Maureen Dowd writes about new LA Police Chief-designee William Bratton today in From Vertical to Horizontal. Bratton's swearing-in ceremony is Monday in Los Angeles. We'll be there, and we'll share our impressions with you as soon as we get back to a computer.

Dowd writes:

"As police commissioner of New York City in the mid-90's, Mr. Bratton made the cover of Time for helping Mayor Rudy Giuliani tame the untamable New York, from squeegee guys to wilding thugs. But Rudy, loath to share top billing, forced his brassy chief out."

"Mr. Giuliani thought Mr. Bratton was living too large, hanging out at Elaine's, getting a lot of money for a memoir, flying on private planes, engaging in serial marriages. But given Rudy's subsequent transformation from puritanical to operatic, with Judy Nathan, memoir riches and his own triumphant Time cover, Mr. Bratton may have just been ahead of his time in the Giuliani administration. "There's a certain irony there," Mr. Bratton says dryly."

"Mr. Bratton, who describes himself as "a progressive....says he just wants to focus on moving from "vertical" crime-fighting to "horizontal," and find "new prescriptions" to counter fresh threats: "I would like the opportunity to get the patient through radiation and chemo and into rehab and then into intensive care."

Well said, Bill.

From today's Los Angeles Times comes welcome news, that the military is easing up on its War on Drugs.

"Citing the need to redirect resources to the war on terrorism, the Pentagon has quietly decided to scale back its effort to combat international drug trafficking, a central element of the national "war on drugs" for 14 years."

The program now costs $1 billion a year. Plans are not final on how to make the cuts but under discussion are a reduction in the use of special ops forces on counter-narcotics missions and a scaling back on using the military to train anti-drug police and soldiers here and overseas. Also on the drawing board is making the intelligence-gathering equipment used in drug investigations available for use in the fight against terrorism.

The Pentagon is concerned that there will be congressional opposition to scaling down the military's involvement in the drug war. Apparently, its very popular on the Hill. We couldn't figure out why until we read further down in the article:

"Congress ordered a reluctant Pentagon to enter the drug war in 1988, when surging cocaine traffic from South America sparked a sense of crisis in the U.S. and set off calls for stronger measures to fight drugs."

Administration officials, including Rumsfeld have been saying for some time that the military is better used elswhere and that civilian agencies could better work on drug issues. Pentagon counter-drug chief Andre Hollis said the program has expanded to 179 separate subprograms, a number he calls "surreal."

As for how much money is spent and where, here's what the Times says:

"The Pentagon spent about $1 billion on drug-related operations in fiscal 2002, out of a total federal counter-narcotics outlay of $19 billion. The Pentagon has a bigger anti-drug budget than the Coast Guard, Customs Service or the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and accounts for a significant share of federal money spent to fight drugs abroad."

"In its drug interdiction role, the military acts as the lead U.S. agency for gathering intelligence on drug trafficking, and uses an array of aircraft, ships, radar and other eavesdropping tools."

While the military cannot engage directly in drug raids, its troops provide technical assistance with communications and intelligence.

"Highly skilled special operations troops and other military personnel also train foreign police and soldiers, as well as U.S. law enforcement personnel. They teach everything from basic infantry skills to languages, first aid, boat handling, swimming and horsemanship."

Most of the Pentagon's activities are in the Andes, Central America and the Caribbean, but they are active in Mexico and Southeast Asia as well, particularly in Thailand.

We think it is a good idea for the Pentagon to scale back and ultimately get out of the drug war. It's a good time to write your elected officials in Congress and let them know you approve of the reductions. Maybe if Congress knows their constituents are in favor of the Pentagon redirecting its considerable assets to the War on Terror, they will be more likely to go along without a big fuss.

Political Parrhesia led us to this well-reasoned op-ed by Steve Chapman in Sunday's Chicago Tribune about the new report on polygraphs concluding that they are unreliable and shouldn't be used by employers. Chapman states that because polygraphs lie, they shouldn't be used in criminal investigations.

"The same fallibility that renders these machines unusable for employee monitoring makes them dangerous for criminal investigations as well. Police and prosecutors regard polygraph results as the closest thing to a dead-bang certainty. But that faith lacks any foundation. "Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy," concluded the panel."

