To Pay or Not to Pay--That is the Question

Exonerated Texans are eligible for $80,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment.  Personally, I believe that is a bit high but understandable.  The state comptroller is slashing payments to some exonerated Texans who have prior convictions because of the way the law is interpreted.  In particular, Ronald Taylor spent 14 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit.  After he was exonerated on DNA evidence, he expected a hefty payment from the state.  Instead of the $1.12 Million he was expecting, he was offered $20,000.  Since Taylor was on parole for another crime when he was wrongfully sentenced for the rape, his parole was revoked and his sentence imposed The comptroller's office views that as concurrent time served and subtracted the concurrent service money from their offer to him after exoneration.  Since Taylor was exonerated on the wrongful rape charges, his parole should never have been revoked and his sentence for his prior crime should have never started.  The law is open to interpretation though, which is causing all the problems. The final outcome will be how the Texas Supreme Court interprets parole.  Is parole merely a continuation of a criminal sentence that is served outside of prison or does the sentence end when parole begins and the inmate leaves prison.  Since the first sentence should never have been imposed, I don't believe it is fair to take away the money owed to Taylor because of the time he spent in prison on the first crime.  Taking the money away just seems cruel.  To me, it seems like the comptroller is just trying to save a little money.  I think they know they are in the wrong.

Critique on Student Editorial

I wrote my commentary on this student's editorial about political attack ads.   I completely agree with the point made.  You have to wonder what kind of clear thinking voter would hear an attack ad, believe it, and then vote based on the statements of the ad.  Wasting money on half-truth attack ads and ads that really don't say much make me wonder why anybody would donate to the candidate's campaign.  The candidates should simply state their case and why we should vote for them and let the media dig up the dirt.  Instead of retaliating, maybe the candidate should address the negative statements of the attack ad.  I wonder how many times these lame attack ads have worked against the candidate who paid for them.  If all a candidate airs is attack ads on his opponent and doesn't say anything about why we should vote for them, then I would be more inclined to vote for the candidate who stated why he deserves our vote and what he will do if elected (even though it may be a lot of empty promises).  It really should take more than political media ads for voters to make up their minds on who to cast their vote on, but I'm sure that some voters vote based solely on what they see on television.