Dr. Harold Dean Trulear

As a pastor, a scholar, and an ex-prisoner, Harold Dean Trulear has earned the right to talk about prison ministry from the outside in and from the inside out.  I last saw Dr. Trulear in Washington DC when we were both part of a convening of faith leaders interested in ending mass incarceration.  Pat Nolan of Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship also attended that gathering.  Like Trulear, Nolan has seen both sides of the prison wall and we had some good, frank conversation about the future of reform.  In this honest appraisal written for the Center for Public Justice, Dr. Trulear evaluates the mixed legacy of Nolan’s old boss, Charles Colson, and points the way to a viable relationship between Prison Fellowship and the Black Church.

Prison Ministry in the Post-Colson Era

Joe Moore feeds his cattle before being arrested in Tulia

This story in the Fort Worth Weekly uses my take on the tragedy of Tulia, Texas as a metaphor for a failed war on drugs.

Jim Crow Redux:
War on drugs or on minority communities

Matthew McGowan

Fort Worth Weekly

Alan Bean couldn’t miss the headline splashed across the top of his hometown paper one summer morning in 1999. It spoke of big news for the 5,000-person burg in West Texas: a big drug bust that landed a sizable portion of the town’s black community behind bars.

“Tulia streets cleared of garbage,” the banner headline read. Like many aspects of the American war on drugs, the wording smacked of insidious racism.

Bean recalled his reactions to that news story a few days ago, to a roomful of people at a Fort Worth hotel. The event, examining the 40-year-old war on drugs and its disproportionate impact on minority communities, was hosted by the Tarrant County Libertarian Party but drew speakers from several parts of the political spectrum.

At the podium, Bean acknowledged that he’d known nothing of the lopsided statistics when he picked up the paper that morning. The drug bust in his small town would change all that, though, and suddenly push him to the front lines of a war that locks up seven black men for every white man incarcerated in the United States, devastating minority neighborhoods while white enclaves, where drugs are every bit as prevalent, are left mostly unscathed. The more Bean read and researched, the clearer the drug war’s racism became to him.

But that drug bust was the eye-opener. On that July 23 morning, dozens of police officers in tactical gear swarmed the black neighborhoods of South Tulia and pulled 47 people, many still in their underwear, out of their homes and arrested them on charges of selling powder cocaine to undercover officer Tom Coleman, a sheriff’s deputy who had posed as a drifter. Thirty-eight of the defendants were African-American, representing roughly 15 percent of the town’s black community.

Bean wondered how a town Tulia’s size could have enough drug users to sustain 47 drug lords. And powder cocaine? That’s a drug of affluence, something you’re more likely to find in Dallas high-rises than in dusty neighborhoods where crack is far cheaper and more prevalent. Also he’d never heard of Tom Coleman.

Bean, an ordained Baptist minister and Canadian native who was relatively new to town, shared his misgivings about the sting later that week at church. A white businessman pulled Bean off to the side and offered some local context.

“The sting was all about these young black males who were sports stars in high school but never left town after graduation,” Bean said the businessman told him. “They think they can do drugs, mess with our girls, and get away with it.”

He’d heard enough. Early meetings with local sympathizers became the Friends of Justice, a group that now operates out of Bean’s office in Arlington. The group initially aimed to get to the bottom of the Tulia busts, even if the effort got him run out of town.

“The Tulia defendants weren’t being prosecuted for selling drugs, I realized,” Bean said. “They were going down for not having a job, not paying a mortgage, not maintaining a marriage, and not tucking their children in at night. So long as they were demonstrably deficient as parents and breadwinners, the fact issues of a particular case were irrelevant.”

The facts did eventually come out in the Tulia case, but only after a district judge handed down extremely harsh sentences, like the 50-something-year-old man slapped with 90 years for allegedly selling a few grams of coke to Coleman. Civil rights lawyers and journalists who flocked to Tulia unearthed a litany of flaws in Coleman’s investigation. The officer’s own checkered past came into question too. By the time the dust settled a few years later, Gov. Rick Perry had pardoned most of the Tulia defendants, and in 2005 a jury found Coleman guilty of perjury. A visiting district judge sentenced him to 10 years probation.

To many like Bean in the civil rights trenches, Tulia offered chilling evidence that the federal war on drugs had devolved into a thinly veiled race war that’s had basically zero effect on drug consumption, availability, and related crime.

“Tulia was America writ small,” he said. “The drug war was a public policy response to conditions in economically starved inner-city neighborhoods, but the social dynamics are more visible in small, pissant towns like Tulia, because everything is small, and therefore simple.”

A 2010 federal survey found almost identical rates of drug use among whites and African-Americans. Yet minorities — particularly African-American males — make up a staggering majority of drug-war inmates.

