4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, May 30, 2000 Edited and managed by GEOFF GAGNON PETER CUNNIFFE students at the . Editor in Chief JOSH WICKERHAM University of Michigan Editorial Page Editors UtieUnless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials relect the opinion of the 420 Maynard Street majority of the Daily's editorial board. All ot er articles, letters and Ann Arbor, MI 48109 cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Dail'. Following the suspension of executions in Illinois by the state's pro-death penalty governor because of the large number of innocent persons sentenced to death, nation- al attention was focused on many of the problems with how the death penalty is used in this country. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 87 people sentenced to die have been later proven innocent and released. The fact that the criminal justice system has sentenced innocent people to die at least 87 times is shocking and demands a close examination of how death penalty cases are handled in this country. Despite prompting the nation's first real evaluation of the death penalty in the last 24 years, the problems in Illinois, where 13 peo- ple have been released from death row since 1976 and only 12 have been executed, are only the tip of the iceberg. The prime exam- ple of a poorly administered system for han- dling capital cases is the state of Texas, where 135 people have been executed in the last five years alone. The situation in Texas deserves special attention because of its rapid pace of executions and the breathtak- ing incompetence with which its death Wrongful death Death penalty needs evaluation penalty cases are handled. The inadequate provision of counsel for those in capital cases is probably the biggest problem in Texas' criminal justice system. There are several reports of public defenders in capital cases sleeping through trials. The state provides no funding to lawyers for indi- gents, leaving it to localities that are loath to spend limited resources on lawyers for those who can't afford them. Only three of Texas' 254 counties have full-time public defend- ers. The state has also limited the number of appeals available for death row inmates and reduced the amount of time between convic- tion and execution. Another glaring problem in Texas' system is the almost total lack of review of death penalty cases. Texas' governor, George W Bush, has granted only one of the more than 100 clemency petitions he has received and then only when he had been provided incon- trovertible evidence of the man's innocence by Texas' attorney general. Considering the number of executions in Texas, Bush cannot be seriously examining each clemency request unless that is all he does. In addition, Texas' Board of Pardons and Paroles, which is supposed to review clemency petitions, was recently found by a federal judge to not have investigated or held a hearing on a clemency appeal in the last 25 years. Even when new evidence has surfaced that has cast significant doubt on the guilt of many death row inmates, Bush and the Board of Pardons and Paroles have allowed executions to go forward. Bush often tries to weasel out of not com- muting death sentences of people with incredibly good chances of being innocent by claiming that he does not have the power to stop an execution without the Board of Pardons and Paroles' authorization. Considering he appointed the entire board and that in the one case where a death sen- tence was commuted, Bush told the board what to do and they did it, the idea that hW has no influence over it is absurd. Bush's frightening and reckless fervor for Texas' careless execution of legions of per- sons of dubious guilt was further illustrated by his veto of a bill last year, passed unani- mously by the Texas legislature. That bill would have provided more legal representa- tion to indigent defendants in capital cases, though still among the least representation in the nation. If one needs an example of why thi country should take a serious look at ho executions are carried out, just look at Texas. The probability that innocent people have already been executed is extremely high and yet the rapid-fire executions continue unabated. The horrifying possibility of exe- cuting an innocent person should give any decent human being pause. We should not be allowing executions to go on in this country when wrongful convictions have proven t* be so common. Boardroom bigotry Exxon ends non-discrimination policies Record woes Napster's fall won't be end of MP3 swapping F ollowing the merger of Exxon and Mobil, two of the nations largest oil companies, the new Exxon dominated man- agement chose to rescind Mobil's provision of domestic partner benefits and even ended their sexual orientation non-discrimination policy last December. At a time when a majority of the nation's largest companies have taken steps to prevent discrimination against employees because of sexual orien- tation, ExxonMobil's callous disregard for the well-being of its gay and lesbian employ- ees is deplorable. This action has been met with anger by many, including the New York City Employee Retirement System (NYC- ERS), a large ExxonMobil shareholder, which is pushing a resolution at the May 31 stockholder meeting that calls on the company to reinstate a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation. It is difficult to see how ExxonMobil's action could be good for business. The com- pany now holds the ignominious distinction of being the first major American company