GIST: "No person shall “be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Thus, according to the Fifth Amendment, capital punishment is
permissible by the law of the land pursuant to principles of
proportionality as laid out in the Eighth Amendment. But should it remain a legal option?
If not, who should champion capital punishment’s demise? Should it be
the Left, whose answer to most political, philosophical, and moral
questions is usually more government? Or should it be the Right, who
have long been advocates of government restraint, fiscal responsibility,
morality, and public safety? Conservatism is not a single-issue
monolith. As such, the political Right’s umbrella covers a gambit of
interests and differing points of view—take immigration, trade, or
national security for example. Yet the closer conservatism remains to
its core values, the more credibility it brings to the table. If
conservatives want to convince others that a smaller, more nimble
government is best, then those values should be reflected in all policy
areas, including the death penalty.
♦♦♦
"The Founding Fathers explicitly
rejected the notion that government is benign. Indeed, skepticism of
state power is at the heart of the American identity and conservative
philosophy, and for good reason. The United States government has a
history of incompetence and malfeasance, ranging from buying $400
hammers to testing the effects of nuclear radiation on U.S. soldiers. Our suspicion of government should not
end with the criminal justice system. With respect to capital
punishment, the United States has a track record of acting in an
arbitrary and biased fashion. Some examples are obvious. For instance, a
19th century North Carolina law mandated the death penalty when a black
man raped a white woman, but gave a maximum punishment of one year in
prison to a white man for the same crime. While such blatantly racist laws no
longer exist, the disproportionality in death penalty cases has long
been an issue. For instance, a Justice Department study established
that, between 1930 and 1972, when an individual was sentenced to death
for the crime of rape (a crime that no longer carries the death
penalty), 89 percent of the defendants put to death were black men. More
disturbing was the fact that in every rape execution case, the victim
was white. Not one person received a death sentence for raping a black
woman, despite black women being up to 12 times more likely to be rape
victims. Furthermore, a murder victim’s race
also seems to influence whether or not the accused will be put to death.
Indeed, there is a much higher likelihood of this occurring if the
victim is white: over 75 percent of victims in cases that resulted in
executions were Caucasian. Additionally, only 15 percent were African
American even though they represent a far higher percentage of murder
victims. This seems to suggest that, at least through the criminal
justice lens, some lives are more valuable than others.The simple matter is that the death
penalty has an extensive history of overt bias. As America has been
reshaped, thanks in part to the civil rights movement, many laws have
since been repealed or reformed that once permitted conspicuous racism
within the justice system. In the modern era, execution rates by race
have begun to more closely mirror America’s racial makeup. While the
U.S. has taken great strides, we still have not been able to banish the
bias that permeates the justice system. For it to be fair, justice must
be impartial and provide defendants an equal opportunity, regardless of
race. Put simply, Lady Justice must not only be blind, but also color
blind. The Innocence Project has estimated
that anywhere from 2 to 5 percent of currently incarcerated Americans
are innocent. Given that there are about two million people behind bars
today, that roughly translates into 20,000 wrongly convicted people. If a
headline read “20,000 individuals’ guns were wrongfully seized by
government agents” conservatives would be infuriated, and rightly so.
This makes it all the more curious that such passion for a limited
government does not extend to the state’s power over life and death. Conservatives claim to hold the
government and its bureaucrats to high standards. We expect the state to
be the flag bearer of moral precepts and criticize it when it fails.
Indeed, the Republican platform uses the word “moral” nine times to
describe topics ranging from healthcare to the environment. And
regardless of a citizen’s source of morality, be it secular or
ecclesiastical, the government should reflect those standards. Despite this expectation, a core
belief among conservatives is that the government is too often
inefficient and prone to mistakes. Why should the death penalty’s
administration by government bureaucrats be any different? We know
individuals are wrongfully convicted—and to be sure, some wrongful
convictions are unavoidable. However, when dealing with capital
punishment, that inevitability could have irreversible consequences and
can never be tolerated in a free and law-abiding society. This is why government should not be
in the business of killing its citizens. This view hews to a core
conservative tenet, that the government should be inferior to the people
from which it derives its power. True, we invest in the state the
authority to protect its citizens, which might require lethal protection
by police officers in the line of duty. But when it comes to the death
penalty, executions aren’t a matter of self-defense or a response to
imminent danger. Rather the defendant has already been neutralized as a
threat and housed in a correctional facility. In contrast to just
wars and police responses, our penal system can and should take all
necessary time and devote all appropriate resources to achieve its
ultimate end—justice.
