by Efren Paredes, Jr.
I dedicate this poem to my mother, Velia, and the Latina mothers of the world.
Diosa bronzera
anointed mother of life
First guide and protector
a multitude of delights.
Nurturer of goodness
we emulate your ways
Which sustain our existence
'til our last waking day.
Vanish the cold
with the warmth of your arms
The lessons you teach us
we wear them like charms.
Your devotion a testament
why your legacy endures
Hold the world in your hands
as if it were yours.
The calm voice of reason
that rings in our ear
Your tone is melodic
the knowledge of seers.
A heart full of treasure
a luminous star
Seemingly ever-present
you watch from afar.
Your compassion so gentle
exuberant with care
Like the beauty of mariposas
that glide through the air.
Create light in the darkness
you calm all our fears
Impart us with wisdom
wipe away all our tears.
Commune with the Cihuateteo
in the Circle of Fire
Survive through the ages
never rest or retire.
Through the annals of history
you've sat on a throne
Reigned over kingdoms
had your name carved in stone.
Your portrait adorns
sacred temple halls
On ceilings and mantles
in glyphs on the walls.
You've held your fists in the air
gripping scepters and rods
Stood at La Pirámide del Sol
where men become gods.
A courageous noble warrior
a reflection of Ollin
Your memory will be honored
as a descendant of Queens.
Diosa bronzera
keep leading the way
For the gift of our lives
We thank you each day.
Copyright © 2007 by Efren Tlecoz Paredes
http://www.4efren.com/
This poem was read at the 1st Annual Flor y Canto Poetry Contest sponsored by LASSO in Jackson, Michigan on August 7, 2007. The poem was among two of the first place winners that won that night.
_____________________________________
Diosa bronzera: Bronze goddess. "Diosa" is goddess in Spanish and "bronzera" is bronze in French.
Cihuateteo: Nahuatl (Aztec) for "goddesses."
La Pirámide del Sol: "The Pyramid of the Sun" located in Teotihuacán, Mexico along the Avenue of the Dead, in between the Pyramid of the Moon and the Ciudadela, and in the shadow of the massive mountain Cerro Gordo. The pyramid is part of a large complex in the heart of the city.
Ollin: Nahuatl (Aztec) for "the sacred movement in continuum, which gives impulse to our world."
Free Efren Orange Banner
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Walking the Tightrope of the 20s
Risky behavior doesn't end with teen years
By Sharon Jayson
USA TODAY
Wednesday, August 15, 2007, 1D
Shannon Rea's job as a part-time bartender in Brooklyn gives her a close-up look at the risky behavior of people in their 20s.
Some end a night of drinking with hookups. Some take rides from the slightly inebriated. Others try to drive when they shouldn't. (She sobers them up, takes their keys and finds them rides.)
"I think the early 20s are the new teenage years," says Rea, 26, a college student studying to be a history teacher. "There are no parents telling them, 'You can't do this.' It's pretty much a free-for-all."
The 20s always have been prime time for risky behavior, from binge drinking and unprotected sex to dabbling in drugs and driving too fast. But new brain research suggests young adults may have less control over these impulses: Neurological areas that regulate impulse and emotions are not fully developed until about the mid-20s, findings show.
And recent demographic trends don't help: Young people today are delaying settling down into careers and marriage, both of which tend to reduce risky behaviors, sociologists, psychologists and historians say.
"We are so obsessed about the dangers of adolescence, we have all sorts of mechanisms to protect kids from disaster, but we don't have that for young people in their 20s," says Steven Mintz of the University of Houston, who is writing a book on the history of adulthood.
American society has taken great pains to prevent adolescents from the perils of foolhardy behavior, from zero-tolerance alcohol and drug programs to graduated drivers' licenses to city curfews for youths, Mintz says.
If teens make mistakes, they often get a second chance. But in their 20s, society is less forgiving.
"It's the 20s that are risky" he says.
Statistics tell the story
Recent statistics back this up: 56% of births among women ages 20-24 were to unwed mothers, according to preliminary 2005 data from the National Center for Health Statistics; for ages 25-29, it was 29%.
Violent crimes — from homicide to rape, robbery and assault — are highest among young adults, according to data from the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics and the FBI.
The 20s also is the time of heaviest drinking. One measure, the University of Michigan's 2005 Monitoring the Future study, shows that the highest percentages of those having five or more drinks in a row at least once in a two-week period were those in their 20s. Bingeing was reported by 40.4% of ages 21 and 22, 39.2% of ages 23 and 24, and 37.7% of ages 25 and 26.
When young celebrities such as Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan abuse drugs or alcohol or drive under the influence and get caught, the big question seems to be: Why?
Scott Stanley, a research professor in psychology at the University of Denver, says many major life decisions that used to be fairly settled are now "up for grabs through their 20s" — from education and career to sexual relationships and partner choices.
This "extended adolescence" increasingly is being acknowledged by those who have focused on teens. For example, in May, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy announced an expansion of its mission to include those in their 20s and 30s.
At least 35 states have taken some steps to extend foster care services to those ages 19-23; 18 has been the point for "aging out" of the foster care system.
Most states consider 18 the time when young people are legally held responsible for their actions. But Jeffrey Arnett, a research professor in psychology at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., says many young people just don't believe they're going to suffer the consequences. He calls it an "optimistic bias."
Arnett says young celebrities in particular so often have been over-indulged as children and teens that they don't have the self-discipline to play by the rules.
Britney Spears' risky behavior hasn't just affected her. Last year, the singer, now 25, was photographed driving with her infant son sitting on her lap behind the wheel rather than in a car seat.
But real social and economic factors today do add to the pressures facing young adults:
• A study of long-term wealth trends released last week by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research found the median household net worth of people in their 20s fell by nearly 30% from 2003 to 2005. The data support the notion that it is more difficult for younger people today to establish themselves financially, says study director Frank Stafford.
• Finishing college often takes longer than four years; some also stay in school longer because in an increasingly competitive job market, they seek to get a leg up with advanced degrees.
