Showing posts with label change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label change. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Child Abuse Laws: Legally Abducting Children by Broadening the Definition of “Child Abuse”

September 5, 2012
by Dr. Mercola
Child abuse is a horrific act, no matter how you define it.
That’s why we have so many laws, and public and private agencies, set up specifically with the charge to protect children and maintain their safety. It’s exactly why so much funding is directed toward this goal.
But did you know that the money funneled to states and child protective services actually encourages them to accuse you of child abuse and even murder, and to take your children, even if you’re not guilty, and even though they have absolutely no proof that you harmed your child?

The Legal Abduction of Children

Horrendous as it sounds, it’s true: child abuse has become a business – an industry of sorts – that actually pays states to legally abduct your children and put them up for adoption!
Even more unbelievable is that, instead of pumping the money back into child protective service programs, some states actually are putting it into their general funds to help balance their budgets.
A number of groups have tried to reform this shady practice, but it was a California politician who caught media attention this past summer, when he said that, if elected, he would expose how local governments were amassing billions of dollars in annual reimbursements, in exchange for what amounted to legal abduction of children.
“Most people are not aware of how much profit many of these services provide the county,”John Van Doorn told a San Diego newspaper“These profits are hard to ignore and even more difficult to pass up.
Counties can bring in thousands of dollars in excess revenue for each child in foster care, Van Doorn said – which means they have more incentive to remove children from their families than to keep families intact. “As such … our county government is a major factor in the dismantling of families and/or destruction of children’s lives,” he said.
He then cited San Diego CPS for “egregious behaviors” that included accusing parents of child abuse without any evidence.
The ugly truth is that San Diego isn’t the only community where false accusations of child abuse occur. Across the nation, the practice has become so blatant that some of the leading experts on child abuse and foster care have started to cry “foul.”

About the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the federal law on which almost all state and local legislation and funding for child protective services are based. Enacted in 1988, CAPTA directs the U.S. Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children & Families to provide grants to communities for child abuse prevention programs.
As a federal mandate, CAPTA mandates states to implement child abuse laws on their own, so they can align themselves for the massive funding and grants that go along with the law.
In theory as the years went by, if the goal for this law – to reduce child abuse in this country – had been successful, then today we should need less funding for these programs, not more. Success also should have resulted in fewer children in foster care and even fewer being put up for adoption.
But in reality, the opposite happened. Instead of less children in foster care, the numbers went up for nine years after CAPTA was passed. And, layers and layers of state and federal government programs and agencies whose funding depends solely on child abuse occurring were created.
In 1999 foster care numbers started dropping – but only because of new laws that encouraged states to move children out of foster care and into adoptive homes.
Of course, that legislation came with funding too, giving CPS a new avenue for making more money and creating more jobs and more programs. The tragedy is what Van Doorn pointed out in his campaign: the financial incentives for rooting out child abuse actually encourage agencies to make false accusations against parents, and to tear families apart for something that did not occur.

How this Law Actually has Increased Child Abuse Reports

What happened in San Diego is not an anomaly, nor is it new. In 1991, the bi-partisan National Commission on Children had already figured out that children were being taken from their families “prematurely or unnecessarily” because federal formulas give states “a strong financial incentive” to do so rather than provide services to keep families together.”
As a result, the federal government and a number of states created legislation that was supposed to keep more families together. But as the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR) reports, those efforts only disrupted more families, and encouragedmore adoptions.
Again, the reason is financial: the new laws give “bounties to states of up to $8,000 or more per child  for every adoption they finalize over a baseline number,” NCCPR reports. And again, all the help goes to foster and adoptive parents. “About the only parents the federal government won’t help indefinitely are birth parents,” NCCPR found.
But the injustices don’t stop there, because in order to get that money, states have to have children to take away and place – and therein lies the incentive to falsely accuse parents of harming their children and to forcibly remove children even when there is no evidence to do so.
“CPS nationally are doing a job they’ve never been trained to do,” says Kim Hart, a trial strategist and facilitator who has been assisting attorneys in defending persons accused of child abuse for more than 18 years. They’re investigating people who have never been charged, and calling them child abusers, and taking kids away, and they get paid to do it.
This mechanism is bigger than what most people know. It goes all the way back to the 1980s with legislation that told states they had to develop registries with mandatory child abuse reporting.”
The money that follows a child abuse accusation and subsequent placement of the so-called endangered children into foster care or adoption is the real catalyst for the epidemic of child abuse accusations, Hart said.
“And there is no incentive for any physician or anybody involved to be intellectually honest about this because the law also gives them immunity if they’re wrong,” she said.
“So what happens is that the minute CPS is involved – or the second the EMTs are called (for example, in sudden infant death or alleged shaken baby cases), parents are already labeled as child abusers.”

