Ethics Newsline®

Want an unlikely strategy for theatrical success? Write a play about horrific death-penalty cases and wrongful convictions. Have the actors sit on stools reading their scripts without action, costumes, or sets. Title it The Exonerated, a heavy-duty word with no comedic overtones. And then take it to a southern beachside community in March, where sun-seeking vacationers might be looking at most for an evening of farce — if they’re looking for live theater at all.

But there it was: a packed house at the Philharmonic in Naples, Florida. Yes, the size of the crowd had something to do with the two stars, Lynn Redgrave and Robert Vaughn, who gave sharp and convincing performances. And yes, it had to do with the word-of-mouth buzz about the play — a study of individuals found guilty of crimes they didn’t commit — which said it was authentic and riveting.

But I suspect there’s more to it. Even in the most well-heeled and conservative parts of America, I sense a growing willingness to recalibrate our preconceptions. Sobered by 9/11, uneasy about deaths in Iraq, concerned about alleged terrorists detained despite due process, the nation may be ready for deeper thinking about the moral consequences of our way of doing things.

That kind of thinking is what the authors of the play, Eric Jensen and Jessica Blank, are hoping to inspire. In the best theatrical traditions of the piéce á thése — the “thesis play” or “problem play” with an explicit social message — their play grew out of a conference on the death penalty at Columbia University. One workshop at the conference featured the “Death Row Ten,” a group of prisoners whose convictions rested on confessions tortured from them by a particular police officer in Chicago. Though the officer was later fired, those he helped convict remained trapped in the system. Shortly after the conference, Jensen and Blank hit the road to do live interviews with some of those inmates who had been exonerated. Their play, they say, is made up entirely of the words they heard spoken in these interviews, woven into eight interlaced stories about innocence, conviction, bitterness, philosophical insight, and (in these particular cases) final and sometimes almost miraculous release.

Are cases of wrongful conviction rare, one-off occurrences in this country? A new study from the University of Michigan suggests not. Conducted by law professor Samuel R. Gross, it examines 328 criminal cases since 1989 in which the convicted person was exonerated. Most involved rape or murder, the high-profile crimes that attract attention both during the trial and when the convict is serving a life sentence or awaiting execution. The Michigan report suggests that there may be as many as 28,500 people who, in the last 15 years, could have been exonerated in non-death-row cases — except that nobody was paying attention.

That’s an alarming number on several fronts. It’s shocking to contemplate innocent people suffering in this way under the U.S. judicial system. It’s discomforting to realize that the failures that put them there were systemic. And it’s depressing to recognize that the system has no self-correcting mechanism. Most of those who were eventually exonerated were freed by activists outside the criminal justice system working on their behalf.

But perhaps the most disturbing point — as both The Exonerated and the authors of the new study suggest — is that convicting the innocent solves nothing. Speaking to the New York Times this week, Barry Scheck, founder of the Innocence Project, put it well. “Every time an innocent person is convicted,” he said, “it means there are more guilty people out there who are still committing crimes.”

Forgive a moment of optimism. But might it be that the reception this play is getting and the interest this topic is arousing is part of a new U.S. realism? This is, after all, a nation built on exceptionalism, convinced that its destiny is different, higher, grander than that of other nations. In part, the fight against terrorism consists of creating the conditions for democratic judicial and political institutions around the world. Those institutions will be modeled in large part on the ones we have at home. But what if ours don’t work so well? What if there are systemic flaws? What if too many innocents get convicted and too many guilty roam the streets? What if our system is not so exceptional after all and isn’t quite ready for export to Iraq and Afghanistan?

That the nation is willing to contemplate such things — and even to interrupt vacations to do so — says a lot. Needed next is a willingness to go even deeper. Are we putting undue pressure on our law enforcers to find the perpetrators immediately? Do we care more that the crime gets “solved” than that the guilty get caught? Do we want rightness or simply closure, accuracy or just convenience? Do we want problems to go away so that we don’t have to think about them? Or do we want to think through problems until we overcome them?

The people in the theater that night seemed willing to think. Judging by the conversation in the foyer, they went away moved. Tellingly, the program earlier in the week featured comedy by three “Saturday Night Live” stars. It was good. But it wasn’t as well attended.

©2004 Institute for Global Ethics

“The taxpayers are putting out this money and we have an obligation under federal regulations to try [to] recover it.”

– Michael Willden, Nevada State human resources director, discussing his state’s decision to put liens on the estates of people who died before repaying Medicaid health costs. The practice, which critics say decimates the estates of surviving spouses, was upheld last week by Nevada’s Supreme Court. Since 1998, the state has put liens on 60 homes of widows and widowers. (“Seniors Losing Homes to Medicaid Liens,” AP, Apr. 15)

WASHINGTON
A former U.S. Air Force procurement official who was fired from her subsequent position at Boeing for alleged inappropriate involvement in a military tanker lease and purchasing deal has agreed to plead guilty to one felony count of conspiracy, according to court documents filed in Virginia last week.