• Some experts, including Mintz, say the military draft (created in 1940 and eliminated in 1973) forced young men to mature and at the same time helped keep them away from troublesome behavior. The military used to be a pretty standard part of growing up for men in decades past, but it's a mute for fewer young people today — "it's a risky proposition these days," he says.
Adds bartender Rea: "When you're 15 or 16, you're expected to go out and experiment and break curfew and do something ridiculous. You're immature at that point. Then at 18 or 19, something is supposed to snap on in your head, and you're supposed to grow up."
The biology of the brain
Over the past several years, brain studies by researchers around the country, including at the National Institutes of Health, University of Pittsburgh, Harvard Medical School and Temple University, have found that the area that controls impulses takes longer to mature than previously thought.
Greater demands have made the 20s a difficult period, says Frank Furstenberg, Jr., a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia whose work has focused on the transition to adulthood.
"It is not well known that this age group does have these elevated problems," he says. "Adolescence has captured so much of the attention of American policymakers."
He says it's even more of a challenge for an estimated 15% to 25% who by early adulthood are "seriously off track."
They include those who aren't in school, don't have jobs or may have little prospect of finding a job due to lack of skills. Others have serious drug or alcohol problems. Some are in jail or otherwise involved in the criminal justice system.
"It can be a risky stage for rich kids because they have the money to get in trouble and for poor kids because trouble finds them in the neighborhood," says Michael Rosenfeld, a social demographer at Stanford University. "There are plenty of ways in which kids from families with the financial means avoid the long-term repercussions of youthful indiscretion."
Partners, careers stabilize
John Laub, a University of Maryland criminology professor, and Robert Sampson, a Harvard sociologist, have studied the life course of crime for about 20 years. Sampson says the peak age for many crimes has shifted older, and although juveniles are committing offenses at younger ages, the duration of criminal activity lasts longer.
By analyzing interviews with 500 men, all of them former juvenile delinquents, and follow-up interviews with 52 men, the pair also found, on average, a 35% less chance of a crime being committed during a period of marriage.
"We find that marriage 'civilizes' men — reducing crime and antisocial behavior on average by a large amount," Sampson says.
The average age at first marriage, according to the latest Census data, is 25 for women and 27 for men. Experts say singles overall are more likely than married people to take risks because they have the freedom to do what they want without having to answer to anyone.
A few years do seem to make a difference. All sorts of research suggests that by the late 20s, risky behavior drops among young adults, largely because that's when they pair up and begin to settle down with a career and a partner.
Furstenberg says social relationships tend to constrain behavior. "People stop doing things they did when they were younger."
Beth Kerber, 26, of St. Louis, believes she has definitely matured, although she says she "can't imagine" marriage right now.
"I've seen a huge amount of growth in myself from age 22 to 25," says Kerber, who just finished graduate school and is working as a hospital speech pathologist.
"When I go out now, it's completely different than when I was 21 or 22. You are much more experienced with drinking and realize it's not that great to black out or not remember the night. When you're young, it's 'Let's have fun.'"■
By Sharon Jayson
USA TODAY
Wednesday, August 15, 2007, 1D
Shannon Rea's job as a part-time bartender in Brooklyn gives her a close-up look at the risky behavior of people in their 20s.
Some end a night of drinking with hookups. Some take rides from the slightly inebriated. Others try to drive when they shouldn't. (She sobers them up, takes their keys and finds them rides.)
"I think the early 20s are the new teenage years," says Rea, 26, a college student studying to be a history teacher. "There are no parents telling them, 'You can't do this.' It's pretty much a free-for-all."
The 20s always have been prime time for risky behavior, from binge drinking and unprotected sex to dabbling in drugs and driving too fast. But new brain research suggests young adults may have less control over these impulses: Neurological areas that regulate impulse and emotions are not fully developed until about the mid-20s, findings show.
And recent demographic trends don't help: Young people today are delaying settling down into careers and marriage, both of which tend to reduce risky behaviors, sociologists, psychologists and historians say.
"We are so obsessed about the dangers of adolescence, we have all sorts of mechanisms to protect kids from disaster, but we don't have that for young people in their 20s," says Steven Mintz of the University of Houston, who is writing a book on the history of adulthood.
American society has taken great pains to prevent adolescents from the perils of foolhardy behavior, from zero-tolerance alcohol and drug programs to graduated drivers' licenses to city curfews for youths, Mintz says.
If teens make mistakes, they often get a second chance. But in their 20s, society is less forgiving.
"It's the 20s that are risky" he says.
Statistics tell the story
Recent statistics back this up: 56% of births among women ages 20-24 were to unwed mothers, according to preliminary 2005 data from the National Center for Health Statistics; for ages 25-29, it was 29%.
Violent crimes — from homicide to rape, robbery and assault — are highest among young adults, according to data from the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics and the FBI.
The 20s also is the time of heaviest drinking. One measure, the University of Michigan's 2005 Monitoring the Future study, shows that the highest percentages of those having five or more drinks in a row at least once in a two-week period were those in their 20s. Bingeing was reported by 40.4% of ages 21 and 22, 39.2% of ages 23 and 24, and 37.7% of ages 25 and 26.
When young celebrities such as Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan abuse drugs or alcohol or drive under the influence and get caught, the big question seems to be: Why?
Scott Stanley, a research professor in psychology at the University of Denver, says many major life decisions that used to be fairly settled are now "up for grabs through their 20s" — from education and career to sexual relationships and partner choices.
This "extended adolescence" increasingly is being acknowledged by those who have focused on teens. For example, in May, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy announced an expansion of its mission to include those in their 20s and 30s.
At least 35 states have taken some steps to extend foster care services to those ages 19-23; 18 has been the point for "aging out" of the foster care system.
Most states consider 18 the time when young people are legally held responsible for their actions. But Jeffrey Arnett, a research professor in psychology at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., says many young people just don't believe they're going to suffer the consequences. He calls it an "optimistic bias."
Arnett says young celebrities in particular so often have been over-indulged as children and teens that they don't have the self-discipline to play by the rules.