♦♦♦
Death penalty proponents often claim
that executions are beneficial because they serve as a general deterrent
to murder. According to this argument, people will hesitate to commit
the most heinous crimes for fear of capital punishment, which could mean
the firing squad, gas chamber, electric chair, lethal injection, or
hanging—which are all legal in some states today. The problem with this
theory is that there is very little valid data to support it. Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, death
penalty convictions increased sharply, particularly in the South.
Indeed, in 1977 there were just over 400 people on death row in the
U.S.; by 1983, that number tripled to 1,200; by 1990, that number had
nearly doubled to over 2,300. Each year, death row continued to swell
until hitting its maximum at 3,581 in 2001. Since then, the numbers have
been slowly decreasing to what they are today at 2,743.
To determine if capital punishment
accomplishes its main goal—deterring crime—researchers have conducted
several studies, including: 1) comparing murder rates between
neighboring states that do and do not have capital punishment; and 2)
comparing murder rates in states that have had the death penalty and
abolished it. Daniel Nagin and John Pepper’s 2012
publication, “Deterrence and the Death Penalty,” was the largest-ever
survey of deterrence studies. After conducting their examination, the
authors concluded that no evidence exists to suggest that the death
penalty serves as a general deterrent to murder. In fact, when analyzing
homicide rates between states that share comparable economic,
demographic, and social characteristics, there is no statistically
significant difference between murder rates in states with or without
the death penalty. Further, the difference between
states’ homicide rates before and after abolishing capital punishment
tends to undermine death penalty advocates’ arguments. One of the more
recent examples of this is New Mexico, which repealed the death penalty
in 2009. At that time, the state’s homicide rate was 9.9 per 100,000
citizens. Since repeal, the murder rate has steadily decreased to 6.7
per 100,000 as of 2016. This is especially stunning given that
nationally, from 2009 to 2016, there was a slight uptick in murders per
capita. Homicide rates have declined in virtually every state that has
repealed capital punishment with the exception of Maryland and Illinois,
but this is because of increased gang violence isolated in
neighborhoods of Baltimore and Chicago. Some argue that the debate over
general deterrence is superfluous. For them, the basic argument is this:
executions prevent murderers from killing again,
and thus are a win. But this ignores the real possibility of
accidentally executing an innocent person. It also turns eye-for-an-eye
vengeance into one of the death penalty’s goals. Indeed, most capital
punishment proponents do not support this kind of retribution for other
crimes. Few, if any, advocate for raping a rapist, assaulting an
assaulter, or robbing a robber. Yet, when it comes to the death penalty,
such otherwise-rejected logic is embraced. Further, if the death
penalty’s objective is to prevent individuals from killing again, then
sentencing them to life without the chance of release can accomplish
that goal.
♦♦♦
There is a growing list of examples
demonstrating how easily someone can be wrongly placed on death row, and
Ray Krone’s case is one such cautionary tale. He served honorably as an
Air Force sergeant, and, after his tenure, began working for the U.S.
Postal Service. Up until then, he had never been arrested. That changed
one day when he was accused of murdering a waitress at a nearby bar,
despite being home at the time. No evidence connected him to the
crime—save for a mangled bite mark on the victim’s body that an “expert”
linked to Krone using bite-mark analysis. He was even dubbed the
“snaggletooth killer.” Krone’s defense counsel was
underfunded and ill-prepared. Meanwhile, the prosecutor withheld
evidence, and consequently Krone was convicted and sentenced to die.
Years passed, and researchers eventually discovered DNA evidence, which
was presented in court. The new finding identified a known criminal as
the likely culprit. As a result, Krone was exonerated, but not before
losing 10 years of his life. Unfortunately, his story is not
unique. Krone is one of over 160 individuals who have been wrongly
convicted, sentenced to die, and ultimately freed from prison since
1973. That equates to roughly one erroneous conviction and release for
every nine executions. A 2014 study by Samuel R. Gross estimates that at
least 4.1 percent of those sentenced to die are likely innocent,
suggesting that this problem may be more pervasive than many think.