"And there is no reason to think better technology will help. People simply don't respond in a clear and predictable way to questions about what they may have done wrong. The "inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy," said the report. Polygraphs are a crude instrument that can't be refined."

"The consequences of a misleading polygraph exam are bad enough in the employment arena, where someone can lose a job or not be hired. But they're much worse for criminal suspects, who can be locked away or even put to death because their pulse rate rose too much in a stressful situation."

Via Hamster: In California, the San Jose Chief of Police removed his officers from a DEA Task Force because he doesn't want them raiding pot clubs.

"Lansdowne said his four officers and one sergeant have better things to do - - such as tackle the methamphetamine epidemic -- than harass local pot clubs, which are operating within state law. "

"I think the priorities are out of sync at the federal level," said Lansdowne, who said he agrees the state's voters made the right decision in legalizing marijuana for medical use under regulated circumstances. "The problem in California right now is methamphetamines, not medical marijuana."

"After interviewing polygraph experts at the CIA, FBI and other agencies, the panel of the National Academy of Sciences determined that it is possible to fool a lie detector, especially if the subject is being screened for general criminal or spy activity and not for some specific act."

"The academy committee, appointed at the request of the Department of Energy, decided that polygraphs cannot be relied on for mass screening of federal employees because they can falsely suggest an honest employee is lying and can be fooled by someone who is trained to do so."

"The report noted that sometimes a person appears to be lying on a polygraph when in fact he or she is anxious -- especially if that person is from a "socially stigmatized" group."

For more on the inaccuracies of polygraghs, visit Antipolygraph.org where you will learn that polygraph "testing" is:

Theoretically unsound and is not a valid diagnostic technique.

Entirely dependent on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving the examinee.

Biased against the truthful, resulting in many honest and law-abiding people being falsely accused each year.

Easily beaten.

The California Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on whether Governor Gray Davis' refusal to grant to any killers violates the law.

"Soon after he took office, Gov. Gray Davis told a newspaper reporter that any inmate serving time for murder in California was not going to get out during his watch. "

He's kept his word. "What the governor is doing is fundamentally unlawful -- but politically astute," said Franklin Zimring, a criminal law professor at Berkeley's Boalt School of Law. Prisoners -- especially those convicted of murder -- don't have a large voter constituency, he said. "

"The governor's policy, his critics say, has turned every murderer's sentence into life without possibility of, regardless of any mitigating factors. "

The Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle have been particularly critical of Davis' no policy in recent weeks. Read, for example, Wasted Money, Wasted Lives

Last year the Board, hardly a conservative group, granted to 140 inmates. Davis vetoed all but two.

"When a judge issues a sentence that includes the words "with possibility of," it reflects our society's belief that a small number of criminals can be rehabilitated, as well as our constitutional right to a fair and impartial hearing."

"One of the important reasons for a system is to give inmates a strong incentive to follow the rules and to turn their lives around."

"The governor should uphold the board's ruling. If not, perhaps Davis could explain why Californians should continue to pay for the work of an agency and commission he repeatedly ignores. "

One day after being named the new Chief of the LAPD, Bill Bratton warned officers to get with his program and outlined his template for change.

The template "will be the federal consent decree that the city signed last year after the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that the LAPD had for years been engaging in a "pattern or practice" of civil rights violations."

"If you don't embrace [the decree], if you aren't prepared to embrace it, put your retirement papers in, because you won't be part of my command staff driving change in this department."

Bratton said "the consent decree should dictate the technology used by the department, showing the public that it is getting a professional force, not officers who practice brutality or racism."

"In blunt comments about the current state of police work in Los Angeles, he eviscerated whole sections of the LAPD, dubbing the crime-tracking computer system "a joke" and criticizing the department's "shotgun approach" to training."

"He said that he had never failed at a job and that he wouldn't fail now. "This department needs to clearly understand there's a new sheriff in town," he said."

Here is the full text of Los Angeles police Chief-designate William Bratton's statement on his selection to lead the LAPD out of its current scandal-ridden and morale-troubled state.

The LA Times today reports on his speech, his acceptance in the community there and the buoyant spirits all around.

Update: This article by Alan Feuer in the New York Times capture's Mr. Bratton's spirit and personality pretty well.