The Drug Policy Forum of Texas estimated, based on federal numbers, that whites represented 74 percent of U.S. drug users in 2010 but only 19 percent of drug-related inmates. That year, blacks, representing about 11 percent of total drug users, made up 56 percent of drug-war inmates. Latinos were 10 percent of users and 22 percent of inmates.

“The war on drugs is really a war on black and brown people,” said Jasmine Tyler, deputy director of the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. “We aren’t worried about drugs. If we were worried about the effects of drugs, we’d stop them from entering the country at the border. What we have is a tactic that’s used under a guise of public health and safety which really has nothing to do with either of those two areas. The drug war really is the new Jim Crow.”

Tyler believes the disproportionate effect on minorities stems from both subconscious discrimination and outright racism.

Other reformers, like Carl Veley, a Drug Policy Forum speaker from Houston, attribute much of the apparent racism to convenience: Drug dealers in low-income neighborhoods conduct business on street corners and other open places like public parks, where it’s easy for police to make arrests.

“Police are rewarded for the number of busts they make,” Veley said. “It’s much easier to make a $5 bust over in the black neighborhood than a $5 million bust over in the white neighborhood or even a $50 bust in the white neighborhood.”

He cited conversations with police officers who told him they look at the disproportionate numbers of incarcerated blacks as clear evidence that crime is more common in black communities, which the statistics seem to call into question.

“They operate on the assumption that the justice system is absolutely fair and perfect,” Veley said. “I look at that data and say there’s clearly something wrong with the justice system.”

Critics from across the political landscape have been saying for years that Washington is losing the drug war. Drug usage levels have barely changed since Richard Nixon declared the war in 1971.

The only drug for which usage rates have dropped during the past 40 years is tobacco, as Drug Policy Forum activist Suzanne Wills dryly noted at the Fort Worth gathering.

Gil Kerlikowske, President Barack Obama’s drug czar, told the Associate Press in 2009 that the drug war has “not been successful” and that “40 years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified.”

That’s why critics are calling for a return to the drawing board and a new national debate about how state and federal officials can more effectively attack a problem that many see as better addressed by doctors than law enforcement. They’re also worried that what they see as the institutionalized racism involved is doing long-term harm to minority communities.

Every arrest means more cost to taxpayers for prosecutions and prisons, the speakers pointed out, as well as costs to the overall economy from the self-perpetuating cycle of usage, crime, and imprisonment.

Veley said it’s crucial that minority leaders, above all, are brought into that debate.

“Black leaders look around them and say, ‘Oh my God, drugs are terrible. They’re ruining our country,’ ” he said. “Then they make the logical leap and say drugs are terrible, they must be illegal. That doesn’t follow.”

In this piece written for the CNN blog, Osler doesn’t argue that the Bible endorses homosexuality; he says the life and message of Jesus is a compelling argument against withholding any holy sacrament (marriage, baptism) from anybody.  

Mark couldn’t have made this argument so neatly when he was a Baptist at Baylor; but now that he’s wandered down the Canterbury Trail it makes a lot of sense.  In fact, the baptism-marriage connection is breathtaking in its simplicity.  Why hadn’t I thought of that?  Probably because I’m still a Baptist. 

By Mark Osler, Special to CNN

I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.

What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.

A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the “rock” on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story. Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.

During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.

After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.

Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).

His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws. It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise.

It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage. The water will flow where it will.

Intriguingly, this rule will apply whether we see homosexuality as a sin or not. The water is for all of us. We see the same thing at the Last Supper, as Jesus gives the bread and wine to all who are there—even to Peter, who Jesus said would deny him, and to Judas, who would betray him.

The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.

The answer is in the Bible. Peter and Jesus offer a strikingly inclusive form of love and engagement. They hold out the symbols of Gods’ love to all. How arrogant that we think it is ours to parse out stingily!

I worship at St. Stephens, an Episcopal church in Edina, Minnesota. There is a river that flows around the back and side of that church with a delightful name: Minnehaha Creek. That is where we do baptisms.

The Rector stands in the creek in his robes, the cool water coursing by his feet, and takes an infant into his arms and baptizes her with that same cool water. The congregation sits on the grassy bank and watches, a gentle army.

At the bottom of the creek, in exactly that spot, is a floor of smooth pebbles. The water rushing by has rubbed off the rough edges, bit by bit, day by day. The pebbles have been transformed by that water into something new.

I suppose that, as Peter put it, someone could try to withhold the waters of baptism there. They could try to stop the river, to keep the water from some of the stones, like a child in the gutter building a barrier against the stream.

It won’t last, though. I would say this to those who would withhold the water of baptism, the joy of worship, or the bonds of marriage: You are less strong than the water, which will flow around you, find its path, and gently erode each wall you try to erect.