According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Darleen Druyun left her Pentagon post in November 2002 as the No. 2 procurement official at the Air Force. Two months later, she accepted a position as deputy general manager of Boeing’s Missile Defense Systems unit.

Druyun and former Boeing CFO Michael Sears were fired in November 2003, according to the paper, “after a Boeing investigation concluded Sears inappropriately discussed the job with Druyun while she was still working for the Air Force and involved in tanker negotiations.”

The tanker deal, valued at $23.5 billion, called for the Air Force to purchase and lease up to 100 Boeing 767s for use as air refuelers. While still at the Air Force, Druyun had informed Boeing that rival Airbus “had submitted a bid of $5 million to $17 million less per plane than the Boeing offer,” according to the Associated Press.

The Reuters news agency reports that while the deal ultimately was awarded to Boeing, it has since been put on hold pending a review by the Pentagon, an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a continuing federal criminal investigation.

Reuters also notes that an audit undertaken by the U.S. inspector general concluded that “the deal would cost taxpayers between $2.5 billion to $4.4 billion more because the Air Force decided to procure the tankers as a commercial item, rather than following standard defense procurement rules.”

While declining to discuss the plea agreement, Boeing spokeswoman Deborah Bosick told the AP that “the company has been cooperating with authorities since we uncovered inappropriate conduct involving our hiring practices.”

Druyun, who faces up to five years in prison, is due in federal court on April 20 to enter her plea.

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida
NASA managers so far have failed to fully embrace changes in the way the agency does business, leaving many workers afraid to raise concerns and worried they will be stigmatized if they do, a new report warns.

The report by a California-based consulting firm was commissioned by NASA to gauge improvements in its corporate culture, which was fingered as a chief factor in the safety mistakes leading to the destruction of the Columbia shuttle and its crew in February 2003.

“Safety is something to which NASA personnel are strongly committed in concept, but NASA has not yet created a culture that is fully supportive of safety,” the 145-page report says, according to a report from the Associated Press. “Open communication is not yet the norm, and people do not feel fully comfortable raising safety concerns to management.”

Last week, NASA administrator Sean O’Keefe and deputy associate administrator James Jennings said they were prepared to walk the talk themselves and expel any employee who failed to follow suit.

“The leadership’s got to take it on, starting with me,” O’Keefe said, according to the AP.

The new report examined survey results from NASA’s 18,000 employees, less than half of whom completed the anonymous survey, indicating a persistently high level of fear, according to Jennings.

Astronaut James Wetherbee said that while many are afraid of being fired, others are afraid of being shunted into dead-end projects that kill careers. “If I’m somebody who’s always slowing down the process, always speaking up, then I don’t get listened to anymore,” he said

The new report was released last week by NASA and authored by California-based Behavioral Science Technology Inc., which has proposed a three-year plan for improving the ethical culture at NASA.

SACRAMENTO
Calpers, the largest U.S. pension fund, last week put pressure on some of the nation’s premier companies, announcing that it would withhold votes for directors who it felt had failed to run firms responsibly and transparently.

Directors at roughly a dozen U.S. firms including American Express, BellSouth, Johnson & Johnson, Kellogg, Sprint, and Wachovia — were targeted by Calpers (California Public Employees Retirement System).

Singled out were Citigroup Inc. director Sanford Weill and CEO Charles Prince, who Calpers accused of having a “significant role” in governance problems, as well as Coca-Cola Co. director Warren Buffett.

Buffett and others are being targeted for allowing the companies on whose boards they sit to contract with firms that provide both consulting and auditing services, allegedly creating a conflict of interest, reported the Reuters news agency.

Calpers also took aim at the entire boards of two firms: Apple Computer for failing to adopt reforms that would treat stock options as expenses, and PG&E Corp. for nixing shareholder proposals on expensing stock options and poison pills, noted Reuters.

The pension fund, which has $167 billion in assets, is seen as a power player that often can get other funds to follow its lead in demanding reform, noted the New York Times.

Shortly following Calpers’ announcement last week, the New York State Common Retirement Fund did just that, announcing that it also would withhold its support for Citigroup’s Weill and Prince.

“Calpers is a bellwether institution among pension funds, and everyone tends to follow their lead because of their size and visibility,” Georgia State University business professor Conrad Ciccotello told the Times. “Any rational decision maker, including Sandy Weill, has to take into account the reputational issues at stake.”

Citigroup spokeswoman Leah Johnson last week called the Calpers decision “unwarranted,” saying the company “adheres to the highest standards of corporate governance.”

