Opinion: Private attorneys will speed justice in capital cases

First, Rudolph Holton was not "exonerated." Instead, 16 years after the brutal rape and murder of Katrina Graddy, a new trial (not a dismissal of the charges) was ordered. The state attorney then determined a just and fair trial was impossible due to the lengthy delay and because key testimony was first recanted and then reaffirmed. Nevertheless, a pragmatic decision not to prosecute does not mean Holton has been determined to be factually innocent. He has not been exonerated, merely freed.

In addition, our state's use of private lawyers to provide postconviction capital legal services has been successful since 1998. According to the Commission on Capital Cases, private attorneys in just 32 capital cases saved more than $6-million in public funds and reduced delays by 131 years between 1998 and 2000. The commission's executive director has stated that private lawyers can represent every death row inmate. Private criminal-defense attorneys in our state have provided zealous, ethical representation to their clients in thousands of cases. I reject your implication that Florida's lawyers will do any less in capital cases.

Our state's policy on capital cases should be guided by two fundamental principles. First, I believe every convicted murderer sentenced to death must be assigned professional, ethical and competent legal representation. That commitment has not wavered. Second, I believe death sentences can and should be resolved within five years, not 15-20 years. No one, not the convicted murderer, not the public and certainly not the murder victims' families, is served by these unacceptable delays in justice that make a mockery of our courts and laws.

Your newspaper and I share one important goal: Justice should be served without delay. Justice is denied to everyone when cases are mired in our courts for decades. My proposal to outsource legal services will serve this goal while continuing Florida's tradition of providing zealous representation in capital cases.
-- Jeb Bush, governor, Tallahassee

Amendment mischief

Re: Constitution too easily changed, 2 lawmakers say, Feb. 13.

Sen. Anna Cowin and Rep. Mike Hogan propose making the state Constitution more difficult to amend by requiring amendments to pass by a majority of votes and a majority of counties. Such a proposal plays directly into the hands of those who would oppose future reforms, who could ignore 93 percent of the state's eligible voters (based on Census 2000 data) to rally the opposition in Florida's 34 least populous counties.

Their rationale, to "protect the interests of voters in smaller, more rural counties," harkens back to the bad old days before the "one person, one vote" rule, when malapportioned state legislatures abetted the domination by rural interests over an urban majority.

Rep. Hogan's additional justification -- the federal constitutional amendment process -- ignores the nation's political history. The U.S. Constitution was crafted to create a union of sovereign states, and the ratification requirements reflect that interest. By comparison, Florida is not a union of counties; rather, the counties are creatures of the state.

If Floridians are concerned about the impact of direct democracy, they should consider other options. The Constitution could be amended to require a three-fifths or two-thirds majority for future amendments, or to allow for citizen referendums carrying the force of statutes and subject to legislative repeal. And although Sen. Cowin and Rep. Hogan may dislike the idea, Floridians could impose redistricting that doesn't create a wide gulf between the political makeup of the state and that of the Legislature. Any of these solutions would uphold the Florida Constitution's vital maxim: "All political power is inherent in the people" -- the people, not the counties.
-- Joshua Schneider, Tampa

Malpractice cap can work

In recent editorials regarding the medical litigation crisis, your paper has drawn several erroneous conclusions. You conclude that a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages is not an effective solution despite what recent history has taught us. The MICRA reforms in California included such a cap in 1976 and have kept insurance premiums there three times lower than comparable states without such caps.

Trial lawyers are fond of stating that such a cap would unfairly limit awards to injured patients. However, they neglect to say that a patient, who for instance had the wrong leg amputated, would still receive full compensation for actual economic damages such as medical costs, lost future wages, and retirement income which could total in the millions of dollars and still include $250,000 for pain and suffering (noneconomic damages). The physician would also face severe disciplinary action by the state's Board of Medicine and likely be sanctioned by his colleagues.

Trial lawyers, and apparently the Times, also agree with the notion that there is a small group of negligent doctors who are repeat offenders. The simplistic argument goes that if only this 5 percent group of physicians were expunged from medicine, then the vast majority of lawsuits would disappear as would "malpractice" itself. The problem with this argument is that the numbers used to reach this conclusion are being interpreted incorrectly. These numbers are based on the National Practitioner's Databank which records all jury awards and settlements resulting from lawsuits and disciplinary actions against doctors, nurses and other health care providers. The NPDB language itself says, in bold print, that a settlement or jury award does not indicate malpractice has occurred.