The redeeming power of that creek, and of the Holy Spirit, is relentless, making us all into something better and new.

Mark Osler is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota (and a member of the Friends of Justice board).

His response to this question should be required reading for every pastor in America.

 Churches and Poverty

So, I “popped off” on Twitter the other day, making some statement like, “Churches could take a huge bite out of poverty, but most are too busy with religion to even notice the poor–most, thankfully not all.”

Predictably, a number of my young, smart preacher buddies called me out on my statement, but very kindly. They all asked if we’d put together any materials on what churches could actually do to sit at the table where poverty might be consumed, never to rear its ugly, discouraging head again! I love these young guys! They give me hope for the future, even more for now!

So, what can churches do to enter the battle, the war on poverty? Here are a few beginning ideas/suggestions:

1. Appreciate the power of money. Years ago in a Pogo comic strip, Pogo related to another character, “The reason for poverty is clear: lack of monies.” Laugh if you will, but it’s true. And, what is true for individuals is true for organizations devoted to attacking the poverty that ravages so many of our neighbors. Every church should have line items in their annual operating budget reflecting support of efforts like CitySquare. I don’t apologize for being a shameless beggar for the poor in Dallas. Groups that insist on volunteering (often on their own terms) rather than or before investing capital resources don’t understand the enormity of the problem. Don’t be afraid to give money to help stand poverty down!

2. Make overcoming poverty a central “value proposition” in your church’s theology. Seriously explore the dynamics of poverty, including its affects, its causes, the systemic realities that entrench it in our society. Open the Bible and teach and preach about poverty. Ministers and teachers will find thousands of texts with which to work. Congregations that join the battle do so from a strong theological/biblical position. Work hard to have an educated congregation when it comes to poverty and what it does and doesn’t do in the lives of your neighbors. Don’t be afraid to apply what you learn in the real world of action, service and public policy.

3. Form lasting partnerships with organizations that exist to stand with “the poor.” Going beyond the checkbook or the occasional volunteer opportunity will require that the church go deeper with one or, depending on the size of the congregation, just a few organizations. Research the organizations where you have an interest or questions. Get to know the leaders. Invite them into your church. Ask if you can tour and learn and relate on an on-going basis. Dont’ be afraid to inquire about outcomes and measurements for success/progress. I promise you’ll be received with open arms by any legitimate group. Fast, enduring partnerships between faith communities and anti-poverty non-profits can be game changers in poor neighborhoods or around a constellation of issues and problems.

4. Make sure that volunteer opportunities result in genuine benefit to the group with whom you want to work and, even more, to the neighbors who may be involved as the supposed recipients. I know a national non-profit leader who talks about “the wall to paint” in his shop. It seems that volunteers enjoy painting things. Even though nothing really needs painting, this leader has a long wall where he sends painting crews again and again to paint! He finds this easier than explaining there is no need for painting crews. A better approach is to simply deal with reality. If there are legitimate jobs for volunteers, then bring them on! If not, just say so. Even more important, community organizations have an obligation to protect poor neighbors from well-intentioned, but misguided outsiders.

Gerald Britt tells the story of a church who entered a neighborhood on a mission to work on houses that needed painting and repairs. The church volunteers worked hard all day, but noticed that none of the neighbors seemed very interested or impressed. All day long they worked. No one in the community pitched in to join in the work like usually happened on work days like this one. At the end of the day, one of the outsiders’ leaders asked a neighbor why no on helped them out. The answer came as a big surprise. “Well, you see, this house you’ve worked on all day is a drug house. We’ve been trying to get rid of it for years. Ya’ll came in without a word and started fixing it up. We would have told you, but no one asked. And we figured you knew what you were doing.” Dignity, respect and community development must be seen as more important and a higher priority than making volunteers feel good.

5. Invest the time and energy necessary to create real, lasting friendships between and among everyone involved. Over the years I’ve come to believe that friendship changes everything. Friendship takes time. Its development can’t be forced, rushed or orchestrated. Church folks and their inner city hosts, both organizations and neighbors, need to relax, forget any agenda and just get acquainted, have some fun and devote enough time for long conversations to result. Once folks become friends, the world changes.

Ian Ebright

I’m that old-time telegraph man
And I came here with a simple job to do
‘Cause that news coming down the wire
Says that your world’s on fire
And I’m trying to get a message through to you

Ebright isn’t trying to spin the Obama presidency for good or ill; this is an exercise in truth telling.  He’s like that old-time telegraph man tapping out a message on the broken keys of an old-time telegraph. 

 The Not-So-Strange Case of Obama’s Jekyll and Hyde Presidency

Barack Obama’s presidency suffers from something of a split personality. It is a confounding cocktail of genuine progress and draconian policy. So what does that mean for concerned citizens, thoughtful activists, and people of faith?