Britney Spears' risky behavior hasn't just affected her. Last year, the singer, now 25, was photographed driving with her infant son sitting on her lap behind the wheel rather than in a car seat.
But real social and economic factors today do add to the pressures facing young adults:
• A study of long-term wealth trends released last week by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research found the median household net worth of people in their 20s fell by nearly 30% from 2003 to 2005. The data support the notion that it is more difficult for younger people today to establish themselves financially, says study director Frank Stafford.
• Finishing college often takes longer than four years; some also stay in school longer because in an increasingly competitive job market, they seek to get a leg up with advanced degrees.
• Some experts, including Mintz, say the military draft (created in 1940 and eliminated in 1973) forced young men to mature and at the same time helped keep them away from troublesome behavior. The military used to be a pretty standard part of growing up for men in decades past, but it's a mute for fewer young people today — "it's a risky proposition these days," he says.
Adds bartender Rea: "When you're 15 or 16, you're expected to go out and experiment and break curfew and do something ridiculous. You're immature at that point. Then at 18 or 19, something is supposed to snap on in your head, and you're supposed to grow up."
The biology of the brain
Over the past several years, brain studies by researchers around the country, including at the National Institutes of Health, University of Pittsburgh, Harvard Medical School and Temple University, have found that the area that controls impulses takes longer to mature than previously thought.
Greater demands have made the 20s a difficult period, says Frank Furstenberg, Jr., a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia whose work has focused on the transition to adulthood.
"It is not well known that this age group does have these elevated problems," he says. "Adolescence has captured so much of the attention of American policymakers."
He says it's even more of a challenge for an estimated 15% to 25% who by early adulthood are "seriously off track."
They include those who aren't in school, don't have jobs or may have little prospect of finding a job due to lack of skills. Others have serious drug or alcohol problems. Some are in jail or otherwise involved in the criminal justice system.
"It can be a risky stage for rich kids because they have the money to get in trouble and for poor kids because trouble finds them in the neighborhood," says Michael Rosenfeld, a social demographer at Stanford University. "There are plenty of ways in which kids from families with the financial means avoid the long-term repercussions of youthful indiscretion."
Partners, careers stabilize
John Laub, a University of Maryland criminology professor, and Robert Sampson, a Harvard sociologist, have studied the life course of crime for about 20 years. Sampson says the peak age for many crimes has shifted older, and although juveniles are committing offenses at younger ages, the duration of criminal activity lasts longer.
By analyzing interviews with 500 men, all of them former juvenile delinquents, and follow-up interviews with 52 men, the pair also found, on average, a 35% less chance of a crime being committed during a period of marriage.
"We find that marriage 'civilizes' men — reducing crime and antisocial behavior on average by a large amount," Sampson says.
The average age at first marriage, according to the latest Census data, is 25 for women and 27 for men. Experts say singles overall are more likely than married people to take risks because they have the freedom to do what they want without having to answer to anyone.
A few years do seem to make a difference. All sorts of research suggests that by the late 20s, risky behavior drops among young adults, largely because that's when they pair up and begin to settle down with a career and a partner.
Furstenberg says social relationships tend to constrain behavior. "People stop doing things they did when they were younger."
Beth Kerber, 26, of St. Louis, believes she has definitely matured, although she says she "can't imagine" marriage right now.
"I've seen a huge amount of growth in myself from age 22 to 25," says Kerber, who just finished graduate school and is working as a hospital speech pathologist.
"When I go out now, it's completely different than when I was 21 or 22. You are much more experienced with drinking and realize it's not that great to black out or not remember the night. When you're young, it's 'Let's have fun.'"■
Thursday, August 2, 2007
The Presence of Malice
by Richard Moran
The New York Times
Thursday, August 2, 2007
LAST week, Judge Nancy Gertner of the Federal District Court in Boston awarded more than $100 million to four men whom the F.B.I. framed for the 1965 murder of Edward Deegan, a local gangster. It was compensation for the 30 years the men spent behind bars while agents withheld evidence that would have cleared them and put the real killer — a valuable F.B.I. informant, by the name of Vincent Flemmi — in prison.
Most coverage of the story described it as a bizarre exception in the history of law enforcement. Unfortunately, this kind of behavior by those whose sworn duty it is to uphold the law is all too common. In state courts, where most death sentences are handed down, it occurs regularly.
My recently completed study of the 124 exonerations of death row inmates in America from 1973 to 2007 indicated that 80, or about two-thirds, of their so-called wrongful convictions resulted not from good-faith mistakes or errors but from intentional, willful, malicious prosecutions by criminal justice personnel. (There were four cases in which a determination could not be made one way or another.)
Yet too often this behavior is not singled out and identified for what it is. When a prosecutor puts a witness on the stand whom he knows to be lying, or fails to turn over evidence favorable to the defense, or when a police officer manufactures or destroys evidence to further the likelihood of a conviction, then it is deceptive to term these conscious violations of the law — all of which I found in my research — as merely mistakes or errors.
Mistakes are good-faith errors — like taking the wrong exit off the highway, or dialing the wrong telephone number. There is no malice behind them. However, when officers of the court conspire to convict a defendant of first-degree murder and send him to death row, they are doing much more than making an innocent mistake or error. They are breaking the law.
Perhaps this explains why, even when a manifestly innocent man is about to be executed, a prosecutor can be dead set against reopening an old case. Since so many wrongful convictions result from official malicious behavior, prosecutors, policemen, witnesses or even jurors and judges could themselves face jail time for breaking the law in obtaining an unlawful conviction.
Strangely, our misunderstanding of the real cause underlying most wrongful convictions is compounded by the very people who work to uncover them. Although the term “wrongfully convicted” is technically correct, it also has the potential to be misleading. It leads to the false impression that most inmates ended up on death row because of good-faith mistakes or errors committed by an imperfect criminal justice system — not by malicious or unlawful behavior.
For this reason, we need to re-frame the argument and shift our language. If a death sentence is overturned because of malicious behavior, we should call it for what it is: an unlawful conviction, not a wrongful one.
