SL&P points us to this article by Ron Word of AP in Jacksonville, Florida, regarding the nonimpact of the ABA report on Florida's death penalty, issued two years ago. The first paragraph of the article refers to the report as produced by an "independent panel" but the second paragraph identifies it as an ABA product. Mr. Word is apparently unaware that in matters of criminal law the ABA is totally in the tank for the defense side.

The story quotes the chairman of the panel as saying that politicians' fear of being labelled soft on crime is responsible for the recommendations not being enacted. "But some legislators counter that many of the recommendations are unconstitutional and accuse the panel of making them with an anti-death penalty bias." The first criticism is doubtful, but the second is a bull's-eye.

The full report is here. Eleven recommendations are listed on pages ix to xii in the executive summary. Care to guess how many of the 11 are directed to problems as seen by the defense side and how many are directed to problems as seen by the prosecution side? You guessed it: 11-0.

This is what social scientists call "statistically significant." Or, in Batson v. Kentucky terms, it establishes a prima facie case of bias, calling upon the ABA to explain itself.

Doug Berman says the take-home lesson is "that that death penalty studies [are] ineffective if not attuned to political realities." I think the simple truth is that Florida legislators have recognized this agenda-driven study by a defense-dominated organization for exactly what it is. If people really wanted to improve the system, they would set up study groups that are genuinely balanced. We haven't seen one yet.