How are States Spending this Extra Money?

According to NCCPR, in FY 2010 the federal government is expected to spend at least $7 more on foster care and $4 more on adoption for every dollar spent to prevent foster care or speed reunification. This is based on President Obama’s $4.681 billion foster care budget for FY2010 – an increase of $21 million over FY2009. The number represents a decrease of 4,300 children a month in foster care.
But this decrease is based on “placement of children in more permanent settings.” In other words, states are getting moremoney to take care of fewer children by placing more of them in adoptive homes.
The law also increases incentives for adoption by paying out $1,000 to $8,000 extra for certain types of children who are placed for adoption.
The twist is that states are not required to put this money back in to keeping families intact or even for preventing child abuse. Instead, by law, they can use it for non-child-related things, such as delivering meals to senior citizens or for transportation services, or a range of other home-based services!
In San Diego, Van Doorn couldn’t get a direct answer when he demanded that city officials tell him where their $4,000 per adopted child was going. But a look at any state’s budget – from Minnesota to Florida to Connecticut and back to California – can tell you that local governments and states are cutting back or flat-lining children’s services and using these extra federal dollars to balance their budgets .

Not Enough Abused Children? Change the Definition of Child Abuse

This certainly is a convoluted way to stop child abuse, if for no other reason than it’s a form of child abuse to tear families apart and take children away from parents who are accused of doing something they didn’t do. It also doesn’t explain one of the newer definitions of child abuse that came along after CAPTA was enacted, Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS).
Reliable statistics on SBS do not exist, but according to the National Shaken Baby Coalition (NSBC), as many as 1,500 babies a year are shaken by their parents, and either severely injured or killed.
While the numbers may not seem exceedingly large, they still add another arena in which CPS can seize children from their parents, and place them in adoptive homes – and claim the booty that the federal government gives them for doing this.

On the Backs of Children, an Industry Based on Child Abuse has Arisen

In San Diego, CPS proudly announced that due to their efforts, child abuse reports had gone down. But again, Van Doorn busted them – the numbers went down, he said, because the public had begun to catch on to the county’s recent court casesthey’d lost in conjunction with false child abuse allegations.
When you apply this same thinking to the national statistics, it makes you wonder how many other states and local municipalities are dealing with false allegations.
The truth is staggering, according to Hart, and is so prevalent that countless blogs have popped up addressing the problem, as well asentire websites devoted to helping people who’ve been falsely accused of child abuse.

Shaken Baby Syndrome – A Convenient Catch-All to Steal Babies Away?

Shaken Baby Syndrome has become an industry in itself, according to Dr. Edward Yazbak, a physician who has devoted the past 10 years to studying the issue and testifying as an expert witness on behalf of parents he believes are innocent of this crime.
“This is an inverted pyramid,” Yazbak says. “It’s an idea that has been added to and added to, but does not stand to science.
This shaken baby business has come out of nowhere and become an epidemic, and it’s the other side that’s making money – the child protective services, the funding, the grants that all these people get.
It’s obviously a very popular and passionate thing with them. But they’re literally convicting people before they’re even accused. It’s the only crime in the world like this, and many of these parents are perfectly innocent.”
A short Internet search can show you what Dr. Yazbak is talking about. Hundreds of private adoption agencies around the nation are totally dependent on public welfare services supplying them with children – and funds – to keep their “businesses” going.
Likewise, hundreds of state, county and community agencies and governmental jobs are dependent on the same thing – legally abducting children to pay for the programs that have sprung up in the name of protecting children.
Again, the numbers tell the story:
In 1990, two years after CAPTA was created, nearly 2.6 million children nationwide were reported as abused and/or neglected, and referred for investigation.  Despite the law, six years later, in 1996, 3 million children were reportedly abused, and under CPS “investigations.” Today the number varies, depending on how federal authorities define child abuse. Under one definition, statistics show that the numbers have dropped by nearly a third.
But with a “more inclusive” definition, the numbers have stayed the same at about 3 million – or about 1 in every 25 children. In a 2010 report to Congress, the Administration on Children & Families explained how the numbers figure in the face of other data showing a decline in child abuse.
But no matter how you interpret them, or whether the numbers have the stayed the same or dropped, the Congressional report doesn’t explain why the President and Congress have continued to inflate budgets with more money to take children away from their families.
So what can you or I do about it?
According to Hart, this is an issue that can’t be fixed with a single article or a few phone calls. It’s a national problem that’s gone on for decades, that needs local and federal pushes to change the laws that made these injustices possible.
Coincidentally, CAPTA is up for renewal in 2011, with billions more of your money proposed for the kinds of child abuse “prevention” that I’ve talked about here.
In an effort to change this, I encourage you to study the links I’ve included in this article, and then contact your legislators and ask them to take a closer look at the monster that CAPTA has created.
While sunsetting the law or stopping its funding is probably only a dream, Hart believes it’s possible that with enough pressure, you can lobby to have the “immunity” clause removed from this, so that at the very least, agencies who falsely accuse parents of child abuse can’t do so without being held responsible.
References:
National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington, DC: May, 1991) p.290.
Copyright Dr. Joseph Mercola, 2011. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