In the interest of fairness, it is important to note that those who are exonerated are not necessarily innocent of the crimes that sent them to death row. They have simply had their death sentences set aside because of errors that led to convictions, usually involving the intentional violation of their constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. Very seldom does the court go the next step and actually declare them innocent.
In addition, some of these unlawful convictions resulted from criminal justice officials trying to do the right thing. (A police officer, say, plants evidence on a defendant he is convinced is guilty, fearing that the defendant will escape punishment otherwise.) In cases like these, officers or prosecutors have been known to “frame a guilty man.”
The malicious or even well-intentioned manipulation of murder cases by prosecutors and the police underscores why it’s important to discard, once and for all, the nonsense that so-called wrongful convictions can be eliminated by introducing better forensic science into the courtroom.
Even if we limit death sentences to cases in which there is “conclusive scientific evidence” of guilt, as Mitt Romney, the presidential candidate and former governor of Massachusetts has proposed, we will still not eliminate the problem of wrongful convictions. The best trained and most honest forensic scientists can only examine the evidence presented to them; they cannot be expected to determine if that evidence has been planted, switched or withheld from the defense.
The cause of malicious unlawful convictions doesn’t rest solely in the imperfect workings of our criminal justice system — if it did we might be able to remedy most of it. A crucial part of the problem rests in the hearts and souls of those whose job it is to uphold the law. That’s why even the most careful strictures on death penalty cases could fail to prevent the execution of innocent people — and why we would do well to be more vigilant and specific in articulating the causes for overturning an unlawful conviction.
Richard Moran is a professor of sociology and criminology at Mount Holyoke College.
The New York Times
Thursday, August 2, 2007
LAST week, Judge Nancy Gertner of the Federal District Court in Boston awarded more than $100 million to four men whom the F.B.I. framed for the 1965 murder of Edward Deegan, a local gangster. It was compensation for the 30 years the men spent behind bars while agents withheld evidence that would have cleared them and put the real killer — a valuable F.B.I. informant, by the name of Vincent Flemmi — in prison.
Most coverage of the story described it as a bizarre exception in the history of law enforcement. Unfortunately, this kind of behavior by those whose sworn duty it is to uphold the law is all too common. In state courts, where most death sentences are handed down, it occurs regularly.
My recently completed study of the 124 exonerations of death row inmates in America from 1973 to 2007 indicated that 80, or about two-thirds, of their so-called wrongful convictions resulted not from good-faith mistakes or errors but from intentional, willful, malicious prosecutions by criminal justice personnel. (There were four cases in which a determination could not be made one way or another.)
Yet too often this behavior is not singled out and identified for what it is. When a prosecutor puts a witness on the stand whom he knows to be lying, or fails to turn over evidence favorable to the defense, or when a police officer manufactures or destroys evidence to further the likelihood of a conviction, then it is deceptive to term these conscious violations of the law — all of which I found in my research — as merely mistakes or errors.
Mistakes are good-faith errors — like taking the wrong exit off the highway, or dialing the wrong telephone number. There is no malice behind them. However, when officers of the court conspire to convict a defendant of first-degree murder and send him to death row, they are doing much more than making an innocent mistake or error. They are breaking the law.
Perhaps this explains why, even when a manifestly innocent man is about to be executed, a prosecutor can be dead set against reopening an old case. Since so many wrongful convictions result from official malicious behavior, prosecutors, policemen, witnesses or even jurors and judges could themselves face jail time for breaking the law in obtaining an unlawful conviction.
Strangely, our misunderstanding of the real cause underlying most wrongful convictions is compounded by the very people who work to uncover them. Although the term “wrongfully convicted” is technically correct, it also has the potential to be misleading. It leads to the false impression that most inmates ended up on death row because of good-faith mistakes or errors committed by an imperfect criminal justice system — not by malicious or unlawful behavior.
For this reason, we need to re-frame the argument and shift our language. If a death sentence is overturned because of malicious behavior, we should call it for what it is: an unlawful conviction, not a wrongful one.
In the interest of fairness, it is important to note that those who are exonerated are not necessarily innocent of the crimes that sent them to death row. They have simply had their death sentences set aside because of errors that led to convictions, usually involving the intentional violation of their constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. Very seldom does the court go the next step and actually declare them innocent.
In addition, some of these unlawful convictions resulted from criminal justice officials trying to do the right thing. (A police officer, say, plants evidence on a defendant he is convinced is guilty, fearing that the defendant will escape punishment otherwise.) In cases like these, officers or prosecutors have been known to “frame a guilty man.”
The malicious or even well-intentioned manipulation of murder cases by prosecutors and the police underscores why it’s important to discard, once and for all, the nonsense that so-called wrongful convictions can be eliminated by introducing better forensic science into the courtroom.
Even if we limit death sentences to cases in which there is “conclusive scientific evidence” of guilt, as Mitt Romney, the presidential candidate and former governor of Massachusetts has proposed, we will still not eliminate the problem of wrongful convictions. The best trained and most honest forensic scientists can only examine the evidence presented to them; they cannot be expected to determine if that evidence has been planted, switched or withheld from the defense.
The cause of malicious unlawful convictions doesn’t rest solely in the imperfect workings of our criminal justice system — if it did we might be able to remedy most of it. A crucial part of the problem rests in the hearts and souls of those whose job it is to uphold the law. That’s why even the most careful strictures on death penalty cases could fail to prevent the execution of innocent people — and why we would do well to be more vigilant and specific in articulating the causes for overturning an unlawful conviction.
Richard Moran is a professor of sociology and criminology at Mount Holyoke College.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Imagine You're On Death Row...
By Leonard Pitts, Jr.
The Detroit Free Press
Saturday, July 21, 2007
You don't know what it's like and neither do I. But we can imagine.
I've always thought it must feel like being buried alive. Lungs starving, lying in blackness, pounding on the coffin lid with dirt showering down, no one hearing your cries.
Or maybe it's like locked-in syndrome, a condition where you lose muscle control — can't move a finger, turn your head, speak. Your body entombs you. You scream within, but no one hears.