Since I’ve got 1,000 words or so per post, I’m going to focus on the more significant achievements and problems. You can disagree with me in the comment section about the things that should have made my list or those I should have omitted, but please don’t miss the point.

The Obama Administration as Dr. Jekyll:

1. Appointed two moderate Supreme Court Justices to offset the neo-conservative trend of the court.
2. Played a significant role in turning around U.S. Auto Industry.
3. Gave a conciliatory speech in Cairo that polls show marked the beginning of a receding tide of Anti-Americanism abroad. For awhile, anyway.
4. Advanced women’s rights in the work place with Equal-Pay legislation.
5. Help for those injured and made sick from the 9/11 rescue and cleanup operation.
6. Created Consumer Finance Protection Board.
7. Repealed DADT.
8. Passed Health Care Reform* including enhancing children’s health care.
9. Passed credit card, student loan and wall street reform.**
10. Ended the war in Iraq.***

The Obama Administration as Mr. Hyde:

1. *Setting aside some inarguable benefits like the ending of preexisting conditions plus new care for millions of people, health care reform is more of a subsidy for the insurance industry. Health care costs continue to skyrocket.
2. **Wall street reform appears to have been softer than is required to protect against another widespread financial collapse due to fraud and corruption, at a time when abuses continue. Corruption has been shielded by the Justice Department’s failure to prosecute at levels lower than previous contemporary administrations including George W. Bush.
3. ***While Iraq war has officially ended, we continue to have a planet-sized embassy left behind, along with 5,500 private security forces protecting our largest diplomatic presence anywhere overseas (10,000 State Department employees). Oh, and departure was not our plan. We were forced to leave under the insistence of Iraqis.
4. War in Afghanistan rages on, after more than a decade and while support plummets to new low.
5. Despite a veto threat, Obama administration signed NDAA including language allowing for expanded powers for the government and military to fight the war on terror on domestic soil, including the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military without charge or trial.
6. War in Libya was illegal and in violation of the War Powers Act, adding helium to the ever-expanding imperial presidency balloon.
7. No reversal on Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthy, a significant contributor to federal deficits.
8. Guantanamo remains open, regardless of Obama’s executive order.
9. Continued marijuana crackdown despite campaign rhetoric to the opposite.
10. Obama will not prosecute war crimes in Afghanistan nor will he investigate the war crimes committed by the previous administration.
11. Gave the order to conduct extrajudicial assassination of American citizens abroad.
12. Ethically and legally murky drone strike warfare in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere, including mounting civilian casualties (women and children).
13. Unparalleled prosecution of whistleblowers. It’s at this point that I have to ask, what happened to those promises of greater transparency?
14. Presided over the rapid expansion of our top secret security and surveillance state, and its continual merger with the private sector including big-name companies like Google.

Now What?

Supporters of the President may explain away his harshest policy or accuse me of being in the tank for the Right, while the more surly anti-Obama voters may use this to bolster their fact-free ad hominem attacks. There are other, more understandable rebuttals. One person remembers that the world is a complicated place in which those who make the toughest decisions can’t be expected to get it right all the time. Our President has more information than we do, another person says as a reminder. He’s working inside a largely corrupted system, someone else points out. Each of these statements are correct while being something of a scapegoat. Some over-correct by demanding perfection and insisting that the Constitution be inflexible and almost holy. Some don’t seem to mind what our government does, no matter how ugly things get. Some just confine it all to water cooler discussion and feel satisfied to have argued against the growing injustices of American tone and policy. Others tune out and become entirely apathetic.

I look at the first few years of President Obama’s administration and I wonder if our unsettled relationship with elected leaders works best as a reminder of man’s depravity, both ours and theirs. We watch as people are seduced by paranoia, hatred, conspiracy theories, as well as idealism, blind allegiance, misplaced trust, and naivety. Through our best leaders, worst, and those in between, the limits of humanity’s ability to fix itself is projected on the big screen. Their actions fail us, and we fail them and each other by responding in ways that miss the point (or the facts). We can work for positive change without believing that we can erect a fair and enduring paradise on our own.

Christians will continue to disagree about political issues (which is my guess as to why I so often lose friends on Facebook), but hopefully we can also remember that regardless of who is in charge and what he or she does with that power, this nation is joined to the rest of this world in a state of disarray and anticipation. Until Christ returns, may we work diligently to bring forth glimpses of God’s kingdom on earth, including mercy, justice, humility, hope, and love, while never forgetting that Christ alone is the completion.

Scott “Grits” Henson cautions that the 890 people who made the list constitute a representative sample.  In Texas, for instance, Dallas County has contributed dozens of names to the list while not a single exoneration from Bexar County (San Antonio) appears.  This says more about the due diligence of prosecutors in the respective counties than the proficiency of the criminal justice system.