A RESOLUTION urging the members of the United States Congress to take necessary action to propose the Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution for ratification; and for other purposes.


11 LC 35 2236ER
H. R. 738
- 1 -
House Resolution 738 By: Representatives Neal of the 1st, Weldon of the 3rd, Williams of the 4th, and Jasperse of the 12th
A RESOLUTION
1 Urging the members of the United States Congress to take necessary action to propose the
2 Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution for ratification; and for other
3 purposes.
4 WHEREAS, the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is
5 a fundamental right protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of
6 Georgia; and
7
8 WHEREAS, our nation has historically relied first and foremost on parents to meet the real
9 and constant needs of their children; and
10 WHEREAS, the interests of children are best served when parents are free to make child
11 rearing decisions about education, religion, and other areas of a child's life without
12 government interference; and
13 WHEREAS, in 1972, the United States Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder held that "This
14 primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond
15 debate as an enduring American tradition"; and
16 WHEREAS, in 2000, the United States Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville produced six
17 different opinions on the nature and enforceability of parental rights under the United States
18 Constitution; and
19 WHEREAS, this more recent decision has created confusion and ambiguity about the
20 fundamental nature of parental rights in the laws and society of the several states; and
21
22 WHEREAS, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has been proposed
23 and may soon be considered for ratification by the United States Senate, which would11 LC 35 2236ER
H. R. 738
- 2 -
24 drastically alter this fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children;
25 and
26 WHEREAS, this convention has been acceded to by 192 nations world wide and has been
27 cited by United States courts as "customary international law"; and
28 WHEREAS, international influence is being exerted on the United States Supreme Court, as
29 demonstrated by the 2005 decision of Roper v. Simmons, where "the Court has referred to
30 the laws of other countries and to the international authorities as instructive for its
31 interpretation" of the United States Constitution; and
32 WHEREAS, Senator James DeMint of the State of South Carolina and Representative Peter
33 Hoekstra of the State of Michigan have introduced in the United States Congress an
34 amendment to the United States Constitution to prevent erosion of the enduring American
35 tradition of treating parental rights as fundamental rights.  The amendment is outlined as
36 follows:
37 SECTION ONE:  The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their
38 children is a fundamental right.
39 SECTION TWO:  Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right
40 without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the
41 highest order and not otherwise served.
42 SECTION THREE:  No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law
43 be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this
44 article; and
45 WHEREAS, this amendment will add explicit text to the Constitution of the United States
46 to protect in perpetuity the rights of parents as such rights are now enjoyed, without
47 substantive change to current state or federal laws respecting these rights; and
48 WHEREAS, the enumeration of parental rights in the text of the Constitution will preserve
49 and protect such rights from being infringed upon by the shifting ideologies and
50 interpretations of the United States Supreme Court and by treaties or international laws.
51 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES that
52 the members of this body affirm and support the Parental Rights Amendment to the United
53 States Constitution and strongly urge Congress to immediately take all such steps as may be11 LC 35 2236ER
H. R. 738
- 3 -
54 necessary through whatever means necessar

Friday, March 30, 2012

Bring Babies Home!