Something like that, I think. Something where you're trapped, claustrophobic, unable to believe what is happening, unable to make anyone hear you. That's how it must feel to be an innocent person on death row as execution day draws close.
Tuesday was Troy Anthony Davis' scheduled execution day, though I have no idea if he is an innocent person. I do know that he was convicted of the 1989 killing of a police officer, Mark Allen MacPhail, in Savannah, Ga. And I know that he was on the scene, a Burger King parking lot, that fateful night.
But I also know that Davis has always maintained his innocence. And that no physical evidence — no gun, no fingerprint, no DNA — ever tied him to the crime. And that he was convicted on the testimony of nine key witnesses. And that seven of them have now recanted.
They lied, they say. They were scared, they were bullied and threatened, and they said what the cops wanted to hear. Of the two witnesses who have not recanted, one is a fellow named Sylvester (Red) Coles; some Witnesses claim he's the one who actually shot MacPhail when the officer tried to break up a parking lot altercation.
Monday, one day before Davis was scheduled to die, the state parole board issued a 90-day stay of execution.
You and I have no idea how that must feel, either, but we can imagine. The buried man gets a sip of air. The paralyzed man moves his toe.
And then back down into the coffin, back down into the tomb of your own skin, back in line to die.
Surely Davis' lawyers have explained to him the 1996 federal law, signed by President Bill Clinton, that is throwing roadblocks in his way. Designed to streamline capital cases, it restricts the introduction of exculpatory evidence once the state appeals process is done. But just as surely, Davis, if he is innocent, must wonder how he could have presented evidence he didn't yet have. And he must wonder, too, how there can be a time limit on truth — especially when a human life is at stake. How can you execute a man when there remain serious questions about his guilt?
That's barbarism, not justice.
What's fascinating is that, though 67% of those polled by Gallup pollsters approve of capital punishment in murder cases (and 51% say it's not imposed often enough), 64% admit it does not deter murder, and 63% believe an innocent person has probably been executed since 2001.
In other words, the system doesn't work, we "know" it doesn't work, yet we want it to continue — and, indeed, expand. What kind of madness is that? It's an intellectual disconnect, a refusal to follow logic to its logical end.
It is, of course, easier to countenance that madness, ignore that refusal, when the issue is abstract, when death row is distant, theoretical and does not involve you.
But what must it feel like when it is not abstract, when it is "you'' sitting there in the cell watching the calendar move inexorably toward the day the state will kill you for something you absolutely did not do? Is there a suspension of belief? Do you tell yourself that surely people will come to' their senses any minute now? Does the air close on you like a coffin lid? Does darkness sit on your chest like a weight?
You and I can only imagine. Some men have no need to try.
LEONARD PITTS JR. is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla. 33132. Write to him at lpitts@miamiherald.com.
The Detroit Free Press
Saturday, July 21, 2007
You don't know what it's like and neither do I. But we can imagine.
I've always thought it must feel like being buried alive. Lungs starving, lying in blackness, pounding on the coffin lid with dirt showering down, no one hearing your cries.
Or maybe it's like locked-in syndrome, a condition where you lose muscle control — can't move a finger, turn your head, speak. Your body entombs you. You scream within, but no one hears.
Something like that, I think. Something where you're trapped, claustrophobic, unable to believe what is happening, unable to make anyone hear you. That's how it must feel to be an innocent person on death row as execution day draws close.
Tuesday was Troy Anthony Davis' scheduled execution day, though I have no idea if he is an innocent person. I do know that he was convicted of the 1989 killing of a police officer, Mark Allen MacPhail, in Savannah, Ga. And I know that he was on the scene, a Burger King parking lot, that fateful night.
But I also know that Davis has always maintained his innocence. And that no physical evidence — no gun, no fingerprint, no DNA — ever tied him to the crime. And that he was convicted on the testimony of nine key witnesses. And that seven of them have now recanted.
They lied, they say. They were scared, they were bullied and threatened, and they said what the cops wanted to hear. Of the two witnesses who have not recanted, one is a fellow named Sylvester (Red) Coles; some Witnesses claim he's the one who actually shot MacPhail when the officer tried to break up a parking lot altercation.
Monday, one day before Davis was scheduled to die, the state parole board issued a 90-day stay of execution.
You and I have no idea how that must feel, either, but we can imagine. The buried man gets a sip of air. The paralyzed man moves his toe.
And then back down into the coffin, back down into the tomb of your own skin, back in line to die.
Surely Davis' lawyers have explained to him the 1996 federal law, signed by President Bill Clinton, that is throwing roadblocks in his way. Designed to streamline capital cases, it restricts the introduction of exculpatory evidence once the state appeals process is done. But just as surely, Davis, if he is innocent, must wonder how he could have presented evidence he didn't yet have. And he must wonder, too, how there can be a time limit on truth — especially when a human life is at stake. How can you execute a man when there remain serious questions about his guilt?
That's barbarism, not justice.
What's fascinating is that, though 67% of those polled by Gallup pollsters approve of capital punishment in murder cases (and 51% say it's not imposed often enough), 64% admit it does not deter murder, and 63% believe an innocent person has probably been executed since 2001.
In other words, the system doesn't work, we "know" it doesn't work, yet we want it to continue — and, indeed, expand. What kind of madness is that? It's an intellectual disconnect, a refusal to follow logic to its logical end.
It is, of course, easier to countenance that madness, ignore that refusal, when the issue is abstract, when death row is distant, theoretical and does not involve you.
But what must it feel like when it is not abstract, when it is "you'' sitting there in the cell watching the calendar move inexorably toward the day the state will kill you for something you absolutely did not do? Is there a suspension of belief? Do you tell yourself that surely people will come to' their senses any minute now? Does the air close on you like a coffin lid? Does darkness sit on your chest like a weight?
You and I can only imagine. Some men have no need to try.
LEONARD PITTS JR. is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla. 33132. Write to him at lpitts@miamiherald.com.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Keys to Success: Seven Pearls for 07/07/07
by Efren 'Tlecoz' Paredes
The following are seven keys to success I employ in my daily life. I thought I would share them in hopes that they may be useful to others as well. I have found them to be very effective.
