is available. This effectively stops the statue of limitations from running.  As long as the DNA sample remains viable, the perpetrator may be arrested and prosecuted regardless of the amount of time that has passed.

Is this constitutional? Not everyone thinks so-certainly not the ACLU. They have been active in challenging state legislation aimed at using “DNA profiling” to issue arrest warrants.

“We oppose the continued extensions and exceptions to the general principles to the statute of limitations requirements because when so many years pass before charges are brought, it diminishes the accuser’s ability to mount a meaningful defense and erodes the principles upon which we base our criminal justice system”

The science of DNA is the future of law enforcement. It is the future of criminal prosecution. It is the future of judicial activism. It will free the wrongfully convicted. It will stalk the guilty for life.  States already require a DNA sample from those convicted of certain violent crimes. This seems reasonable.

What about taking DNA upon arrest? We are then taking it from the legally innocent.  Many states and the federal government are calling for legislation authorizing law enforcement to collect DNA from for certain crime suspects when they are booked rather than waiting until after they are convicted of a felony.   Will we track those individuals for life?  Will we  be using to track those with violent histories?  What will it be used for in 10 years? What about 50 years? When we experience the joy of James Woodward walking out of prison should we be looking for the “Minority Report”?

Posted in Law and OrderComments (0)

Don’t Be Hurt When That Associated Press Hottie De-Friends You


briancubanAssociated Press, by far the most aggressive news organization out there when it comes to restricting any type of conduct which they feel has even the remotest chance of devaluing their brand.  They made news not long ago by going after bloggers who they felt were violating their copyright by taking snippets of and linking to their stories without consent.

AP is now  sending “take down” notices to their own employees with  Facebook pages.  They are  forcing them through a “Third Reich” type social networking policy to watch who they friend and  monitor the posts of their current Facebook friends for what  AP considers inappropriate content.  Quite a burden for an AP reporter just looking to hook up with a cute date on Facebook.

As reported in Wired Magazine, an Associated Press reporter recently received an  official reprimand over a comment on his Facebook page comment posted to his Facebook profile late last month criticizing the executive management of newspaper publisher McClatchy, whose stock plummeted following a 2006 acquisition of San Jose-based Knight Ridder.

Apparently APs  ethics policy says writers “must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news.

They must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum.”

WOW!  That does not leave much room for conversation and daily discourse.  After reading this policy I wondered what the Facebook Wall of an Associated Press Reporter looks like as it seems that opining on just about anything can get him/her reprimanded or fired.

After an exhaustive search through the Facebook pages of AP reporters here is a wall conversation I found between a reporter and his new hot Facebook friend Sally who he is also trying to hook up with.

Sally:  Did you see that new Iran protest video?

AP Reporter:  I had a hangnail this morning, really sucks

Sally:  What about that disturbing video?

AP Reporter:  It is supposed to be hot out today.

Sally:  Can I post the video on your page? Its important to get the word out!

AP Reporter:   I am getting my prostate checked today

Sally:  You are so lame and boring! Forget about that date tonight!

AP Reporter:   That’s ok.  I have to de-friend you anyways.  You are too controversial.

Can  AP interfere in their employees Facebook worlds in this manner?  Absolutely.  As I have said time and time again in the context of the Facebook Holocaust Denial dispute, there is no 1st Amendment protection in the private realm.  Is AP going to far?  A lot of people think so.  On thing is certain.  The numbers of AP reporters getting laid off Facebook is probably plummeting as we speak.


Posted in UncategorizedComments (1)

Facebook Exec Responds To Holocaust Denial Critics


zuckerbergFacebook has taken a major step towards transparency and end-user education on why and how they reach decisions regarding the removal or  non-removal of user-generated content many perceive as TOS prohibited hate speech.

I received an email from Elliot Schrage in response to previous discussions, email exchanges and my post entitled, “Simon Wiesenthal Releases Report On Online Hate Proliferation”.

Mr. Schrage is the Facebook Facebook VP Global Communications, Marketing and Public Policy.  Per Mr. Schrage’s request the statement is being released unedited with the exception of redaction of non-corporate/personal  email addresses to protect privacy.

Monday, June 22, 2009 10:01 PM
“Elliot Schrage” <redacted>
To:
“Brian Cuban” <brian.cuban@dallasmavs.com>

Brian,

If you want transparency, then I will be happy to respond, so long as you agree that if you quote any part of my message below you will reprint the entire email as part of the same post.

