Here is a new twist to the moral issues surrounding capital punishment: Should a condemned prisoner be allowed to donate organs after sitting down to his last meal? This is the question being asked by Ohio Governor John Kasich after postponing an execution yesterday (November 13, 2013).

According to The Columbus Dispatch, Governor Kasich said he stopped the execution "so that medical experts can assess whether Phillips' non-vital organs or tissues can be donated to his mother or possibly others...I realize this is a bit of uncharted territory for Ohio, but if another life can be saved by his willingness to donate his organs and tissues, then we should allow for that to happen," www.dispatch.com.

PHILLIPS' HISTORY
In 1993, Ronald Phillips, 40, was convicted of raping and murdering his girlfriend's 3-year-old daughter. He served his term without expressing concern for the life and well-being of others. In fact, he waited until all of his appeals had been exhausted before offering to donate his kidney to his mother who is on dialysis and his heart to his sister who has a heart ailment. Now he is apparently willing to donate organs to others as well.

"Ohio's prison medical policy accommodates organ donations, but prison officials rejected the request, saying it came too late to work out logistics and security concerns," www.abclocal.go.com.

Although a Delaware death row inmate donated a kidney to his mother in 1995, "he was not facing imminent execution like Phillips," www.independent.co.uk

STAY OF EXECUTION
Phillips was eating his last meal when he got word of the reprieve. The Ohio Governor stayed the execution to further explore the possibility of Phillips donating non-vital organs...not his heart. Richard Dieter, of the Death Penalty Information Center, said that this is the first time that a stay of execution was granted based on the request to donate organs, www.bbc.co.uk.

NEXT STEPS
If Phillips  is a viable donor and the procedure is approved, he would be returned to Death Row afterward to await his new execution date of July 2, 2014. Ohio prison policy dictates that any such surgeries be paid for by Phillips or the recipients.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I am a big proponent of organ donation, but this adds layers of complicated ethical and technical dilemmas. This might be a last-minute ploy to buy time for a man facing death. We could ignore Phillips' motives and allow for the organs to benefit others. Then again, maybe this request came too late.



Resources:

• Associated Press, "Ohio Execution Stay for Ronald Phillips for Possible Organ Donations," www.abclocal.go.com, November 14, 2013.
• BBC, "Ohio Execution Stayed Over Organ Donation Request," www.bbc.co.uk, November 14, 2013.
  
• Johnson, Alan, "Kasich Postpones Execution of Inmate Who Wants to Donate Organs," www.dispatch.com, November 14, 2013.
• Saul, Heather, "Ronald Phillips Ohio Execution Delayed by Judge after Organ Donation Request," www.independent.co.uk, November 14, 2013.

Yesterday President Barack Obama signed the Violence Against Women Act (VAMA) into law. Not only does it reinstate the earlier VAMA provisions which helped women who suffered domestic violence and sexual assault, it also extends protections to lesbians, gays, immigrants, and Native Americans.

"All women deserve the right to live free from fear," President Obama said, (USAToday.com)

Last year the Congress failed to come to an agreement to reauthorize the act. This year, the Senate passed the bill on a 78-22 vote which included every Democrat, every woman, and 23 of 45 Republicans. An attempt to remove the protections for new groups was eventually rejected and the bill passed the House on a 286-238 vote, (FOXnews.com).

"The Violence Against Women Act has set the standard for how to protect women, and some men, from domestic abuse and prosecute abusers and is credited with helping reduce domestic violence incidents by two-thirds since its inception in 1994," (Bostom.com).

Selected VAMA Provisions

• Enables domestic violence crimes against women to be prosecuted in federal courts
• Prevents service providers from refusing services to gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual victims of domestic violence
  
• Offers grants for transitional housing and legal assistance
• Offers grants for law enforcement training and hotlines
• Reauthorizes the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
• Allows Tribal Courts to prosecute non-native attackers of Native American women on tribal lands
• Adds stalking to the list of crimes for which protection is available to undocumented immigrants
  
• Supports programs to reduce sexual assaults on college campuses
• Authorizes programs to reduce the backlog of rape investigations

Native American women experience domestic violence at roughly twice the rate of the general U.S. population. Although Native American Tribes are legally sovereign nations, U.S. federal law and Supreme Court rulings have not enabled Tribal Courts to exert jurisdiction and prosecute non-native American perpetrators of crimes on their lands.

This is a huge barrier to justice for Native American women, nearly half of whom are married to non-American Indians. In fact, nearly "77 percent of people living in American Indian and Alaska Native areas are non-Indian, according to a recent Census report," (AP.org). The latest version of the Violence Against Women Act will change that in regard to domestic violence.

