4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, December 6, 2005 OPINION c Me kbdigandail JASON Z. PESICK Editor in Chief SUHAEL MOMIN SAM SINGER Editorial Page Editors ALISON GO Managing Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their author. NOTABLE QUOTABLE Why don't you just execute us and get rid of all of this!" - Barazan Ibrahim, in a courtroom outburst during the trial of his half-brother, deposed Iraqi Presi- dent Saddam Hussein, as reported yesterday by The Associated Press. COLIN DALY T-:L Mi, -1(,N DAL-, xN ' 5/ \ }Ta :NJ M f V Murdered by the state? CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK BORN IN THE1 U.S.A young tough shoots a drunk off- duty cop in a pool hall in a rough part of San Antonio in 1984. The wounded cop's buddies search the kid's house that night without a warrant, botching any chance for a conviction. But they're able to get the 17-year-old for an unrelated, unsolved mur- der in the neighborhood that happened four months before. A friend of the injured offi- cer brings the unsolved murder's sole eye- witness - an illegal immigrant who was shot nine times - into the station. Though the witness has twice before denied recog- nizing the kid's photo, this time he finally identifies the youth as the shooter. The kid is convicted, says he was framed and pleads his innocence up to his execution in 1993. It'd make for the plot of a decent movie - and, unfortunately, that movie would be strictly based on actual events. The Houston Chronicle reported last month that the state of Texas likely killed an innocent man when it executed Ruben Cantu, the fellow in the plot sketch above. Cantu was far from a model citizen. He was involved in gangs and drugs, although he had no prior criminal convictions. His alibi for the murder was that he'd gone to Waco to steal pickups. He admit- ted to shooting the off-duty officer, Joe De La Luz, although Cantu maintained it was in self- defense after an argument over a pool game. But it also appears that Cantu was inno- cent of the crime for which he was given a lethal injection. There was never any physi- cal evidence tying him to the murder; he was convicted based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. That man, Juan Moreno, now says that he buckled under pressure from police and falsely identified Cantu two days after the De La Luz shooting. The head juror, the judge and both the defense attorney and the prosecutor now have doubts about Cantu's guilt. With a national debate about the death pen- alty surrounding the execution last Friday of the thousandth person since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976, I was surprised the revelations about Cantu's trial didn't receive greater attention. This real- ly looks like a case where the government put a man to death for a crime he didn't commit. That, in my mind, ought to be a big deal. Part of the reason why the Chronicle's article didn't make much of an impression nationally, I suspect, is that we've come to expect flaws in the justice system - even in capital cases. Since 1976, over 120 people across the country have been released from death row, despite having been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Tales of ill-pre- pared, inexperienced public defenders falling asleep in court, of convictions based on the testimony of lying jailhouse snitches and of sloppy forensics labs that seem to contami- nate evidence as soon as it's received are so common they've become numbing. But a bigger reason why Ruben Cantu is not a household name, I worry, is that many people just don't find what happened to him that outra- geous. Aside from the base retributive glee of putting vicious criminals to death, many death penalty supporters argue that executions are a necessary deterrent to crime. Yes, this does means that some innocent people will be put to death. No human institution - our judicial system included - is perfect. But won't we save more innocent lives that would otherwise be lost to crime? I've seen evidence both ways on the question of whether the death penalty deters crime, and my limited experience with research on such broad social concerns has mainly convinced me that these questions are frighteningly dif- ficult to answer with any certainty. But the death penalty debate in this country; it too often seems, is conducted solely in these empirical, utilitarian terms. How many lives are saved per murderer executed? With the cost of appeals, does it cost more to sentence someone to death or to life without parole? How much would sweeping judicial reforms cost, and how much would they decrease the chance of executing (more) innocents? In every other case where government policy directly affects life and death, the debate pro- ceeds largely in moral terms about the range and limits of our freedoms. I might not always like the direction these moral debates take. I don't believe Jack Kevorkian, who aimed to help people end their lives as they chose, would be in prison in a more enlightened society. Still, we can't come to ethical conclu- sions on these issues if we rely strictly on some mechanistic utilitarian calculus to make our decisions for us; we're stuck with slow, messy moral thought. Here's my contribution to the debate we need to have: It is wrong, period, for the gov- ernment to execute an innocent person. Zbrozek can be reached at zbro@umich.edu. " 01 VIEWPOINT Diversion of Michigan's water endangers resources BY AMANDA BURNS One only needs to flip through the myriad pundit shows on cable news networks to realize that our political sphere has become increas- ingly dominated by morality-driven, hot-but- ton political issues. These issues are singled out because they ignite passion and create great sound bytes, but more importantly because they are relatively simplistic. The