Despite this, the trial lawyers and their supporters would rather use dollar amounts to paint a picture than actual facts. They say that since 50 percent of dollars paid out are by the 5 percent of doctors who have two or more cases against them, then this group of doctors is largely responsible for malpractice. There are many physicians in high-risk professions who can be expected to be sued every two to four years based only on their specialty (neurosurgery, obstectrics, etc.). These doctors simply care enough to expose themselves to the risks of lawsuits to help their patients. Being sued does not equate to malpractice, as the trial lawyers would like the public to believe.

The trial lawyers are the very reason why the liability payouts are skyrocketing. Their frequent frivolous lawsuits guarantee the extorted, high-price settlements that are reported in the NPDB.

It is ludicrous to equate "malpractice" to dollars paid through an out-of-control personal injury industry hijacking our court system.
-- David McKalip, M.D., Board of Governors, Pinellas County Medical Society, St. Petersburg

The problem is in insurance

As a trial lawyer for the last 23 years I have witnessed three "malpractice crises." On each occasion the blame has been put on the trial lawyers and "frivolous lawsuits." In reality, they are "insurance crises" and not "malpractice crises." That is, for the last 30 years the number of claims filed against doctors has remained flat and the amount of the average recovery has also remained flat for that same time period when adjusted for inflation.

Then why are there these cyclical events where malpractice rates skyrocket? It is because the insurance industry has been a poor shepherd of the doctor's premiums. There is an inverse relationship between the stock market returns and the premiums charged to physicians. When the market was getting double-digit returns during the go-go times of the '90s, the insurance companies were writing insurance for all the doctors regardless of their claim history because they were getting such fantastic returns on their investment. As a result, there was competition for insuring physicians for their premiums, which resulted in keeping the doctors' rates low. Consequently, when the market returns are high, the amount charged to doctors stays low. And the inverse is also true: When the market returns are poor, the rate charged to the doctors for malpractice insurance inflates.

The trial lawyers are an easy target while the insurance companies point the finger at them and their lawsuits as the culprit for rise in rates. Unless one takes the time to analyze the situation, blaming the lawyers may make some sense intuitively. But it does not hold water once one has all the facts.

Jeb Bush has handpicked a panel to pass litigation reform that supposedly is modeled after the law passed in California where there is a cap on noneconomic damages of $250,000. Gov. Bush has his own personal agenda as to why he wants the "reform" that passes the burden onto the innocent victims of malpractice. Simply stated, the insurance industry helped get him, his father and his brother elected.

The caps on noneconomic damages in California are not what have kept the rates down in California; there they passed a law that the insurance companies were allowed to increase rates by only 3 percent per year or they would have to open their books to justify a higher increase. To date, there has never been a crisis in California severe enough to warrant opening their books to the world.

Until there is insurance reform there will never be any true "fix" to the problem.
-- Robert T. Joyce, Tampa

It's discrimination, not names

Re: Names of pride or labels for stereotypes?, Feb. 12.

Bill Maxwell has done it again. Why does he feel the need to constantly make excuses for white people? I, a member of St. Petersburg's white community, can't understand how he can let these racist employers and universities off the hook.

How dare he trivialize the "search for identity" of a people who were dragged to a foreign land and robbed of this identity to begin with. Why should any African-American person feel guilty or "irresponsible" for wanting to reclaim a piece of a heritage that is rightfully theirs?

I never hear a complaint when an Irish family names its child Liam or Shaun, or when a Jewish family names its son Ari. What about my Welch family, with names like Gwenyth, Evan and Bryanna?

If employers or universities are discriminating, they need to be exposed, not tricked into hiring minorities based on their white-sounding names.

Perhaps Maxwell would prefer African-Americans to modify their appearance as well (a la Michael Jackson). We wouldn't want anyone to be hobbled by the "negative baggage" of their dark skin.
-- Sarah E. Edwards, St. Petersburg

Heartless on Valentine's Day

Congratulations, you have just become the "Grinch" that stole Valentine's Day. First of all, you highlight people who change spouses as often as the seasons change in your City & State section. Then in the Floridian section you print mean and hateful poems that you call some of the "best" for ex-Valentines.

Valentine's Day is a day to show love. You have shown stupidity and hate. Those people already have a day to celebrate stupidity and hate: It's April 1. Where is your head? Oh, never mind, I already know where it is.
-- Virginia Buell, Indian Rocks Beach

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.

They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page