Henson also points out that most successful exonerations take over a decade of tedious and often discouraging work  and only those who fight long and hard are ever successful.   

The registry lists only known exonerations because some exoneration stories get little or no attention.  I was pleased to note, for instance, that the names of Ann Colomb and three of her sons appear on the registry.   This was the first big case Friends of Justice tackled after the Tulia drug bust and, without our involvement, I fear the family would still be in prison or, if they were quietly exonerated, no one would have noticed.  As it was, Radley Balko, then of Reason magazine, was the only reporter I could entice into covering this disturbing story.  Alexandra Natapoff highlighted the Colomb story in her book on criminal informants and in some of her shorter pieces on the subject , but she only knew about the case because she heard me talk about it. 

How many other cases like this are out there?  The report doesn’t claim to be exhaustive.  “No matter how tragic they are, even 2,000 exonerations over 23 years is a tiny number in a country with 2.3 million people in prisons and jails. If that were the extent of the problem we would be encouraged by these numbers. But it’s not. These cases merely point to a much larger number of tragedies that we do not know about.”

Henson’s research suggests that approximately 1.5% of criminal cases in Texas involve wrongful convictions.  If so, 2,000 innocent people are currently behind bars in the Lone Star State.   

Henson concludes that the registry of exonerations tells us much more about how defendants are wrongfully convicted than it says about how many have suffered this fate.

By Alan Bean

The gay marriage debate is gradually bringing clarity to a complex subject.  Americans oppose gay marriage for a variety of reasons.  Some believe they are forced to choose between accepting “the gay lifestyle” and the teachings of Scripture.  Others are primarily concerned about preserving strong traditional families.  And then there are those who, lacking any first-hand association with actual gay men and lesbians, allow unsympathetic, and often lurid, stereotypes to fill the void. 

People of faith sometimes fear that the legalization of gay marriage will force pastors and churches to go against deep personal and traditional conviction.  Not so, says Melissa Rogers.  After paying careful attention to the totality of President Obama’s remarks, she makes some crucial distinctions in this brief article originally published by the Huffington Post and the Associated Baptist Press.

By Melissa Rogers

Friday, May 18, 2012

Melissa Rogers In the wake of President Obama’s declaration of his personal support for the right of same-sex couples to marry under civil law, the nation is understandably focused on debating the merits of this position. Three related points from President Obama’s announcement, however, deserve our attention as well. First, President Obama noted that there is an important difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. The state defines civil marriage, which serves as the gateway for a wide variety of government benefits, rights and privileges. Religious marriage, on the other hand, is defined solely by religious communities. These categories may be fuzzy in our minds because current law not only respects the ability of clergy and religious communities to define and bless religious marriage, it also allows clergy to solemnize civil marriage. That’s why one often hears a minister conclude a wedding by saying, “By the authority vested in me by the state of X, I now pronounce you husband and wife.” Setting aside the oddity of a minister claiming the authority of the state rather than a higher power, the fact that the state allows clergy to bring a civil marriage into being does not mean it can require clergy to bless or recognize any relationship the state defines as civil marriage. Some clergy won’t perform interfaith unions, and many refuse to perform a wedding when they believe a couple is unready for the momentous commitment of marriage. Just as the state cannot force clergy to perform these marriages, the state cannot require a clergy person to marry same-sex couples. In his remarks, President Obama affirmed these ideas, emphasizing that what he was “talking about are civil marriages and civil laws,” as opposed to religious marriages, and that “churches and other faith institutions are still gonna be able to make determinations about what their sacraments are — what they recognize” as religious marriage. Second, the president expressed his support for appropriate religious exemptions in legislation recognizing same-sex marriages. In his comments to ABC News’ Robin Roberts, President Obama pointed to the example of New York as a state that has been “respectful of religious liberty” in this regard. New York’s same-sex marriage law says the state may not “penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate” against a minister for the minister’s refusal to perform a marriage for same-sex couples. Religious organizations and their employees may not be required to provide services, facilities or goods “for the solemnization or celebration” of same-sex marriages, and refusals to do so may not form the basis of any civil claim, nor result in any state penalties, withholding of benefits or discrimination. This New York law also says the state’s recognition of same-sex marriage will not affect things like the ability of religious organizations to make religion-based employment decisions and religious colleges and universities to limit married student housing to heterosexual couples, if that is their practice. Given constitutional protections for free exercise and religious autonomy, courts would recognize certain exemptions for religious objectors from same-sex marriage laws even without specific legislative language. Spelling these matters out in legislation, however, helps to clarify what is and what is not at stake and to reassure those who would define religious marriage in ways that differ from the state’s definition of civil marriage. There is serious debate about issues like whether some small businesses should be exempt from obligations to provide goods or services for same-sex marriages where business owners have religious objections to doing so and whether religious organizations receiving government grants should be exempt from non-discrimination conditions on the use of grant funds. At the same time, there is no question that exemptions like those in New York law are widely supported, including by President Obama. Finally, President Obama insisted that conversations about these sensitive and important matters should be conducted in a spirit of civility, and that proponents of same-sex marriage should resist the temptation to demonize those on the other side of the debate. Obama said: [I]t’s important to recognize that folks who feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as between a man and a woman, many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. They’re coming at it because they care about families. … [A] bunch of them are friends of mine … pastors and … people who I deeply respect. Likewise, Gov. Mitt Romney has called this issue “a very tender and sensitive topic.” As President Obama and Gov. Romney recognize, we can state our beliefs on these issues plainly without slandering those who take a different point of view. Americans must decide whether they support or oppose recognition of same-sex marriage in our civil laws, but they also must determine how religious objectors will be treated where same-sex marriages are recognized and the spirit in which these debates will be conducted. President Obama’s remarks on all these scores are worthy of attention and consideration. – Melissa Rogers is director of the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University Divinity School and non-resident senior fellow for governance studies at the Brookings Institution. This commentary appeared previously in Huffington Post and is used here with permission.