1. Aggressively pursue knowledge and work to expand our consciousness each day. Ignorance is tantamount to mental incarceration, and choosing ignorance is synonymous with insanity. We are constantly evolving. And, in order to effectuate that process so it achieves its maximum potential, it must be properly fueled. The moment we desist the process of growth and development we commence the process of deterioration.
2. Advocate the value of expression and conveying truth to those around us. It is important to be genuine and candid with people. We perform a disservice to ourselves and others, and arrest people's growth and development, when we lie to them. People may not always be fond of your openness, but they will respect and appreciate it later on. Through our rejection of truth we create illusions and falsities that are counter-productive. We also foster the same in others and perpetuate a cycle that consumes even more people.
3. If people don't support your beliefs and creativity re-evaluate what you are doing or saying. If after careful analysis you still feel strongly about things don't allow others to deter you from pursuing what you deem to be worthy. We are the masters of our destiny and we can never be afraid to forge new paths and exercise our creativity. Attempting to avoid this is akin to escaping freedom. It's also important to know that people judge us based on our convictions. The less serious we take them and more whimsical we are, the less serious people take us as individuals. It demonstrates instability.
4. People should never disrespect themselves by trying to conform their lives to the satisfaction of others. We can never please everyone and should never seek to attempt it. If we spend our lives trying to satisfy others and make them happy we will be stifling our growth process and chasing ephemeral illusions of happiness and success. In the end people will regret having lived their lives for others. No one can tell us what will bring us happiness. It is only conjecture on their part. We each are unique and only we know what is best for us, and how we want our lives to be. No one can live our lives for us. Only we can.
5. People should exude fortitude, courage, and confidence, and never acquiesce to injustice or oppression in any form. We should also never reward people for mistreating us by allowing them to exhibit offensive behaviors towards us. It is essential to combat forces designed to destroy the human spirit and incarcerate people physically, mentally, emotionally, or spiritually. We succumb to defeat when we refuse to challenge it. It isn't the acts themselves that destroy us, it's our acceptance of them that does.
6. We possess within each of us the power to achieve any objective in life we set out to accomplish. We assign a degree of value to all things in life and empower them through our thoughts and feelings. Our perception of each situation determines our response and how it will affect us. It is predicated on our vision, strengths, and weaknesses. Our strongest opposition to success is our refusal to believe in ourselves and boundless potential.
7. If we don't like the results we see in our lives we simply have to change how we arrived to the thoughts that precipitated the trajectory of discontent. Dissatisfaction should always bring about change. We exhibit an addiction to abuse when we accept dissatisfaction in our lives and integrate it into our being. It reflects an acceptance of failure and rejection of success. By doing so we relinquish authority over our lives and bestow it upon others.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Efren Speaks to Lansing Community College Students
On May 16, 2007 Efren spoke to a group of college students from Lansing Community College. The students' professor, a former member of the Michigan Parole Board, three other prisoners, and the warden's administrative assistant where Efren is housed, were also present. The purpose of the discussion was to address issues pertaining to the court system, life in prison, the parole process, and prison releases.
The first letter which appears below is the text from a letter of appreciation written to Efren by the warden's administrative assistant at the prison he is housed. The second letter that follows is the text from a response letter Efren wrote to the warden's administrative assistant.
The letters reflect the positive work Efren does while incarcerated and is a reflection of his continued growth and development.
------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: May 17, 2007
TO: Paredes 203116
FROM: Ken Ryan, Administrative Assistant
G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
SUBJECT: Letter of Appreciation
On May 16, 2007 you participated in a question and answer session with students from Lansing Community College. The purpose of this meeting was to allow the students to gain some insight on life inside prison. You took time out of your day and shared knowledge and personal information with some young adults who were strangers to you. In doing so, you gave them knowledge of not only life inside the prison, but also how it affects the individual doing the time.
I found this interaction very productive. My thoughts were also shared by the students and their instructor (former Parole Board Member Maurice Armstrong).
You are commended for sharing your time and personal information/thoughts for the purpose of helping others. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: May 17, 2007
TO: Ken Ryan, Warden's Administrative Asst.
G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
FROM: Efren Paredes, Jr.
RE: Letter of Appreciation
I wanted to acknowledge receipt of your letter of commendation and let you know I appreciate you sending it.
I wanted to also thank you for affording me the opportunity to speak to the students. I can provide a unique perspective on life in prison because of the juvenile waiver issue, being incarcerated in adult jails and prisons at age 15, and the wrongful conviction issue I have fought long and hard to overturn for nearly two decades.
My knowledge of this experience and ability to communicate it to others is partly the reason I have been interviewed by organizations, university human rights clinics, and by professionals from across the nation who are currently working to end the imposition of juvenile life without parole sentences in recent years. I have also appeared in national reports which discuss the issue.
It is important to present people with all facets of this experience. The more they learn they better they will comprehend all the dynamics involved. This will provide them a more holistic perspective to draw from and make decisions based upon, rather than be left ill-equipped to only draw from fragments of reality. It would be irresponsible to paint a picture to society that doesn't exist.
I believe the honest and candid discussion will serve the students useful in a number of ways. There is much to be learned from each of our unique experiences and the tribulations we have endured in life. We are each reservoirs of knowledge and experiences which can contribute to the growth and development of others.
I am sending Deputy Barrett a copy of this letter since he referred me to you as a viable candidate to participate in the discussion with the students. Thanks again for the opportunity.
The first letter which appears below is the text from a letter of appreciation written to Efren by the warden's administrative assistant at the prison he is housed. The second letter that follows is the text from a response letter Efren wrote to the warden's administrative assistant.
The letters reflect the positive work Efren does while incarcerated and is a reflection of his continued growth and development.
------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: May 17, 2007
TO: Paredes 203116
FROM: Ken Ryan, Administrative Assistant
G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
SUBJECT: Letter of Appreciation
On May 16, 2007 you participated in a question and answer session with students from Lansing Community College. The purpose of this meeting was to allow the students to gain some insight on life inside prison. You took time out of your day and shared knowledge and personal information with some young adults who were strangers to you. In doing so, you gave them knowledge of not only life inside the prison, but also how it affects the individual doing the time.