Special to Newsline from Canadian correspondent Errol P. Mendes

OTTAWA
Both Canada and the United States are claiming victory at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the heated dispute over softwood lumber imports from Canada.

A WTO panel last week upheld the anti-dumping duties imposed on Canadian softwood lumber imports. An earlier panel had ruled that low stumpage fees paid by Canadian forestry companies for harvesting softwood lumber on Crown lands caused softwood lumber products to sell at an unreasonably low price in the United States.

However, the WTO panel held that the U.S. government’s calculations of the amount of the duties were in error and had to be recalculated following WTO guidelines.

This was the result of the U.S. trade officials not including in their calculations sales of softwood lumber in the States at above-market prices.

Existing and threatened trade sanctions by the United States on Canadian softwood lumber have resulted in thousands of layoffs in the forestry industry in Canada and the closure of several lumber operations.

WASHINGTON
With the backing of the beef industry, the U.S. government last week squared off with a small Kansas cattle rancher, refusing to grant Creekstone Farms the right to test all of its cattle for mad cow disease.

Creekstone, a boutique beef firm that exports much of its meat to Japan, says it must test every slaughtered cow for the disease in order to meet new import demands by Japan, where the practice is standard.

The U.S. Agriculture Department, which controls the chemicals needed for such testing, has withheld the materials, saying it will not allow Creekstone to meet Japan’s demands, which it deems extreme.

The stand-off may bankrupt Creekstone and cost the jobs of the company’s nearly 800 workers, reported the Washington Post.

The government says it sympathizes, but insists that letting Creekstone test all of its animals would create a standard that is neither scientifically necessary nor economical for other firms, noted the Post.

Those other firms — primarily large-scale, industrial operations that increasingly dominate the market — agree, with the beef industry’s two largest trade groups siding with the government in fighting Creekstone.

If Creekstone is allowed to test every animal for mad cow, they contend, then the public will demand that other firms do the same, cutting deeply into their revenues when limited testing does a sufficient job and costs less.

Creekstone says limited testing may be adequate, but notes that it should have the right to test all of its animals if it wants to do so. The company says it may fight the government in court, noted the New York Times.

“They always talk about the need to follow good science, and I have no problem with that,” Creekstone chief operating officer Bill Fielding told the Washington Post. “But how would the science be hurt if we did more tests and helped them gather more information about mad cow disease?”

The U.S. government last week refused to relent, saying the matter would be addressed next week in trade talks with Japan, which banned U.S. beef exports after mad cow was found in Washington State last December.

SAN FRANCISCO
Google Inc. last week said it would not yank an anti-Semitic Web site from its spot as the No. 1 search result for the term “Jew,” saying that while it found the site repugnant, the company had to maintain editorial integrity.

The controversial site — Jewwatch.com — says its mission is to keep a “close watch on Jewish communities and organizations worldwide,” warning of supposed conspiracies, including “Jewish Mind Control Mechanisms,” reported CNET News.com.

Facing an online petition, Google last week said it must stand its ground: Its search results are the product of a complex mathematic formula, not censorship, no matter how well intentioned.

As long as the site is legal, its place will be determined mathematically, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who is Jewish, told the Reuters news agency.

“I certainly am very offended by the site, but the objectivity of our rankings is one of our very important principles,” Brin explained.

In the past, Google has blocked sites deemed illegal — sites focused on pedophilia, for example — from its search results.

The Anti-Defamation League, which keeps an eye on hate groups and anti-Semitic activity, said it supports Google’s stance, according to Reuters.

“The ranking of Jewwatch and other hate sites is in no way due to a conscious choice by Google, but solely is a result of this automated system of ranking,” the group said in an online letter.

LONDON
Saying the balance has tipped too far in favor of young accusers, a leading British teachers union last week called for legislation that would let teachers sue students who falsely accuse them of physical or sexual abuse.

The NASUWT (National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers) made its demand with a 381-to-151 vote, overriding union officials’ arguments that there are better ways to handle the problem.

“The current attitude of children’s services is that children never lie. The teacher is considered to be guilty and the onus is on them to prove themselves innocent,” complained NASUWT official Jack Jackson.

Fearing increasingly quick legal action by students and parents, many schools now skip preliminary investigations and jump straight into formal proceedings, putting accused teachers in the spotlight, he said.

This “knee-jerk reaction” can ruin the lives, marriages, and careers of teachers falsely accused, while students often go unpunished for their lies, the union complained, according to the Guardian.

Of 1,782 abuse allegations against NASUWT members over the past 10 years, only 69 have led to convictions. In 1,378 cases, no action was taken at all, according to union figures cited by the paper.

“For those members who are the victims of false allegations, there can be no closure,” union official Dave Jones noted. “It can ruin their lives and the accuser concerned can go on as if nothing had happened. A pupil can just make a casual complaint then sit back and watch the teacher suffer.”

