and to prepare (as well as put a new article together for my science article in the local gay mag) I looked up various scientific articles on trial by jury.

It turns out that human memory is eminently mailable. A study was carried out in which they photoshoped pictures of various adults by placing a young version of them in an air balloon. The adults, when shown three real pictures and the fake, were asked if they remembered the activities in the pictures. Over the course of two weeks the subjects in the experiment were interviewed about the photos three times. At the end fully 50% of them remembered something about the non-existent balloon ride. It wasn't just, "Yeah I remember that." The people who allowed themselves to be swayed filled in vivid details, "The sun was high in the sky, but it was early in the morning so it was cold. My dad put me in the balloon because he thought I would like it, and the people below me looked like ants...etc."

So, given this and other memory studies, relying on only eyewitness testimony does not guarantee that someone is guilty. The Innocence Project documented one case of a woman who'd been raped who identified a suspect in the rape. The only problem is that on the way to the line up she stopped and checked out a board in which a want add with a picture of the man she ultimately identified as her rapist was posted. That was enough to twist her memories of what happened to her. In the end the man who spent years in prison based on her testimony was only exonerated for the crime via DNA evidence.

What about fingerprints? If I found fingerprints at a site should we close the case and head home? Well fingerprint analysis is not standardized so that while one "expert" will see a match another won't. Partial prints are even worse. This is why competing expert testimony can yield weird results.

Finally DNA evidence, the jewel in the crown of the justice system, is not completely foolproof. The science is ironclad but you're relying on humans to carry out that science. In certain rape cases they take DNA swabs of both the victim and suspect so that they can eliminate the victim's DNA to more effectively zero in on the suspects DNA. I've heard of rape cases where a lab told a court that the woman raped herself because the lab had mixed up the DNA. Since the prospect was preposterous, the test was rerun. In one county in Texas many DNA results were called into account when investigators discovered shoddy laboratory equipment, shoddy methodology, and grungy laboratories. Texas, it shouldn't have to be said, is responsible for the most death penalty convictions in the nation.

Does this all mean that everyone who commits a crime is innocent? No. Does it mean that everyone is guilty? Not in the least. We must give people a fair shake and present all the necessary evidence to a jury. Prosecutors and police officers who withhold evidence should be sued and made to pay for their crimes. Judges who incorrectly order that evidence be withheld should likewise be held accountable. Fingerprint analysis should be standardized so that everyone is in agreement about what a fingerprint means. Eyewitness testimony should be carefully done so that fragile memories can be preserved, and the results should be taped so that if the stories change that information can be presented to a jury. This is especially important when you're dealing with someone who is facing the death penalty.

If evidence exists that there were irregularities in the trial of Kevin Keith, I hope he gets the fair shake he deserves. I could definitely believe it if there was a gross miscarriage of justice, but I could also believe that he's a depraved criminal attempting to game the system. Either way I'm glad I don't have to decide the case.

I never got a chance to present my beliefs to a judge in Voir Dire, but I am curious as to how they would have taken my point of view.

Q3JR4.
_{A Picture is Worth a Thousand Lies
Eyewitness: How Accurate is Visible Memory?
Truthinjustice.org
DNA Testing and Human Error
The Potential for Error in Forensic DNA Testing (and How That Complicates the Use of DNA Databases for Criminal Identification)
Study: Fingerprint Evidence isn't Infallible}

I have to take a moment to make a confession. As I look at the calendar of events for the month of June in the local gay magazine, as I think back to all of the gay prides that I’ve been to, the entertainment, the information booths, and the “you could buy it online cheaper” places that pop up only for Pride, it hits me as it usually does about this time of the year. I don’t like Pride, I’ve never liked Pride. Sitting on the capitol steps, listening to the mediocre speeches, under the hot sun, while two guys with signs sit across the street watching us, it all seems so useless.

We’ll march through the streets as if we have something to march about, in over the top outfits that nobody would get away with otherwise, while the passersby wave at us and cheer us on. I don’t think it detracts from my “manhood” in any sense to say that some of the women scare me, and to be completely honest some of the men scare me too. And don’t get me started about the drag queens. Why are men in drag so interesting to the community? Every time I see someone up their flouncing about I think to myself, I could do that if I ever had a reason to. Then I think about all the times I’ve heard drag queens talk about other drag queens to other drag queens and I realize that I could totally do without more of that in my life. I don’t really like drama, and I try to work to minimize it.