I found this interaction very productive. My thoughts were also shared by the students and their instructor (former Parole Board Member Maurice Armstrong).
You are commended for sharing your time and personal information/thoughts for the purpose of helping others. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: May 17, 2007
TO: Ken Ryan, Warden's Administrative Asst.
G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
FROM: Efren Paredes, Jr.
RE: Letter of Appreciation
I wanted to acknowledge receipt of your letter of commendation and let you know I appreciate you sending it.
I wanted to also thank you for affording me the opportunity to speak to the students. I can provide a unique perspective on life in prison because of the juvenile waiver issue, being incarcerated in adult jails and prisons at age 15, and the wrongful conviction issue I have fought long and hard to overturn for nearly two decades.
My knowledge of this experience and ability to communicate it to others is partly the reason I have been interviewed by organizations, university human rights clinics, and by professionals from across the nation who are currently working to end the imposition of juvenile life without parole sentences in recent years. I have also appeared in national reports which discuss the issue.
It is important to present people with all facets of this experience. The more they learn they better they will comprehend all the dynamics involved. This will provide them a more holistic perspective to draw from and make decisions based upon, rather than be left ill-equipped to only draw from fragments of reality. It would be irresponsible to paint a picture to society that doesn't exist.
I believe the honest and candid discussion will serve the students useful in a number of ways. There is much to be learned from each of our unique experiences and the tribulations we have endured in life. We are each reservoirs of knowledge and experiences which can contribute to the growth and development of others.
I am sending Deputy Barrett a copy of this letter since he referred me to you as a viable candidate to participate in the discussion with the students. Thanks again for the opportunity.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
'Wrong Man' Free after 19 Yrs. - & Real 'Killer' Was Star Witness
New York Post
by Austin Fenner, Jeane Macintosh and Lukas I. Alpert
May 16, 2007
May 16, 2007 -- A man who served 19 years in prison for the rape and murder of his girlfriend's children was set free yesterday after DNA evidence proved that a next-door neighbor - the star prosecution witness - was responsible for the heinous crime.
Walking out of the same New Jersey courthouse where he had been sentenced to life in prison in 1988, Byron Halsey, 46, thanked God as he embraced his family, supporters and the team of lawyers who had worked to have his conviction overturned.
"I want to thank the lord. I want to thank my lord and savior Jesus for keeping me here," he said through tears as he stood beneath the word "Jusice" inscribed in Latin on the facade of the Union County Courthouse. "I'm just thankful."
Although he was happy to be free, Halsey said he would have a hard time getting over what had happened, especially because he had narrowly avoided a death sentence at his sensational trial two decades ago.
"I'm not happy because of what was done to me. It was criminal at best," he said. "I wasn't going to let anyone take my life from me."
His mother, Eloise, hugged her son as he walked out of the courthouse.
"I did not give up on him. I knew he was innocent," she said, overwhelmed by emotion.
Halsey's first glimpse of freedom began when his attorneys - of the New York-based Innocence Project - and Union County prosecutors submitted a joint request asking that his conviction be overturned.
In the legal filing, they explained that new DNA technology allowed them to trace semen found at the scene of the vicious rape and murder to Clifton Hall, 49, who lived next door to Halsey and his girlfriend at a Plainfield, N.J. rooming house.
Hall, who testified against Halsey, was imprisoned for three savage sexual assaults in 1993 and his DNA was on file with New Jersey authorities.
"We can say with scientific certainty that Byron Halsey is innocent. Every piece of physical evidence connects Cliff Hall, not Byron Halsey, to these murders," said Innocence Project attorney Vanessa Potkin. "It has taken more than two decades, but DNA has finally revealed the truth in this case."
Ruling that the new evidence "would probably change the verdict," Superior Court Judge Stuart Peim vacated the verdict and granted Halsey a new trial.
Halsey threw his head back as tears streamed down his face.
Peim then told prosecutors they had until a July 9 hearing to decide whether they would retry Halsey or drop the charges. A spokeswoman for the Union County prosecutor would not discuss what will happen.
Peim allowed Halsey to be released on $55,000 bail - raised by church groups in Plainfield - but ordered that he wear an electronic-monitoring ankle bracelet.
In a statement, the children's mother, Margaret Urquhart, said she had always doubted Halsey was responsible for the crimes.
"I knew Byron loved Tyrone and Tina. It didn't make sense to me that he could have done this. I always had my doubts, but I didn't know what to do about them. I'm thankful that the DNA testing has identified who really did this to my children and that Byron is being released today. I want justice done in this case," she said.
The brutal rape and murder of 8-year-old Tyrone Urquhart and his 7-year-old sister Tina shocked New Jersey.
The two children's beaten and abused bodies were found in the basement of the rooming house in November 1985.
The girl was found under a shelf with her nightgown draped over her head, her underwear stuffed in her mouth and her legs spread. She had been brutally raped on a nearby blue couch, beaten and strangled.
The boy had been sexually assaulted, his face slashed with scissors and a piece of cloth hammered to his skull with long nails. Several cigarette butts were found littered around his body.
It was later determined that the nails piercing his brain caused his death.
Investigators were able to recover evidence of semen from the girl's underwear, the covering of the couch, and from an oral swab of the boy's mouth. More DNA evidence was recovered from the cigarette butts.
At the time, however, DNA technology was not sufficient to provide a match to an individual, and investigators were only able to match Halsey to the semen because he had the same blood type as the culprit.
In the immediate aftermath, investigators aggressively questioned Halsey - who told them he had left the children alone and came home to find them missing.
After hours of questioning, Halsey allegedly confessed to the killings, admitting he "sexually assaulted [Tina] in the basement on the blue couch."
But his attorneys argue the confession was coerced after a 30-hour interrogation during which Halsey - who has a sixth-grade education and suffers from severe learning disabilities - was allowed little sleep.