Former New York Police Commissioner William Bratton was selected today by Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn to serve as Chief of the LAPD.

We are very pleased and we commend Mayor Hahn for recognizing that if anyone can turn the scandal-ridden, morale-deprived Los Angeles Police Department around, it is Bill Bratton.

To understand why we feel this way, please read our prior endorsements of Bill- here, here, here, here and here.

Back to Thursday's New York Times:

"The outspoken Mr. Bratton, who ran New York's police department for 27 months from 1994 to 1996 until he was forced out by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, promised in interviews with Mayor James K. Hahn and other city leaders that he would cut Los Angeles's rising crime rate and improve morale in the city's dispirited and distrusted police ranks."

"Mr. Bratton's brash promise, as well as his documented crime-fighting record in New York and Boston, tipped the scales in a competitive three-way contest for the chief's job, city officials said. He beat out his former deputy chief in New York, John F. Timoney, who went on to become police chief of Philadelphia, and Art Lopez, a 27-year veteran of the Los Angeles department who is now police chief in Oxnard, Calif."

...."Rick Caruso, chairman of the civilian police commission that recommended the three finalists to Mayor Hahn, said Mr. Bratton was the best candidate of the dozens the commission interviewed. "I've got to give Jim Hahn credit," Mr. Caruso said. "He made a tough choice, and he made the right choice in the best interests of the city."

"Mr. Bratton is widely respected among criminal justice experts for his successes in rapidly reducing New York's rampant street crime after becoming commissioner in early 1994. He is an advocate of "community policing," an approach that puts more officers on the street and tries to integrate the police into the daily lives of residents rather than merely responding to calls for help."

"In New York, he began a system of tracking crimes block by block on a computer, then flooding the high-crime zones with officers until the crime rate dropped. He achieved sharp reductions in street crime using the method, which he has said he will try to institute in Los Angeles."

"Mayor Giuliani forced Mr. Bratton's resignation in March 1996 after raising questions about his book contract and about luxury travel financed by friends and associates. At the time, Mr. Bratton was a nationally known crime fighter whose popularity in opinion polls exceeded that of any New York official, including Mr. Giuliani. In his book, Mr. Bratton described his tortured relationship with Mr. Giuliani and made it clear he did not intend for his police work to end in New York."

The Times notes that Bratton has his work cut out for him:

"The city's rising crime rate has resisted previous efforts, and the department's morale has been damaged by a decade of scandals, beginning with the beating of Rodney King and the response to the riots that followed. Police morale is low and the department is having some difficulty recruiting and retaining officers. The city's ethnic and racial diversity has also presented a huge challenge."

"Joe Domanick, author of "To Protect and Serve: The L.A.P.D.'s Century of War in the City of Dreams," applauded the mayor's choice, saying it was time for an accomplished outsider to come in and clean house. "This is really extraordinary and something that's been a half-century in coming."

Thursday's LA Times article on Bratton's selection is filled with praise from officers and city officials alike (Free registration required).

Congratulations to Bill. We know he will be a great presence and leader out in LA.

P.S. Bill Bratton is married to our good pal Rikki Klieman, the vivacious, smart, savvy and articulate Court TV anchor who in her prior life was one of the leading criminal defense attorneys in Boston, and one of the best female trial lawyers in the country.

Does ecstasy use render users more susceptible to Parkinsons and brain (neuronal) damage? Or are studies that have drawn such conclusions methodologically flawed and/or biased because they are government funded?

Both sides of the argument are laid out in detail in today's Washington Post. The point of the article seems to be that there is no consensus.

Those who think the drug is dangerous argue "Studies in animals have suggested it may be toxic to brain cells that help regulate mood. It's been linked to memory impairment in some users. And rarely the drug triggers a mysterious reaction in which the body becomes radically overheated, causing sudden death."

Add to that a new study appearing in the Sept. 27 edition of Science that says "in monkeys, at least, even one night's indulgence in the drug may increase the odds of getting Parkinson's disease. "

On the other side, critics charge:

No matter what the reinvestigation into the Central Park Jogger case reveals, videotaping police interrogations is a must.