“Teachers need some redress,” he added. “Pupils and parents need to be made aware of the results of making these allegations.”

NASUWT treasurer Sue Rogers told the delegates that she understands “the desire people have to want to hit back,” but said industrial action — barring false accusers from the classroom — not lawsuits, was the solution.

“The reality is it is not possible to bring legal action against minors,” who often have no assets, she said. Neither would it be fair to pass legal penalties on to their families, she contended, noting that some “families have been totally horrified when they have realized their child is making a malicious allegation.”

U.K. Secretary of State for Education Charles Clarke agreed, telling the union that he was willing to consider stronger safeguards for teachers, but was unsure about requested legislation to preserve anonymity until legal proceedings were concluded, reported the Independent.

LONDON
Worried about racism in the classroom, a leading U.K. teachers union last week agreed to consider rewriting its rules to ban the inclusion of individuals who have joined racist and fascist groups.

The decision by the NASUWT (National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers) came at the group’s annual conference, where members debated how best to deal with increasing classroom bigotry.

The union’s debate focused on the growing rise of the far right in schools, including stories about threats to teachers who criticized racism; recruitment efforts outside schoolyard gates by racist groups, including the political British National Party; and racist graffiti and threats by students.

While some teachers wanted an outright ban on people with close ties to racist and fascist groups, others worried that such a move might make the NASUWT into a type of thought police, reported the BBC.

“Belonging to an organization is a democratic right; their racist behavior is not,” noted John Hemingway from Birmingham, warning that classroom behavior, not beliefs, should be regulated.

“People have a democratic right to join a political party. Well, we have an equal democratic right not to have them as members of our union,” responded Chris Lines, who proposed the resolution banning racists.

In the end, the NASUWT voted to explore how it could block members of racist and fascist groups from joining the union. The group also will advocate for a law change allowing unions to deny membership based on such criteria.

“I’m not going to pretend it’s an easy thing to do,” the union’s deputy general secretary, Chris Keates, admitted to the BBC, noting that other unions were wrestling with similar challenges.

From Harris Interactive:

“A new survey of professionals working in youth-related fields shows that although youth marketers don’t necessarily see marketing to children during school time as important, 74 percent of them expect to see the level of advertising in schools rise in the future. Results of this poll indicate that:

• “64 percent feel that reaching children during school time is not very or not at all important;
• “20 percent feel that reaching children during school time is somewhat important; and
• “16 percent of respondents feel that reaching children during school time is extremely or very important.

“These are some of the findings of the Harris Interactive/Kid Power Poll of Youth Marketers conducted online by Harris Interactive® in February 2004 among 878 individuals working in youth-related fields…. The poll covered a number of topics regarding commercialism and youth, marketing in schools, youth obesity, and sexual and violent content in media.

“‘The media world has fragmented, and many marketers see schools as a way to effectively reach children and support education at the same time,’ said Candi Schwartz, managing director of the Kid Power Exchange. ‘The poll shows that some in-school marketing tactics are seen by youth marketers as much more appropriate than others.’

“Individuals working in youth-related fields feel that the following are appropriate ways to reach children in school environments:

• “84 percent feel that sponsoring school sports competitions is appropriate.
• “83 percent say loyalty programs that reward schools for gathering product labels are appropriate.
• “77 percent feel that purchasing sports equipment for the school with brand names on them is appropriate.
• “73 percent say advertising in school newspapers is appropriate….

“Examples of inappropriate school marketing tactics, according to youth industry professionals, included:

• “Advertising on school buses, (69 percent say this is inappropriate);
• “Advertising on school book covers (65 percent);
• “Providing instructional material that integrates brand names and products into the lessons (61 percent);
• “In-school location media, which show upcoming events at the school as well as advertisements (54 percent feel this is inappropriate).

“Establishing vending contracts in schools, which has become a hotly debated topic nationally, is viewed as appropriate by 46 percent of marketers and other youth industry professionals surveyed, and inappropriate by 54 percent.

“‘Of all the subjects this poll covered, marketing in schools was the one that seemed to elicit the most disagreement among our respondents,’ said John Geraci, vice president of Youth Research at Harris Interactive. ‘Some feel that schools should be a safe haven from advertising, while others see in-school marketing as providing needed funds to save school programs. Respondents were split as to whether the benefits schools receive from in-school marketing programs outweigh the negatives.’

“Additional findings from the study include:

• “More than half of those surveyed (58 percent) feel that decisions regarding advertising in schools should be left up to local school officials and school boards.
• “47 percent feel that schools should be a protected area and that there should not be advertising to students on school grounds.
• “45 percent feel that today’s young people can handle advertising in schools….”

“When money speaks, the truth keeps silent.”

– Russian proverb