No, I don’t want to go to Pride; it is in fact the very last thing I want to do, but come this Saturday you’ll find me down there at the steps of the capitol building with everyone else. I may go with friends, I may go alone, but go I will.

I remember what it was like to be taking my first couple of steps out of the closet into the big, wide world around me. I remember the THRILL I got when I marched in my first parade. There were 700 people then, and there are projected to be 7,000 this weekend. The sea of glbt folk around me gave my young mind the impression that no matter what happened I was not alone. I can just imagine what it would be like for a closeted youth sitting at home with their disapproving parents--something that is unfortunately quite common in this part of the U.S.--watching the news and seeing the sea of shining faces. What must that young man or woman be thinking as they listen to the newscaster talk about 1,000 or 5,000 or 7,000 homosexuals in the state who are taking the time to drive into the capitol city for Pride? I also volunteer, a lot. Most of the organizations I help out are going to be there and I’ve been thinking about picking up a few more. Call this a dry run to see what some of the others do and how they do it.

So this is me, doing my thing at Pride, hating a lot of it, but loving the chance at giving a modicum of hope to some young mind waiting to break free.

Q3JR4

It points to Idaho's congressional delegation, but can easily be expanded to cover them all....



Q3JR4
Of course we could get our own DU artists to do something up that's as snarky as this. Then everyone here (provided we had someone from each state) could print out and send paper copies to their delegation in both houses of congress while simultaneously copying both local and national media in emails sent to congress referencing the paper copies.

Would it really do anything? Probably not, but it would be fun anyway.

Thought I'd share with you all a letter to the editor I wrote and submitted recently. After I originally wrote it it had 100 words. I then went through and cut that down by half and am pretty happy with the results.


Title: "Thank the Mormons"

Those who supported Proposition Eight like to talk about "traditional" marriage. What they always fail to mention is that in this country until 50 years ago you couldn't marry someone of a different race, 150 years ago you couldn't divorce your partner, and African people (property) weren't even granted the right to marry each other. A thousand years before that a father picked his property's (AKA daughter) husband, and any passing nobleman could claim the droit de seigneur (her virginity) on her wedding night. Each of these practices were once traditional parts of "the marriage contract," yet no one seems to want them back. "Traditional marriage" must mean "if it happened more than 40 years ago don't count it."

Even though marriage started out as a religious activity, somewhere along the line the state decided to confer rights based on that activity. As the Supreme Court said in Loving V. Virginia, government cannot set limits on who it will allow to marry. The argument they tried to make then, that the law treats everyone equally because both whites and blacks were equally consigned to their own "race", was flawed and today's contemporary version is also flawed.

The difference between the gay community and the straight community is that the state places no limits on your love. We homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex, but we can't marry the person we love. Even though same-sex couples can and in fact DO have religious ceremonies, the one thing we don't get are the rights. Taken together, not only do marriage amendments set limits on our love but on our religious freedom as well.

If African American civil rights, or Mormon civil rights had been decided by majority vote one-hundred years ago, we may never have even reached "separate but equal" and the Mormons might not even exist today. Constitutions exist to protect the minority from the will of the majority. Every court ruling protecting civil rights has been based on that fundamental precept. There was religious (or secular) opposition to interracial marriages, to blacks marrying other blacks, and to divorce itself but even in the face of religious condemnation all of that changed. "One man one woman" marriage definitions are likewise doomed to eventual failure.

Finally it's been said that Proposition Eight passed because of heavy Mormon involvement. Isn't Mormon funding of "one man, one woman" ads more than a little hypocritical? After all the Mormons were once the ones pushing for a redefinition of marriage; one man many women. Aren't there still sects today that want that very thing? In the end, though, I suppose we should be thanking them. Proposition Eight's passage has galvanized the gay community like no other time that I can remember. We'll probably get national marriage rights even sooner, and it was all because of the Mormons, and the Catholics and the Baptists. But mostly the Mormons.