More often than not, prosecutorial
misconduct, mistaken eyewitness testimony, coerced confessions, inept
defense attorneys, and faulty forensics are behind these erroneous
convictions. In fact, forensic analyses that were once considered a
near-perfect science have since proven to be unreliable, and may have
even led to wrongful executions. It is impossible to know how many
innocent people have been executed, but Carlos DeLuna might be one of
those pitiable people. He was convicted of murdering a convenience store
clerk, though no physical evidence linked him to the crime. Detectives
failed to follow basic crime scene procedures, and the prosecution
largely relied on the eyewitness testimony of one man who later admitted
that he couldn’t readily distinguish people of Hispanic descent. After being accused, DeLuna identified
a police informant named Carlos Hernandez as the true killer. Hernandez
had been arrested dozens of times, looked similar to DeLuna, and
considerable evidence pointed in his direction. On multiple occasions,
Hernandez even bragged about committing the murder and the wrong Carlos
taking the fall. Despite all of this, DeLuna was executed.
Conservatives take great pride in
championing the sanctity of life and respecting its intrinsic value, but
a death penalty system that repeatedly and unnecessarily risks innocent
lives does neither.
♦♦♦
Beginning no later than the early
1990s, states and counties were confronted by the death penalty’s
exorbitant costs—pushing some localities to the brink of bankruptcy. One
such example occurred in Lincoln County, Georgia, where a prosecutor
was bent on securing a death sentence for a South Carolinian named
Johnny Jones. The trial quickly strained the county’s finances, and, in
1990, Lincoln County officials were forced to raise taxes to cover the
case’s costs. Eventually, they even went so far as to sue the
defendant’s home state in order to recoup their losses. Jones was initially sentenced to die,
but his conviction was overturned due to irregularities. This started
the proceedings anew. Frustrated with the process and expense, Lincoln
County commissioners balked when asked to fund Jones’ retrial. The
presiding judge subsequently threw the commissioners in jail. Hungry for
a decent, warm meal, they relented to the judge’s demands and were
released after a 24-hour stint in lock-up. Ultimately, in 1992, they
raised taxes again to bankroll the legal proceeding. In the end, Georgia
never executed Jones. Stories like these can be found
elsewhere. The death penalty’s high costs have threatened the solvency
of many local governments, while similar outcomes resulted. In the
1990s, Richardson County, Nebraska, mortgaged their ambulances to fund
two death cases and Jasper County, Texas, raised property taxes by 7
percent to finance capital proceedings. In response, many states have
since shifted much of the financial burden from the local to the state
level, but the high costs remain. More recently, numerous cost studies
have examined the death penalty’s expense and found that it far
outweighs the price of life without parole (LWOP). A study found that
the state of Florida spent roughly $3.2 million per death case from
initial trial to execution, and the costs have almost certainly risen
dramatically since. By replacing capital punishment with LWOP, North
Carolina could have saved around $11 million per year from 2005-2006,
and Nebraska roughly $14 million in 2015. Meanwhile, since 1978, California has
shockingly spent at least $4 billion dollars maintaining and pursuing
capital cases. Yet, in this same time period, the state has only
executed a total of 13 people. These examples of capital punishment’s
expense are not outliers. More than two dozen cost studies have all
demonstrated the death penalty’s high price in states across the
country. These high costs are just a symptom of
the American legal system’s design, and of statutory and Supreme Court
mandates. First, our system requires attorneys to provide the best
representation possible for their clients. Second, capital cases are
given what is called “super due process” to reduce the chance of
executing an innocent person. The marriage of these factors guarantees
an expensive process. Initial trials are far longer and
resource intensive, and death cases even have an additional trial not
found in LWOP cases, which exists to determine whether an execution is
merited. This is followed by a longer, multi-tiered appeals process with
more appealable issues than LWOP cases. Meanwhile, once sentenced to
die, inmates are housed on death row, which, due to increased security
protocols, is more expensive than housing in the general population. Put
simply, by following the law and corrections policies, every level of
the process is necessarily more complex and costly. Given the death
penalty’s high costs compared to LWOP, it’s clear that capital
punishment is antithetical to fiscal conservatism.