Dallas County DA Craig Watkins is morally opposed to the death penalty, yet he continues to ask juries to sentence defendants to death.  Professor Rick Halperin wants to know why.

Technically, the answer is simple.  Prosecutors are public servants, politicians really, and are thus accountable to the wishes of the constituency they represent.  A solid majority of Dallas County residents favors capital punishment, so Craig Watkins bows to their preferences.

Prosecutors who personally oppose the war on drugs, by the same reasoning, continue to indict drug dealers because it’s the law.  Prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys, the theory goes, are obligated to enforce rules created by others.

Lawyers can do things the rest of us cannot.  We cannot prosecute or defend suspected criminals, for instance, nor can we preside at trial–those roles have been delegated to particular legal professionals.  But we must also realize that legal professionals are shackled to the rules of their profession in ways that can be quite limiting.  This may be necessary, but it minimizes their ability to argue that the emperor has no clothes.  According to legal theory, the emperor is fully clothed by definition. 

It is generally assumed that people advocating for criminal justice reform should be trained attorneys, and many aspects of advocacy work do require legal expertise.  But we also need non lawyers like Rick Halperin in the game. 

In her wildly successful The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness, Michelle Alexander underscores the need for grassroots advocacy.

Not surprisingly, as civil rights advocates converted a grassroots movement into a legal campaign, and civil rights leaders became political insiders, many civil rights organizations became top-heavy with lawyers.  This development enhanced their ability to wage legal battles but impeded their ability to acknowledge or respond to the emergence of a new caste system.  Lawyers have a tendency to identify and concentrate on problems they know how to solve—i.e., problems that can be solved through litigation.  The mass incarceration of people of color is not that kind of problem. (p. 214)

The argument that prosecutors opposed to the death penalty must nonetheless ask juries for death sentences is driven by Alice in Wonderland logic.  Thanks to Dr. Halperin for pointing that out.  Thanks also to the wonderful Dallas South Blog for printing this story. 

Wrongful Execution Prompts Plea For D.A. Watkins To Stop Seeking Death Sentence

Dallas South News Wire (Southern Methodist University)

On the heels of Columbia Law School researchers’ May 16 report proving that Carlos DeLuna was wrongfully executed in Texas in 1989, Rick Halperin, one of this country’s leading death penalty abolitionists, will join others at the Dallas County Courthouse on Friday at noon to appeal to Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins to stop seeking death sentences for people charged with capital crimes “because it is clear that innocent people continue to be convicted and sent to death row in Texas,” Halperin says.

Columbia’s full report, “Los Tocayos Carlos: An Anatomy of a Wrongful Conviction,” is the result of five years of investigation, and includes video clips and interviews about the case.

Police booking photo for Carlos DeLuna

“This report highlights only the tip of the iceberg,” Halperin says. “The DeLuna case is a not a singular aberration of a person who has been wrongfully convicted and executed in Texas. In fact, there have been and remain numerous innocent people who have been sent to death row and executed, or people currently on death row waiting to be executed.”

Halperin notes that the community need only consider the Dallas County Jail, where 32 men have been released after being wrongfully convicted. Others such as Ben Spencer remain. Spencer has been in jail 22 years, and “despite the judge who sentenced him now admitting he believes he is innocent, Watkins won’t re-open the case, which defies his own comments that the main job of a DA is to do justice,” Halperin says. “But seeking death and leaving innocent people in jail is not justice. It’s morally unacceptable and violative of people’s rights and dignity.”