I just read your blog post ( http://www.briancuban.com/wiesenthal-center-releases-report-on-online-hate-proliferation/ ) and confess I feel you have somewhat distorted my comments.  You imply that my statement “I feel like I am representing the internet” suggested I (or Facebook) want or seek this role.  My point was exactly the opposite.  I stated that I felt by my participation at the event I (and Facebook) were being asked to defend the hateful content that exists on the internet.  I made clear that I completely reject any effort to put Facebook in that role —  indeed, I believe that Facebook is a much safer, less hateful environment than the internet as a whole.  I highlighted that NONE of the egregious websites or games spewing hate or promoting violence targeting Jews or other groups presented by Rabbi Cooper during his presentation would be permitted on Facebook, while they continue to be present on the internet and available for discovery through search and other means.  I indicated that I believe the debate over holocaust denial on Facebook could be viewed as a distraction from the much bigger problem of truly targeted hate directly targeting Jews and other groups that exist throughout the web — a problem that Facebook has addressed responsibly, while other web sites and service providers (as you and Rabbi Cooper acknowledged) have not.

As I indicated during the session, Facebook’s mission is to give people the power to share  and make the world more open and connected.  Our strong bias is in favor of sharing and connection and, as you and Rabbi Cooper agreed, the extent of even allegedly hateful content on Facebook is a truly tiny fraction of the millions of groups and billions of communications that take place using our service.  The sites that you and I disagree about have members that total in the low hundreds, compared to the more than 200 million people around the world that use Facebook every month.  Moreover, consistent with our mission, we believe that the best way to fight hate is to expose it and respond to it by promoting greater sharing and connection — again, as I made clear during my presentation, many of the sites that you and others object to include members and comments expressly rejecting the groups’ efforts to deny the holocaust.

As I mentioned in my presentation, we have teams of professionals that examine allegations of inappropriate content against many criteria, not only whether it is directly hateful.  The more broad criteria are listed in the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.  Our team then develops specific policies in consultation with other groups both inside and outside the company to respond to the types of reported content we see most often.

For content alleged to be hateful, the team evaluates whether the content by its own words directly degrades a person or group of people based on their membership in a group belonging to certain protected categories, including but not limited to religious affiliation.

I did not suggest that these criteria involve no subjectivity, only that they involve LESS subjectivity than the approach you seek to have us adopt.  Nor did I suggest that we have developed some mechanism to achieve “binary certainty;” rather, I indicated that, consistent with our mission,  we strive to achieve greater objectivity and limit the subjectivity of our assessments.  We recognize that any review of content always involves judgment and subjectivity; again, the approach you would have us adopt would push us to make ever greater subjective assessments and invite ever greater disagreements and controversy.

As for advertising, we block ads from appearing beside any of the holocaust denial sites that we become aware of.  We also seek to remove advertising against  search results for pages or groups that seek to deny the holocaust.   Of course, depending on the language these sites use we may not capture them all proactively, in which case we remove them when we are notified.

Brian, I hope this addresses your questions and look forward to hosting your visit to Facebook next month.

Elliot

Elliot Schrage
Vice President, Communications and Public Policy
Facebook

While I have not digested and analysis all implications of Facebook’s  stated position, Mr. Schrage did make one statement that I immediately take issue with.  He was reiterating a position taken by  Facebook head of P.R. Barry Schnitt.  He stated:

“Moreover, consistent with our mission, we believe that the best way to fight hate is to expose it and respond to it by promoting greater sharing and connection”

I agree with Mr. Schrage that it is a good thing to bring hate into the open.  It makes it pretty tough to fight if you don’t.  Once it’s in the open, at what point however do you say this is just a bad thing in your neighborhood and take a stand?  If we don’t,  do we just allow a “perpetual discussion” until the numbers reach critical mass and it takes an all-out war to deal with?  It seems to be that once you agree that something is bad, the last thing you want to do it help it grow by promoting greater sharing and connection” Is that not how a virus is spread?   Is a  pandemic of “hatred”  any less dangerous than the bird flu?

I agree  with Mr. Schrage that Holocaust Denial is just a small cog in the ever-turning wheel of online hate.  Does that mean that I believe it deserves no less attention?  I do not.  The time to fight hatred regardless of the target is when it is “fight-able” not when it has already reached critical mass. The Holocaust itself is a testament to the folly of those who wait.  11 million dead are not alone.  History has proven this true over and over again.