‘‘One of the great legacies of this law is it didn’t just change the rules, it changed our culture. It empowered people to start speaking out,’’ Obama said, (Boston.com)


Resources:

Associated Press, "Congress Passes Bill Renewing Violence Against Women Act," FoxNews.com, 2-28-2013.
Cohen, Tom, "House Passes Violence Against Women Act After GOP Version Defeated," CNN.com, 2-28-2013.
Fonseca, Felicia, "Law Gives Tribes New Authority Over Non-Indians," AP.org, 3-7-2013.
Jackson, David, "Obama Signs Renewal of Violence Against Women Act," USAToday.com, 3-7-2013.
Lederman, Josh, "Obama Signs Expanded Violence Against Women Act," Bostom.com, 3-7-2013.
Parker, Ashley, "House Renews Violence Against Women Measure," NYTimes.com, 2-28-2013.

In 1984, Jennifer Thompson was raped at knife point. Her description of the attacker was used to develop a composite. Police received a tip that Ronald Cotton, Jr. was the man in the drawing. Two days after the attack, Thompson viewed a photo lineup of six men.

She wanted to be positive. Although she quickly eliminated four of the men, she took 4 to 5 minutes trying to decide between two others. Then she picked up Cotton's photo.

THOMPSON: This is the man who did this.
POLICE: Are you sure?
THOMPSON: I'm positive.
POLICE: We thought that was the guy.

Later, after a live lineup in which Thompson chose Cotton again, she asked if she did okay. An officer said, "You did great, that was the guy you picked out in the photo lineup."

With this positive feedback, Thompson felt 100% positive of her identification by the time the case went to trial. Her strong, believable ID is what sent Cotton to prison for rape. It took 11 years before DNA exonerated him and led law enforcement to Bobby Poole, the actual rapist.

Since then, Thompson and Cotton have co-authored a book, PICKING COTTON. You can view the video Getting it Right: Eyewitness ID with both of them and the police chief who worked the case at the Innocence Project website.

Although Thompson had been told that her attacker might not be among the photographs, she felt compelled to do her part to take a rapist off the streets. She couldn't do it quickly despite research findings that the strongest memories are the easiest/quickest to retrieve (Economist.com). Thompson, a Caucasian, struggled to identify her Black attacker. Studies have shown that people have more difficulty distinguishing faces of people of other races (Salon.com). She studied two of the photos until she chose one as her attacker.

No one asked Thompson how certain she was of that first ID before proceeding. Instead, she was relieved to be told that she'd picked the "right" man. Police officers, family members, and even other witnesses can unconsciously shape a witness's memory and influence his/her level of certainty (Salon.com).

Research suggests that lineups should be double-blind and administered sequentially (See blog: Your Lying Eyes: How to Improve Police Lineups), neither of which were done in this case. Let's look into the roll that positive affirmations play on eyewitness testimony.

A study reported in Psychological Science, found that confirming feedback led witnesses to not only feel better about their identification/misidentification (the murderer's photo was not in the lineup), but it also distorted their memory of how confident they had been initially and how good of a look at the perpetrator they believed they'd gotten.

Of "the eyewitnesses given positive feedback - 50% rated their confidence at either a 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale." In addition 47% of those getting positive feedback thought the grainy security camera footage was clear (6 or 7 on the 7-point scale). In contrast, of those who got negative feedback, only 15% rated their confidence high, and none of them thought the poor footage was clear (PSYBLOG).

Witnesses should make a statement about their level of confidence in their own words. "The legal system should...collect the primary dependent measures (confidence information and other statements) from the eyewitnesses prior to debriefing them regarding the status of the identified person" (Psychology.iastate.edu).

Itiel Dror, cognitive neuroscientist with the University College of London, stated that psychological research has shown "time and time again no correlation between confidence and accuracy" (Salon.com) Yet, confidence sells an identification to juries.

Changes to police procedures have been slow in the US and in the UK (PSYBLOG). Law enforcement agencies are getting more pressure to adopt policies on eyewitness identifications which are supported by research (Officer.com). The following procedures, excerpted from Wisconsin's Model Policy and Procedure for Eyewitness Identification, were developed in an attempt to minimize eyewitness errors and secure court-admissible identifications.