♦♦♦
Reverend Billy Bosler was a Florida
minister who opposed capital punishment. On at least one occasion, he
even informed his daughter, Suezann Bosler, that if he were ever
murdered he wouldn’t want his killer to be put to death. Sadly, one day,
a man forced his way into the Boslers’ parsonage whereupon Bosler was
murdered and Suezann was critically wounded. Before long, the perpetrator was
captured and charged with murder. The prosecutor sought the death
penalty, but Suezann remembered her father’s uncompromising stance on
capital punishment. Through the long process, Suezann objected to the
death penalty, but the prosecutor evidently didn’t care. In fact, when
called to testify, Suezann was threatened with being held in contempt of
court and jailed if she revealed her death penalty views. Suezann’s
story is a lamentable reminder that, while people are told that the
death penalty is in part exercised for the benefit of victims and
victims’ families, their wishes are not always considered. The death penalty process fails
victims’ families in other ways too. They desire a system that is swift
and sure. Contrary to their needs, the proceedings are complex,
time-consuming, and heart-wrenching. At every court appearance over the
course of decades, victims’ family members must repeatedly relive the
worst moments of their lives—ensuring that healing is elusive. If an
execution ever comes to fruition, it usually occurs around 15 years
after the original conviction date. Further, the families of murder
victims must live in constant uncertainty because death sentences are
frequently overturned on appeal, which starts the process anew. In fact,
there are serious, reversible errors in more than two thirds of capital
cases. Murder victims’ families deserve
better than the system that they must endure, but policymakers are faced
with a catch-22. The death penalty process cannot be shorter, less
complex, or have its appeals limited without virtually guaranteeing that
innocent people will be executed by the state. It seems that if murder
victims’ well-being was a primary focus, then prosecutors would more
frequently seek a briefer, simpler, surer proceeding like LWOP.
♦♦♦
The creation of the Grand Old Party,
and in many ways the modern conservative movement, traces its lineage to
anti-slavery abolitionists. Their beliefs about human dignity have
influenced current conservatives’ views on the sanctity of life.
Conservatives should return to the root principles of liberty and
dignity to ensure that the criminal justice system is fair, just, and
respects life.
It’s not hard to see what the Right
stands to gain by making real attempts to exemplify the 2000
presidential campaign slogan “compassionate conservatism.” Conservatives
can shed the impression—deserved or not—that the Right has no mercy or
compassion for the underprivileged. Showing grace to those who some may
feel deserve the death penalty would go a long way toward accomplishing
this. Forgiveness and empathy are firmly
rooted in Christianity. In fact, modern Catholic teaching has attempted
to embody the notion of grace. Pope John Paul II strived to respect
life’s invaluable worth, provide all humans the best chance of
redemption, and truly exhibit compassion. Thus, in 1997, Pope John Paul
II updated the Church’s position on the death penalty to reflect these
ideals. The revision greatly limited capital punishment’s approved
application to instances in which executions are absolutely necessary to
suppress the guilty. However, with the advent of modern prisons, this
is never the case in America. Today, there are other options available
to neutralize the convicted as a threat to society and protect the
general public without executing the guilty. Earlier this year, Pope Francis built upon Pope John Paul II’s teaching. He ordered the Catechism
to be updated so that it declares the death penalty to be “inadmissible
because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the
person.” Regardless of whether or not one is a Catholic, a philosophy
that respects life, offers the opportunity of salvation, and extends
compassion to others should be embraced. Perhaps more than anything else,
opposition to the death penalty should boil down to a lack of faith in a
woefully error-prone government. After all, how willing are you to trust your life to this system?"
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-against-the-death-penalty-2/
Read National Registry of Exonerations entry on Ray Krone at the link below: "Both investigations focused on DeLuna's claim that another man,
Carlos Hernandez, had committed the crime. Police had not investigated
Hernandez for the murder, and at trial, prosecutor Steve Schwietz
referred to Hernandez as a "phantom" because DeLuna was unable to
identify any specific individual as the Carlos Hernandez he was placing
the blame on, despite having been shown mug shots of every Carlos
Hernandez in the Corpus Christi system (including the Carlos Hernandez
that the Columbia team later focused on). According to DeLuna's sister,
even his trial lawyers did not believe the "Carlos Hernandez" story.