Dallas County leads the U.S. in the number of people exonerated after being wrongfully convicted, Halperin says. “These are not death row cases but they’re symptomatic of continued mistakes within the criminal justice system. Craig Watkins keeps saying that he is morally opposed to the death penalty, yet he continues to go into the courtroom to seek death. Either he is or isn’t for the death penalty. This is an opportunity for him to deliver consistency and stop being hypocritical about what he says and how he acts.”

Those who have been executed in Texas despite strong-to-overwhelming evidence of innocence include Cameron Todd Willingham, Claude Jones, Ruben Cantu, Joe Nichols, Carlos Santana, Leonel Herrera, James Betherd, Shaka Sankofa (aka Gary Graham), Greg Wright and Frances Newton.

“In addition there are people currently on death row with strong claims of innocence, including Hank Skinner, Tony Medina, Howard Guidry, Brian Davis, Max Soffar and Rob Will,” Halperin says. “And 12 people have been released from Texas’ death row because they were innocent, among them Anthony Graves, Robert Springsteen, Ernest Ray Willis, Ricardo Aldape Guerra, Muneer Deeb, Clarence Brandley and Randall Dale Adams.”

“The overwhelming factual evidence is that this state has executed at least one innocent person and most likely many more who were innocent,” Halperin says. “The day should come immediately that all DAs in this state stop seeking death as a judicial punishment.”

By Alan Bean

I frequently tell audiences how our family was virtually excommunicated from polite society when we questioned a corrupt drug bust in Tulia, Texas.  I write about this bewildering experience in my book, Taking out the Trash in Tulia, Texas.  In the eyes of respectable, church-going folk, we were just flat wrong.  From this mainstream perspective, our stand looked crazy, illogical, and possibly even demonic.

Moral perception involves a subtle interplay between personal experience and community narrative, the value-laden stories we grow up listening to.  The Horatio Alger, rags-to-riches story is a classic example of a value-laden story; so is the story of Rosa Parks, the Black seamstress who refused to give up her seat on the bus.  Community narratives are the stories that define a culture.  If you are part of the culture, you hear the stories. 

Both personal experience and community narrative vary tremendously from culture to culture.  In Black communities, for instance, children grow up hearing stories about the need to persevere in the face of prejudice and rejection.  Personal experiences are interpreted through a narrative lens fashioned by this community narrative.  “Oh, so that’s what daddy was talking about,” we tell ourselves.

In White culture, community narrative tends to validate authority figures and the social status quo.  “Police officers are there to protect you, Johnny,” White parents tell their children, “so you shouldn’t be afraid of them.  I know that gun looks scary, but he will only use it on the bad guys.”  In general, personal experience bears out this expectation.

You hear very different stories in Black and Latino communities.  Authority figures aren’t demonized in the moral narratives that circulate in minority communities, but they are viewed with a measure of suspicion.  You don’t always call the police when something bad goes down on the street; innocent people might get hurt.  And when a family member is facing trial no one expects equal justice.  Personal experience tends to validate this community narrative.

One consequence of being excommunicated from Tulia’s respectable white community was spending a lot of time with Black and Latino residents.  On the morning of September 11, 2001, I was in Albuquerque witnessing a debate between Asa Hutchison of the Drug Enforcement Administration and New Mexico governor Garry Johnson.  We were primarily there to talk to both sides about what was happening in Tulia.

The planes hit the Twin Towers just as we were packing for our return trip and we listened to updates on public radio all the way back to Tulia.  In the van with me were several members of Tulia’s black community, most of them associated with the Church of Christ.  They were appalled by events in Manhattan, but they weren’t surprised.  In fact, they wondered why it had taken so long.  A simple phrase was repeatedly endlessly, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

I thought of that road trip seven years later when Jeremiah’s incendiary rhetoric played a central role in the electoral campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama.  “No, no, no,” Wright roared, “Not ’God bless America.  “God damn America.”

When I first saw the clip of Reverend Wright in full cry I was reminded of Billy Graham’s remark that if God didn’t punish America He would have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.  Wasn’t Jeremiah Wright saying much the same thing?

Yes and no.  When Billy Graham suggested that the wrath of God would soon fall on America he was speaking out of the moral narrative he grew up hearing in Baptist circles in North Carolina.  Like ancient Israel, America is called to be a chosen people, a city set upon a hill.  But we will only be blessed insofar as we remain faithful to our calling.  Our tolerance for lewd music, R-rated movies, gambling and general debauchery is a rejection of our Godly birthright and will inevitably lead to divine judgment.

