Opinion: In today’s pages: Those darn bonuses, and one more state without a death penalty
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner knows plenty about the world of finance, but not nearly enough about the world of politics, the editorial board observes today. He’ll have to wise up about how traditional practices in the financial industry -- particularly eye-opening bonuses -- play to the public that’s shelling out the money for bailouts.
The predictable result, in addition to the calls for Geithner’s ouster, was the bill now rocketing through Congress to impose confiscatory tax rates on many of the individuals who’ve collected bonuses from rescued firms. To the financial industry, it’s yet another switchback by Washington, which has spent the last year plunging in new directions and then quickly reversing course. The shifts have made investors wary just when the administration is trying to persuade them to be its partners in restoring credit to consumers and small businesses, disposing of illiquid bank assets and averting foreclosures. Geithner’s initiatives in those areas hold promise, but they won’t get far unless he hones his political skills -- fast.
The board wholeheartedly applauds the legislature of New Mexico and Gov. Bill Richardson for abolishing the death penalty, a significant move for a state that lies outside the liberal heartland. And it sees encouraging signs in federal response to the drug-related violence in Mexico -- especially conversations with Mexican leaders about border control -- but not if some border states succeed in their calls for using the National Guard to beef up patrols at the border.
Fingerprints are indeed unique -- but the science of analyzing them in crime cases is far from perfect, Jason Felch writes on the op-ed page, and it’s time more judges and criminal experts recognized this:
In 2007, a Maryland judge threw out fingerprint evidence in a death penalty case, calling it ‘a subjective, untested, unverifiable identification procedure that purports to be infallible.’The ruling sided with the scientists, law professors and defense lawyers who for a decade had been noting the dearth of research into the reliability of fingerprinting. Their lonely crusade for sound science in the courtroom has often been ignored by the courts, but last month it was endorsed by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.
Joel Stein finds childbirth class more interesting than he might have bargained on.
And in Letters, readers ponder the relationship between compassionate medicine and religion.
Photo illustration: Los Angeles Times