[67] - Whilst according to the
Chicago Tribune
"Not only was he [Hernandez] well-known to police in this Gulf Coast
city as a violent felon, but the co-prosecutor at De Luna's trial and
the lead detective in the case knew Hernandez too. [...] Jurors heard
none of that information. The prosecutor sat silently as his colleague
branded Hernandez a figment of De Luna's imagination."
[68] However, the
Chicago Tribune and Columbia University teams
rather easily discovered extensive details about and acquaintances of
the Carlos Hernandez to whom DeLuna had long referred. Hernandez, who
died from cirrhosis in a Texas prison in 1999, was a career criminal
living in the same neighborhood and had a history of assaulting women,
robbing gas stations, and carrying knives. The Columbia team found
people who knew Hernandez and said he bragged to them about murdering
Lopez and letting DeLuna take the fall. They also learned Hernandez had
been arrested as a suspect – before charges were dropped – in the death
of a woman, Dahlia Sauceda, killed several years earlier in the same
area of Corpus Christi. Sauceda's body was found with a large "X"
carved in her back via knife. Hernandez also later served 19 months (of
a 10-year sentence) in prison for stabbing another woman, Dina Ybanez,
with a lock-blade knife nearly identical to the one used in the Lopez
killing.
[69] The Columbia report documented numerous cases in which Hernandez
was arrested while in possession of lock-blade knives similar to the one
used to kill Lopez. Additionally, numerous people interviewed by the
Columbia team said they knew Hernandez carried lock-blade knives.
(Conversely, Carlos DeLuna was never in possession of a knife at the
time of any of his many arrests during his lifetime.) The report also
documented problems with the show-up identification of DeLuna by Baker,
the preservation of the crime scene, failure by the prosecution to
disclose exculpatory evidence, and DeLuna's representation by overworked
and inexperienced defense counsel.
[70][71] The Columbia report has drawn criticism from some officials in
Corpus Christi. Nueces County District Attorney Mark Skurka, who was
not involved with DeLuna's case and has not read the Columbia report,
said that the researchers are arguing the same issues and complained
that "[those] people have already made up their mind, it doesn't matter
what anyone says."
[62]
Corpus Christi police investigator Paul Rivera says that at the
Columbia team's request, he reviewed the police and trial records but
continues to believe DeLuna killed Lopez. On the other hand, Wanda
Lopez's brother, Richard, issued a statement in June 2006 saying, "After
carefully reviewing the information recently uncovered and printed by
Steve Mills and Maurice Possley in the
Chicago Tribune, I am convinced that Carlos DeLuna did not kill my sister and that Carlos Hernandez was the real murderer."
[72] On the
morning of December 29, 1991, the body of 36-year-old Kim Ancona was
found, nude, in the men’s restroom of the Phoenix, Arizona bar where she
worked. Ancona had been fatally stabbed, and the perpetrator left behind little
physical evidence. Blood at the crime scene matched the victim’s type,
and saliva on her body came from someone with the most common blood
type. There was no semen and no DNA tests were performed.
Investigators
relied on bite marks on the victim’s breast and neck. Upon hearing that
Ancona had told a friend that a regular customer named Ray Krone was to
help her close up the bar the previous night, police asked Krone to
make a Styrofoam impression of his teeth for comparison. On December 31,
1991, Krone was arrested and charged with murder, kidnapping, and
sexual assault.
At his 1992
trial, Krone maintained his innocence, claiming to be asleep in his bed
at the time of the crime. Experts for the prosecution, however,
testified that the bite-marks found on the victim’s body matched the
impression that Krone had made on the Styrofoam and a jury convicted him
on the counts of murder and kidnapping. He was sentenced to death and a
consecutive 21-year term of imprisonment, respectively. Krone was found
not guilty of the sexual assault. Krone won a
new trial in 1996 after an appeals court ruled that the prosecution had
failed to disclose to the defense a report from an expert which said the
bite-marks did not resemble Krone's teeth. At a retrial, however, Krone
was convicted again, mainly on the state’s supposed expert bite-mark
testimony. This time, however, the judge sentenced him to life in
prison, citing doubts about whether or not Krone was the true killer.