Jeremiah Wright was thinking of a different community narrative when he delivered his infamous sermon in the wake of 9-11.  America flatters itself as a beacon of democracy, but we prop up tin pot dictators in to enhance the profits of multinational corporations even if it spells untold suffering for millions of people.  Did we think God would turn a blind eye to such cruel hypocrisy forever?

Graham and Wright applied the same Deuteronomic logic to very different facts.  One was lionized for speaking hard truths; the other was demonized as an anti-American racist.  Until you step into a Black barber shop and ask the brothers for their take. 

From the dominant White perspective (liberal and conservative) Jeremiah Wright was talking crazy.  How could anyone be so insensitive in the wake of the worst national disaster in recent memory? 

This explains why a super PAC funded by TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts plans to use the president’s historic ties to Jeremiah Wright to bring about ‘The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama’.   The assumption is that Wright’s “God Damn America” rhetoric is so extreme that White Democrats will dissociate from the president while Black America will be silenced. 

If this ad airs (and since a prototype has been leaked to the media, there is a chance it may not) Black America will not take it lying down.  Instead, attempts will be made to humanize Reverend Wright by placing his remarks in social and historical context.  

I hope the ad envisioned in the prototype never materializes; but if it does, the moral divide separating Black and White America will be more apparent than it has been since the halcyon days of the Civil Rights Movement.

In 1989, Carlos DeLuna was executed for the killing of a gas station attendant in Corpus Christi, TX.  His conviction rested solely on eyewitness testimony.  Over twenty years after his execution, the Columbia Human Rights Law Review has published a report stating that DeLuna was not the murderer.  

In reality, the murderer was most likely another Carlos, Carlos Hernandez.  Hernandez was also at the scene of the crime, but fled in the other direction while police detained DeLuna.  Despite DeLuna’s pleas of innocence and the prosecution’s lack of reliable evidence, DeLuna was found guilty of murder. And an innocent man was executed.

Sadly, this is just another chilling tale of our flawed justice system.  MWN

Wrong man was executed in Texas, probe says

By Chantal Valery

He was the spitting image of the killer, had the same first name and was near the scene of the crime at the fateful hour: Carlos DeLunapaid the ultimate price and was executed in place of someone else in Texas in 1989, a report out Tuesday found.

Even “all the relatives of both Carloses mistook them,” and DeLuna was sentenced to death and executed based only on eyewitness accounts despite a range of signs he was not a guilty man, said law professor James Liebman.

Liebman and five of his students at Columbia School of Law spent almost five years poring over details of a case that he says is “emblematic” of legal system failure.

DeLuna, 27, was put to death after “a very incomplete investigation. No question that the investigation is a failure,” Liebman said.

The report’s authors found “numerous missteps, missed clues and missed opportunities that let authorities prosecute Carlos DeLuna for the crime of murder, despite evidence not only that he did not commit the crime but that another individual, Carlos Hernandez, did,” the 780-page investigation found.

The report, entitled “Los Tocayos Carlos: Anatomy of a Wrongful Execution,” traces the facts surrounding the February 1983 murder of Wanda Lopez, a single mother who was stabbed in the gas station where she worked in a quiet corner of the Texas coastal city of Corpus Christi.

“Everything went wrong in this case,” Liebman said.

That night Lopez called police for help twice to protect her from an individual with a switchblade.

“They could have saved her, they said ‘we made this arrest immediately’ to overcome the embarrassment,” Liebman said.

Forty minutes after the crime Carlos DeLuna was arrested not far from the gas station.

He was identified by only one eyewitness who saw a Hispanic male running from the gas station. But DeLuna had just shaved and was wearing a white dress shirt — unlike the killer, who an eyewitness said had a mustache and was wearing a grey flannel shirt.

Even though witnesses accounts were contradictory — the killer was seen fleeing towards the north, while DeLuna was caught in the east — DeLuna was arrested.

“I didn’t do it, but I know who did,” DeLuna said at the time, saying that he saw Carlos Hernandez entering the service station.

DeLuna said he ran from police because he was on parole and had been drinking.

Hernandez, known for using a blade in his attacks, was later jailed for murdering a woman with the same knife. But in the trial, the lead prosecutor told the jury that Hernandez was nothing but a “phantom” of DeLuna’s imagination.

DeLuna’s budget attorney even said that it was probable that Carlos Hernandez never existed.

However in 1986 a local newspaper published a photograph of Hernandez in an article on the DeLuna case, Liebman said.

Following hasty trial DeLuna was executed by lethal injection in 1989.

Up to the day he died in prison of cirrhosis of the liver, Hernandez repeatedly admitted to murdering Wanda Lopez, Liebman said.

“Unfortunately, the flaws in the system that wrongfully convicted and executed DeLuna — faulty eyewitness testimony, shoddy legal representation and prosecutorial misconduct — continue to send innocent men to their death today,” read a statement that accompanies the report.