average person has been exposed - through religion, family or education - to facts that allow him to form a strong opinion on social issues. The emphasis on social issues, however, has left the general public woefully underinformed on the many important policy fights taking place every day. As an intern this semester for state Sen. Liz Brater (D-Ann Arbor), I was thrown into the complicated world of state politics, learning that the most important legislative changes are often the most tedious. The cur- rent fight over water regulation and reform will dictate other states' access to Michigan's fresh water supply, but it has received relatively little mainstream press. The general lack of interest in environmen- tal issues has resulted a policy area principal- ly dominated by interest groups and lobbyists. It is understandable that very few people can fully explain the 1,400 page Natural Resourc- es and Environmental Protection Act that currently dictates environmental regulation in Michigan, but several key water policy changes being debated in the Senate right now will have direct and lasting effects on many residents. Michiganders seem to have a never-ending supply of fresh water to use for swimming, watering their gardens, drink- ing and taking extravagantly long showers, but this kind of caviler approach to water use is becoming the exception to the rule in the United States. It is often said that water will be the resource equivalent of oil in the 21st century. If this is true, the Great Lakes basin will become the resource monopoly equiva- lent of the Middle East. This may seem an exaggeration, but thirsty Western states are already looking to Michigan as their water tables fail to support their populations and they are forced to restrict personal usage. If the last year of natural resource short- ages - petroleum and natural gas -has proved anything, it is that foresight and plan- ning are invaluable. Michigan must begin to prepare for increased need for fresh water in the future by regulating how it is being used today. Working with the many Michigan environmental groups, Brater and 14 Sen- ate Democrats introduced a bill to increase transparency and regulation of water diver- sion from Michigan. Water diversion takes several forms, but one of the most contro- versial is water bottling. The company Ice Mountain - part of the Nestle Corporation - had been bottling from Michigan aquifers at a rate of 400 gallons per minute, lower- ing the water table and causing problems with local wells. A lawsuit against Ice Moun- tain resulted in a temporary injunction, but an appeals court ruling last week allowed pumping to resume at a rate of 200 gallons per minute. With no legislation preventing water diversion, the courts lack an effective tool to deal with the problem. The Democrats' bill would amend the Nat- ural Resource and Environmental Protection Act to allow for the evaluation of environmen- tal factors when approving water diversions. A diversion proposal would be subject to nine environmental factors that are designed to encourage responsible and sustainable water use. In response, Senate Republicans intro- duced a set of alternative bills that take a much narrower view of water regulation. The legis- lation would prohibit large-scale withdrawals that "caused an adverse resource impact to a designated trout stream" and would require a permit for withdrawals of more than 2 million gallons a day from inland lakes and streams. Missing is any regulation of withdraws from aquifers - like those made by Ice Mountain. Instead, the legislation requires the Ground- water Conservation Advisory Council to create a water withdraw assessment tool and make recommendations for the future. The Republican package was taken up in commit- tee, but environmental groups across the state - including Ann Arbor's own Sierra Club - have come out against this watered-down set of bills, claiming it is a regression in water policy as opposed to an improvement. Michigan is in an excellent position to be an example for responsible resource manage- ment; current trends treat water as a commod- ity. The Republican water bills do not go far in regulating diversion. The complicated nature of these bills has hindered public involve- ment, but public comments will be crucial as the Legislature prepares to vote on the final versions of these bills. Michigan residents are barraged with information about the grandeur and uniqueness of the Great Lakes. Unfortu- nately, when water conservation becomes an issue, the state's residents become surpris- ingly quiet. It may seem that fresh water is an inexhaustible resource in Michigan; however, environmental indicators - such as dry wells - are warming signs of depletion that must be heeded and answered with a serious plan for a sustainable future. Burns is an LSA junior and intern for state Sen. Liz Brater (D-Ann Arbor). 01 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Editorial Board Members: Amy Anspach, Andrew Bielak, Reggie Brown, Gabrielle D'Angelo, John Davis, Whitney Dibo, Milly Dick, Sara Eber, Jesse Forester, Mara Gay, Jared Goldberg, Ashwin Jagannathan, Theresa Kennelly, Mark Kuehn, Will Kerridge, Frank Man- lev. Kirstv McNamara. Raiiv Prabhakar, Matt Rose, David Russell, Katherine Seid, Brian Dilapidated student housing puts tenants' lives at risk TO THE DAILY: This fall it took me over a week to let my located off-campus to house the majority of students. The University should take a part in making sure landlords are regulated and housing is kept up to current code. Currently, the Michigan Student Assembly should not be forced to jump from second and third floors of their burning homes, to live in emergency housing during final exams or to fear that they might not be woken by their smoke alarm in the case of a fire. I