What is the solution?  I honestly don’t know.  It obviously has to be one that incorporates Facebook’s core beliefs in these matters.  I am open to suggestions.  There are many smart committed, individuals and groups such as The Simon Wiesenthal Center and The Anti-Defamation League in constant discussions with Facebook on these issues.   I suspect that whatever solution ultimately presents itself, it will be an evolving one.

I am looking forward to getting grilled on my core beliefs when I visit Facebook.   I wonder if I will be the only Republican in the room….

Posted in UncategorizedComments (12)

The Science Of Intelligent Design


I recently watched  “Expelled“.  It is a documentary about the theory of “Intelligent Design.”  It attempts to make the argument for why Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools along side Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. It was produced by and starred Ben Stein, a well known speech writer, political commentator and bit actor of “Ferris Bueller’” fame.  He is a very outspoken critic of Darwinism and a proponent of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools.  I finished the documentary with the exact same opinion as when I started.

When I was growing up, if someone has asked me what I thought of “Intelligent Design” I would have asked if that was a Maytag Dishwasher innovation. It was just not a hot topic in Northeast public high schools of the 70′s. We were strictly of the Darwinian mindset.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

As we all know or should know, Intelligent Design is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.  The proponents of Intelligent Design believe has the force of scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.  Proponents hold that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms.

Which ever side of the fence you are on, there is no disputing that it is an emotionally charged issue with big time support on both sides. In 2005, former President George W. Bush voiced his support for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools during a roundtable interview with 5 Texas newspapers. Bush stated:

“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,”

Notwithstanding the former President’s  views, it is risky business for a public school teacher to even mention creationism.

In 2007, Texas Science Education Curriculum director Chris Comer used her work email account circulate an email announcing a speech by Barbara Forrest, co-author of Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design and an expert witness in Kitzmiller v. Dover case.  Shortly after the email was circulated to some colleagues and online groups.  Within hours of the email being sent she was called on the carpet and forced to resign in lieu of termination for insubordination.

In August of 2007, The Texas State Board of Education came out firmly against the teaching of Intelligent Design. According to an article in The Dallas Morning News, interviews with 11 of the 15 board members found little support for the teaching of the theory in biology or other science classes.

Intelligent Design and variations of it do have support in some parts of the country. In light of the Kitmiller decision, school districts have been trying their own end runs by taking steps to “unofficially” encourage students to question Darwinism rather than make it an official part of the curriculum.

The Cobb County School District in Georgia attempted this tactic by placing disclaimer stickers on science books. The stickers described evolution as “theory, not a fact,” and said students should consider the subject with an open mind Several parents and the ACLU sued the school district to have the stickers removed. A federal court ruled that the stickers were unconstitutional. It ruled in January 2005 that the stickers represented an attempt by the board to advance religion in the classroom. The stickers have been removed.

In 2005 The Kansas Board of Education became the first public school entity to sanction the teaching of it along side Darwinism.

The Louisiana House of Representatives passed a the “Academic Freedom Bill” that singles out evolution and other theories or fields of science and implies that they are controversial. The Louisiana state’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted a policy that gives teachers the ability  to use materials outside of the regular curriculum to teach “controversial” scientific theories including evolution, origins of life, and global warming.  Backers of the policy state that  it is intended to foster critical thinking in students. Opponents insist its only purpose is to provide a loophole for creationists to attack the teaching of evolution.

Should Intelligent Design be taught hand and hand with the theory of evolution letting the students make come to their own conclusions? Is it just a clever way of doing an end run around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

While the theory of evolution admittedly has linear gaps, Intelligent Design has no credible basis in scientific theory to justify being taught as accepted social or science fact in public high schools. Unlike the theory of evolution there is simply too much room for manipulation based on personal religious beliefs in violation of the Establishment Clause Of The 1st Amendment.  That is my side of the fence.

It appears that over 80 years after Scopes trial, the monkey is still king of the jungle for now.

What side of the fence are you on?

©2009 Brian Cuban

Posted in UncategorizedComments (16)

Follow Me



The Revolution Rant Radio Show

Newsletter

Sign up for The Revolution Rant! Stay up to date on the great guests and provocative topics on my weekly web-cast!
Viva la Revolucion!


powered by MailChimp!

Brian Cuban on Facebook

Related Sites