to roll back a non-discrimination policy. This will only damage the company's public image and prevent the company from com- peting as effectively for employees. ExxonMobil claims it is now denying benefits to same-sex partners because it does not want to, "on its own, determine the legitimacy of relationships." Considering Mobil had recognized same-sex relation- ships as legitimate, it would not be any great or difficult feat for Exxon to do so. It would only be following what is becoming the norm throughout corporate America. Denying benefits to its gay and lesbian employees and refusing to protect them from discrimination will only hurt ExxonMobil. As large numbers of business- es in every industry have implemented non- discrimination policies and begun to provide domestic partner benefits, it has become clear that such policies have no adverse effect on a company's bottom line and can even help in attracting and retaining talented employees. The cancellation of Mobil's poli- cies shows nothing more than blatant dis- crimination by ExxonMobil. Those holding stock in ExxonMobil should follow the lead of NYCERS and sup- port the reinstatement of Mobil's non-dis- crimination policies and domestic partner benefits. Shareholders should vote in favor of the NYCERS proposal. Those whose mutual funds or pension funds hold ExxonMobil stock should urge the man- agers of those funds to back this proposal. Those who are affiliated with institutional investors in ExxonMobil, such as universi- ties, public retirement systems, churches and unions should urge those institutions to sup- port the NYCERS proposal as well. Shareholder pressure has been responsi- ble for much of the progress that has been made in convincing companies to protect and support their gay and lesbian employees. National legislation to prevent employment discrimination has been stymied in Congress and only one state currently gives legal recognition to same-sex unions. Because law does not yet mandate them, making sure corporations extend these pro- tections and benefits themselves is incredibly important. Most large companies are coming to understand that they benefit from these policies and responsible shareholders should help ExxonMobil understand that as well. O h, Napster, we hardly knew ye. A little over a year ago, you appeared as but a blip on the record companies' radar. Now you're their main objective in a multilateral attack orchestrated by the Recording Industry Association of America attempting to rein in the rouges that prefer free MP3s to overpriced CD's. And though the computers that use your free service are acting indepen- dently, so no pirated songs are stored on your servers, the heavy hand of the law could soon swiftly spell your demise. Whatever the outcome of this lawsuit, which promises to test the boundaries of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, it's a pity the recording companies don't realize they are shooting themselves in the foot. The recording industry came under attack recently for price fixing. Five major record companies, controlling 85% of the market, settled with the FTC this month. According to FTC, the result of this price fixing cost consumers $480 million. Now consumers can fight back. Enter Napster. Napster, the music swapping software of choice for college students, acts as a search engine, allowing users to locate and down- load nearly any song in existence from other users' computers. With no central server, the system may have seemed invulnerable to lawsuits and other restrictions. Before this idea shot through the Internet, the availabili- ty of MP3s was limited to FTP servers and the occasional website. The recording indus- try was able to shut down some of the largest FTP sites, but Napster makes regulating MP3 distribution trickier. Metallica recently handed Napster a list of some 300,000 users to be banned for downloading their songs. Last week Dr. Dre gave a list of another 230,000 suspect users. Yet only established groups are threatened by Napster. New artists, often locked in contracts that give them few financial rewards for individual record sales benefit from the exposure afforded them by music swapping. Though artists like Metallica and Dr. Dre risk alienation and hostility from angry fans on Napster, they fail to realize these measures are temporary, and ignore the fundamental shift in the music market. Even commercial websites like ZDNet offer banned users the info to get back on Napst* The proliferation of Napster, along with clones like Gnutella and iMesh, is now unstoppable. Short of altering or legislating the very protocols of the Internet itself, little can be done to stop users from downloading MP3s. And with viable digital watermarking and encryption making only slight inroads to the system of music distribution, MP3s remain the most likely digital download. When record companies understand this fundamental shift, deals could be made wit Napster or its counterparts to offer users subscription-based payment plan or varia- tion. For example, users could pay a month- ly rate and download copyrighted songs in the same manner as illegal MP3s. By piggy- backing on established players in this new distribution market, record companies could also offer watermarked songs. But the recording companies will proba- bly make a martyr of Napster. By uniting tl online community, they are only furtherisIr their own demise. In a year dominated by boy bands and pop princesses, that may not be all bad. Users should keep downloading MP3s and let the record companies bleed.