But influenced by the blood-type evidence, and testimony from Hall - who earlier on the night of the murders had driven Halsey to a friend's house - the jury convicted Halsey in 1988 after five days of deliberation.
The jurors reject the prosecution's plea for the death penalty, and Halsey was sentenced to consecutive life sentences, a decision that elicited jeers in the courtroom.
The judge who handled the original case, William Wertheimer, said, "It gives pause about the death penalty, doesn't it?"
It is the 201st case for the Innocence Project - which works to exonerate the wrongly convicted using DNA technology unavailable until recently - in which a conviction was overturned.
"He's got an uphill battle trying to get his life back in order. He's got his mom, his brother which is going to be a help and he's got us," said David Shephard, president of the Council for the Wrongly Convicted.
He said his group had arranged for an apartment in Newark for Halsey and would help him find a job.
Hall has been imprisoned since 1993 for three brutal sex attacks on women in Plainfield during an 11-month period in 1991 and 1992. ■
by Austin Fenner, Jeane Macintosh and Lukas I. Alpert
May 16, 2007
May 16, 2007 -- A man who served 19 years in prison for the rape and murder of his girlfriend's children was set free yesterday after DNA evidence proved that a next-door neighbor - the star prosecution witness - was responsible for the heinous crime.
Walking out of the same New Jersey courthouse where he had been sentenced to life in prison in 1988, Byron Halsey, 46, thanked God as he embraced his family, supporters and the team of lawyers who had worked to have his conviction overturned.
"I want to thank the lord. I want to thank my lord and savior Jesus for keeping me here," he said through tears as he stood beneath the word "Jusice" inscribed in Latin on the facade of the Union County Courthouse. "I'm just thankful."
Although he was happy to be free, Halsey said he would have a hard time getting over what had happened, especially because he had narrowly avoided a death sentence at his sensational trial two decades ago.
"I'm not happy because of what was done to me. It was criminal at best," he said. "I wasn't going to let anyone take my life from me."
His mother, Eloise, hugged her son as he walked out of the courthouse.
"I did not give up on him. I knew he was innocent," she said, overwhelmed by emotion.
Halsey's first glimpse of freedom began when his attorneys - of the New York-based Innocence Project - and Union County prosecutors submitted a joint request asking that his conviction be overturned.
In the legal filing, they explained that new DNA technology allowed them to trace semen found at the scene of the vicious rape and murder to Clifton Hall, 49, who lived next door to Halsey and his girlfriend at a Plainfield, N.J. rooming house.
Hall, who testified against Halsey, was imprisoned for three savage sexual assaults in 1993 and his DNA was on file with New Jersey authorities.
"We can say with scientific certainty that Byron Halsey is innocent. Every piece of physical evidence connects Cliff Hall, not Byron Halsey, to these murders," said Innocence Project attorney Vanessa Potkin. "It has taken more than two decades, but DNA has finally revealed the truth in this case."
Ruling that the new evidence "would probably change the verdict," Superior Court Judge Stuart Peim vacated the verdict and granted Halsey a new trial.
Halsey threw his head back as tears streamed down his face.
Peim then told prosecutors they had until a July 9 hearing to decide whether they would retry Halsey or drop the charges. A spokeswoman for the Union County prosecutor would not discuss what will happen.
Peim allowed Halsey to be released on $55,000 bail - raised by church groups in Plainfield - but ordered that he wear an electronic-monitoring ankle bracelet.
In a statement, the children's mother, Margaret Urquhart, said she had always doubted Halsey was responsible for the crimes.
"I knew Byron loved Tyrone and Tina. It didn't make sense to me that he could have done this. I always had my doubts, but I didn't know what to do about them. I'm thankful that the DNA testing has identified who really did this to my children and that Byron is being released today. I want justice done in this case," she said.
The brutal rape and murder of 8-year-old Tyrone Urquhart and his 7-year-old sister Tina shocked New Jersey.
The two children's beaten and abused bodies were found in the basement of the rooming house in November 1985.
The girl was found under a shelf with her nightgown draped over her head, her underwear stuffed in her mouth and her legs spread. She had been brutally raped on a nearby blue couch, beaten and strangled.
The boy had been sexually assaulted, his face slashed with scissors and a piece of cloth hammered to his skull with long nails. Several cigarette butts were found littered around his body.
It was later determined that the nails piercing his brain caused his death.
Investigators were able to recover evidence of semen from the girl's underwear, the covering of the couch, and from an oral swab of the boy's mouth. More DNA evidence was recovered from the cigarette butts.
At the time, however, DNA technology was not sufficient to provide a match to an individual, and investigators were only able to match Halsey to the semen because he had the same blood type as the culprit.
In the immediate aftermath, investigators aggressively questioned Halsey - who told them he had left the children alone and came home to find them missing.
After hours of questioning, Halsey allegedly confessed to the killings, admitting he "sexually assaulted [Tina] in the basement on the blue couch."
But his attorneys argue the confession was coerced after a 30-hour interrogation during which Halsey - who has a sixth-grade education and suffers from severe learning disabilities - was allowed little sleep.
But influenced by the blood-type evidence, and testimony from Hall - who earlier on the night of the murders had driven Halsey to a friend's house - the jury convicted Halsey in 1988 after five days of deliberation.
The jurors reject the prosecution's plea for the death penalty, and Halsey was sentenced to consecutive life sentences, a decision that elicited jeers in the courtroom.
The judge who handled the original case, William Wertheimer, said, "It gives pause about the death penalty, doesn't it?"
It is the 201st case for the Innocence Project - which works to exonerate the wrongly convicted using DNA technology unavailable until recently - in which a conviction was overturned.
"He's got an uphill battle trying to get his life back in order. He's got his mom, his brother which is going to be a help and he's got us," said David Shephard, president of the Council for the Wrongly Convicted.
He said his group had arranged for an apartment in Newark for Halsey and would help him find a job.
Hall has been imprisoned since 1993 for three brutal sex attacks on women in Plainfield during an 11-month period in 1991 and 1992. ■
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)