1. Utilize non-suspect fillers chosen to minimize any suggestiveness that might point toward the suspect;
2. Utilize a 'double blind' procedure, in which the administrator is not in a position to unintentionally influence the witness's selection;
3. Give eyewitnesses an instruction that the real perpetrator may or may not be present and that the administrator does not know which person is the suspect;
4. Present the suspect and the fillers sequentially (one at a time) rather than simultaneioulsy (all at once). This discourages relative judgment and encourages absolute judgments of each person presented, because eyewitnesses are unable to see the subjects all at once and are unable to know when they have seen the last subject;
5. Assess eyewitness confidence immediately after identification;
6. Avoid multiple identification procedures in which the same witness views the same suspect more than once.

In addition to those practices, the Innocence Project also recommends that lineup procedures be videotaped. This protects innocent suspects and also documents legitimate police procedures. "Officers should also be prepared to articulate in court how the procedures they used ensure the greatest reliability of the eyewitness evidence gathered" (Officer.com).In the future, most lineups may be conducted on computers to further remove human influence.

Our judicial system may place too much weight on eyewitness testimony...especially when it runs counter to more tangible evidence. Even an honest eyewitness ID, like that of Jennifer Thompson, can be completely wrong. We must eliminate practices that we know can lead to miscarriages of justice.

Other Links:

• Dean, Jeremy, "Wrongful Conviction: 50% of Mistaken Eyewitnesses Certain after Positive Feedback," PSYBLOG, February 6, 2008.
• Economist, "Unusual Suspects: How to Make Witnesses More Reliable," The Economist, March 3, 2012.
• Russell, Sue, "Why Police Lineups Can't be Trusted," Salon.com, September 29, 2012.
• Van Brocklin, Val, "Defending Your Lineup in Court," Officer.com, July 18, 2011.
• Wells, Gary L, and Amy L. Bradfield, "Distortions in Eyewitnesses' Recollections: Can the Post-identification Feedback Effect be Moderated?" Psychological Science, 1999.

My husband and I have ordered seed from the Stock Seed Farms in Murdock, Nebraska, many times over the years. We even drove there once to pick up seed and admire fields of prairie grasses such as Big Bluestem and Little Bluestem. Like most Nebraskans, we were shocked to hear that owners Wayne and Sharmon Stock had been murdered in their home in 2006.  There were more surprises during the investigation of those murders that shook law enforcement and citizens in Nebraska.

Nebraska Educational Telecommunications (NET) has produced a one-hour documentary on the case investigation and the evidence initially used to hold two innocent men in jail. It shows the involvement of ex-CSI chief David Kofoed, who has since been sentenced to prison. Kofoed maintains his innocence.

I have to agree with Judge Rehmeier's statement in the Lincoln Journal Star: "Nothing should undermine the confidence in the system." The evidence tampering for which Kofoed was found guilty threatened the lives of innocent men and jeopardized the hunt for the real killers. It also made it harder for other law enforcement investigators to prove their credibility.

The good news is that the innocent men are now free, the guilty are in prison, and Kofoed is no longer working CSI. If you are interested in crime, justice, or murder mysteries, watch NET's CSI on Trial online or on your television.

• CSI on Trial (schedule and links), Nebraska Educational Telecommunications, 2012
• Extended video excerpts and documents from the investigation (Available mid-November 2012)
• "Ex-CSI chief Kofoed sentenced to prison," Lincoln Journal Star, June 01, 2010
• "Was Nebrask Couple's Murder Revenge or Random?" ABC 20/20, September 3, 2010
  

Like other states, Nebraska is experiencing "exceptional" drought. The September 11, 2012 U.S. Drought Monitor map shows the extent of the emergency.

I don't know how to get more rain to fall on parched ground, but I have found another kind of RAINN Day to promote as a way of combating sexual violence.

"Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted," according to RAINN, The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Of those victims, 80% will be under the age of 30, 44% will be under the age of 18 (http://www.rainn.org/statistics). College students are encouraged to host events to raise awareness of sexual violence on RAINN Day, Thursday, September 27, 2012.

Consider conducting an event of your own. Some of last year's RAINN Day events are highlighted in Cosmopolitan.

For instance, at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 40 umbrellas were painted with sexual assault information and placed on the ground in the grove. The Undergraduate Student Government at Boston College wore matching t-shirts printed with "Sexual Assault Awareness Day" and the local hotline number. Elsewhere in the nation, campuses held raffles, symposia, screenings of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and activities such as chalking statistics on campus sidewalks.

Do your own RAINN dance on your campus or in your community. Check out the RAINN website or call these numbers for more information on preventing or responding to sexual violence.

• Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network Website: http://www.rainn.org/
• National Sexual Assault Hotline: 800-656-HOPE (4673)
• National Domestic Violence Hotline: 800-799-SAFE (7233) or 800-787-3224 (TDD)