"This controversy points to the need for a fundamental reform of police practices: The NYPD must start videotaping interrogations of suspects in serious crimes. This simple reform will help eliminate coercive interrogation practices and will help police and prosecutors respond to false allegations of coercion."

"There is every reason to believe that unreliable confessions are a substantial problem in law enforcement. In the most thorough investigation so far, the Chicago Tribune last December reported hundreds of cases in Chicago that involved coerced or otherwise improper confessions since 1991. Earlier this year The Washington Post chronicled abusive interrogations practices in Prince Georges County, Md., that produced false confessions. And state supreme courts in Minnesota and Alaska have ordered that interrogations in those states be recorded to assure that defendants are not being coerced into false confessions. Far too often, cops pressure suspects by lying about evidence or about the statements of supposed accomplices; by making false promises of leniency; by denying suspects access to lawyers and parents; and by taking advantage of their age, fatigue or fear."

"....Thirty-five years ago the Supreme Court observed, "We have learned the lesson of history, ancient and modern, that a system of criminal law enforcement which comes to depend upon the 'confession' will, in the long run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses than a system which depends on extrinsic evidence independently secured through skillful investigation."

"As a society, we have an interest in bringing criminals to justice; but we have no legitimate interest in concealing abusive interrogations that lead to false confessions. "

Thanks to Instapundit for alerting us to Sixth Circuit Judge Gilbert Merritt (no relation to TalkLeft) and his speech yesterday at the Tennessee Federal-State Judicial Conference in which he said the death penalty system is broken and needs an overhaul. You can read the full text of his speech here.

A few highlights:

"Of the 12 cases completely reviewed on habeas in the 6th Circuit in the last 15 years, the writ has issued in eight, reversing the death sentence. Of the five cases I have had occasion to review from Tennessee, there was just one where we upheld the sentence. I have serious doubts in two of them about whether the defendant even committed the underlying murder or was simply the victim of a mistake. In one of these cases subsequent DNA evidence showed that he did not commit the rape that was supposed to be the basis for his murder of the victim. In two of the remaining three cases there were other serious constitutional problems with the jury instructions."

The Judge lists five reasons why so many death penalty verdicts are set aside:

We don't pay lawyers enough to represent the defendants at the trial level

Too few lawyers know how to defend a death case. Death penalty defense is a specialty and ineffective assistance of counsel is widespead.

"Third, prosecutors and police tend to be extremely zealous in these cases and they fail to turn over exculpatory evidence."

"Fourth, as a result, in a large number of cases newly discovered evidence turns up during the course of the habeas post conviction process after the trial and initial appeals are over. This is because counsel failed to properly investigate the case or because law enforcement did not turn over the exculpatory evidence they had or because of new science like DNA testing."

"Fifth, there is a great tendency after the trial is over to find harmless error. This tendency is based on the normal human tendency toward inertia; but, even more, it is based on the political imperative that judges outside the federal system must be elected."

"The Supreme Court has advised us in Reid v. Covert to remember that ''death is different'' — that ''[t]he taking of life is irrevocable,'' so that ''[i]t is in capital cases especially that the balance of conflicting interests must be weighed most heavily in favor of the procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights,'' and in Andres that ''[i]n death cases, doubts … should be resolved in favor of the accused'' and in California v. Ramos that ''the court … has recognized that the qualitative difference of death from all other punishments requires a correspondingly greater degree of scrutiny of the capital sentencing determinations.''

"After these admonitions, the basic attitude of many federal judges in these so-called harmless error cases is to say to the state, if you want to execute the defendant, try the case right in the first place with competent counsel on the other side and without covering up exculpatory evidence and without giving the jury constitutionally impermissible instructions."

Judge Merritt went on to urge members of the Tennessee Bar to create a capital defense agency.

"Now is the time for the bar to intervene because there is now pending in Congress an act that seems likely to pass called the ''Innocence Protection Act.'' That act will make money available to the states to create a better defense system in capital cases. It may be that the best system would be to create and fund a state capital trial agency. Whether or not that act passes, our state needs a much better system of defending capital cases."

It is so refreshing to hear a federal judge speak out like this. We hope more of them start doing so. We need the Innocence Protection Act and we need a moratorium on the death penalty.

We hope that Democrats vying for the 2004 presidential nomination take note and make these issues part of their platform.