It was not
until 2002, after Krone had served more than 10 years in prison, that
DNA testing proved his innocence. DNA testing conducted on the saliva
and blood found on the victim excluded Krone as the source and instead
matched a man named Kenneth Phillips. Phillips was incarcerated on an
unrelated sex crime and, although he had lived a short distance from the
bar where the victim worked, he had never been considered a suspect in
her murder. On April 8,
2002, Krone was released from prison and on April 24th, the District
Attorney’s office dismissed the charges against him. In 2006, Phillips
pled guilty to the murder and was sentenced to 53 years in prison. Krone later
filed a federal civil rights lawsuit and received $3 million in a
settlement with the city of Phoenix and $1.4 million in a settlement
with Maricopa County. Krone was the 100th former death row inmate freed because of innocence
since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the United States in
1976. He was the twelfth death row inmate whose innocence was proven
through postconviction DNA testing. Prior to his arrest, Krone had no
previous criminal record, had been honorably discharged from the
military, and had worked in the postal service for seven years.
Read the Wikipedia entry on Carlos DeLuna at the link below:"Both investigations focused on DeLuna's claim that another man,
Carlos Hernandez, had committed the crime. Police had not investigated
Hernandez for the murder, and at trial, prosecutor Steve Schwietz
referred to Hernandez as a "phantom" because DeLuna was unable to
identify any specific individual as the Carlos Hernandez he was placing
the blame on, despite having been shown mug shots of every Carlos
Hernandez in the Corpus Christi system (including the Carlos Hernandez
that the Columbia team later focused on). According to DeLuna's sister,
even his trial lawyers did not believe the "Carlos Hernandez" story.
[67] - Whilst according to the
Chicago Tribune
"Not only was he [Hernandez] well-known to police in this Gulf Coast
city as a violent felon, but the co-prosecutor at De Luna's trial and
the lead detective in the case knew Hernandez too. [...] Jurors heard
none of that information. The prosecutor sat silently as his colleague
branded Hernandez a figment of De Luna's imagination."
[68]
However, the
Chicago Tribune and Columbia University teams
rather easily discovered extensive details about and acquaintances of
the Carlos Hernandez to whom DeLuna had long referred. Hernandez, who
died from cirrhosis in a Texas prison in 1999, was a career criminal
living in the same neighborhood and had a history of assaulting women,
robbing gas stations, and carrying knives. The Columbia team found
people who knew Hernandez and said he bragged to them about murdering
Lopez and letting DeLuna take the fall. They also learned Hernandez had
been arrested as a suspect – before charges were dropped – in the death
of a woman, Dahlia Sauceda, killed several years earlier in the same
area of Corpus Christi. Sauceda's body was found with a large "X"
carved in her back via knife. Hernandez also later served 19 months (of
a 10-year sentence) in prison for stabbing another woman, Dina Ybanez,
with a lock-blade knife nearly identical to the one used in the Lopez
killing.
[69] The Columbia report documented numerous cases in which Hernandez
was arrested while in possession of lock-blade knives similar to the one
used to kill Lopez. Additionally, numerous people interviewed by the
Columbia team said they knew Hernandez carried lock-blade knives.
(Conversely, Carlos DeLuna was never in possession of a knife at the
time of any of his many arrests during his lifetime.) The report also
documented problems with the show-up identification of DeLuna by Baker,
the preservation of the crime scene, failure by the prosecution to
disclose exculpatory evidence, and DeLuna's representation by overworked
and inexperienced defense counsel.
[70][71] The Columbia report has drawn criticism from some officials in
Corpus Christi. Nueces County District Attorney Mark Skurka, who was
not involved with DeLuna's case and has not read the Columbia report,
said that the researchers are arguing the same issues and complained
that "[those] people have already made up their mind, it doesn't matter
what anyone says."
[62]
Corpus Christi police investigator Paul Rivera says that at the
Columbia team's request, he reviewed the police and trial records but
continues to believe DeLuna killed Lopez. On the other hand, Wanda
Lopez's brother, Richard, issued a statement in June 2006 saying, "After
carefully reviewing the information recently uncovered and printed by
Steve Mills and Maurice Possley in the
Chicago Tribune, I am convinced that Carlos DeLuna did not kill my sister and that Carlos Hernandez was the real murderer."
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_DeLuna
PUBLISHER'S
NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles
Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my
previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put
considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith
and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's
forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section
which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can
be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