BRING BABIES HOME



How do you get the attention of those in charge of your life? How do you get the attention of those who have stolen your child? You do that by sharing your story and making it public. We have done that, and will continue to share our story! Our cause is growing, and the more people who read and see that our government isn't doing things quite right, the faster it will get fixed. There are thousands of children across the country who are wrongly taken from their homes. All a CPS worker needs to do is say they believe there is child abuse and your kids are gone. The facts don't need to exist, merely the opinion of a single social worker. This is wrong. There our so many who truly do need help, yet they seem to be missed. Instead there are innocent families being torn apart to try and compensate for their mistakes. This isn't justice! You can't fix your errors by replacing the lost ones with innocent ones. My family is innocent, and we have come to know so many others who are also innocent. Please, if you or any person you know has had their family torn apart by wrongful allegations of child abuse by CPS join our cause and spread the word. We need to save our families and our nation!

BRING BABIES HOME

Monday, March 19, 2012

Changes could be coming to Child Protective Services

Families dealing with child neglect and abuse often go through lengthy and emotional struggles when dealing with Child Protective Services.

But, the question remains: Should CPS be able to take children away at their own discretion, without a court order?

Changes could be coming as a review of CPS practices is underway.

Police have to get a warrant if they want to search your house. Detectives have to get a court order to seize your property. But, in Kern County, Child Protective Services does not seek court orders or warrants when removing children from their parents.

It can be a tough line to walk. In one case, a child was taken from their parents and a later investigation found no abuse. That sparked a lawsuit against the county.

On the flip side, there was another recent case where CPS didn’t act on a report of abuse and the child was subsequently killed.

“The problem I have with CPS is, frequently they overstate their power and authority.” said Bill Slocumb, a local attorney.

And, many people have no clue what is and isn’t allowed when they have to deal with CPS, so parents just go along with what social workers say, trying to save their families.

But, there could be changes in how CPS operates.

“The whole idea of reviewing our current procedures and policies is to determine whether we do need to make any changes, and that’s what’s going on right now. And, in following that review, if we determine we need to make changes, different forms or different processes, then that would be put into place,” said Mark Nations, Deputy Kern County Counsel.

If CPS social workers get a report of abuse, they must act on it and investigate. One of their worst fears is leaving a child in an abusive situation.

“Social workers are very concerned about that type of situation, where you leave a child in the home and something worse happens down the road. And, that is one of the issues we are addressing as we review these policies,” added Nations.

Source: http://www.kget.com/news/local/story/Changes-could-be-coming-to-Child-Protective/8G-kkji1oUuUV01-UppUBg.cspx

http://cps-victims-unite.com/?p=87

Oregon: Corruption Risk Report Card

http://www.stateintegrity.org/oregon


The story behind the score

Oregon boasts strong disclosure laws. But it’s one of the few states with no campaign finance limits, and its gift ban is full of holes. Read more from SII State Reporter Lee van der Voo.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

9000 visits! Sharing is Caring

WOW! 9000! Thanks for taking the time to visit our blog. There are so many important things going on here, and if you are reading what we have to say, it may save you a lot of hassle. Vitamin D is so very important, and for those who still don't know much about it, definitely do as much research as you can. If you're pregnant take vitamin D supplements. Give your children Vitamin D supplements! Vitamin D is not only very important for bone health, but many studies are showing that it plays a role in many different things including SIDS, Depression, MS, Autism, and so much more!

We also have shared our story and the nightmare we're going through. If you haven't read it yet, visit Our Story. We've talked to so many doctors, and most agree that things have gone WAY too far! We've contacted politicians, we've contacted schools, we've even gone to the media now. If you know someone else who is suffering from false allegations of child abuse, have them e-mail me their story and I'll do my best to share it too. Thank You.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Are Innocent Parents Being Prosecuted for Killing Their Babies?

Are Innocent Parents Being Prosecuted for Killing Their Babies?

The doctor who came up with “shaken-baby syndrome” thinks so.


Baby
Could larger medical conditions be responsible for baby deaths that were blamed on shaken-baby syndrome?
By Michael Blackburn/Thinkstock Images.
In 1971, pediatrician Norman Guthkelch helped come up with the medical diagnosis of shaken-baby syndrome. Guthkelch and another pediatrician each wrote a paper proposing that unexplained bleeding in the brain of infants could occur because of whiplash—via shaking—without causing a visible neck injury and without direct impact to the head. That diagnosis became the basis for “do not shake” campaigns and, over the years, hundreds of criminal prosecutions for child abuse.
Now Guthkelch is worried that medical examiners and prosecutors have been too quick to turn to the shaken-baby diagnosis—and that innocent people may be in prison as a result. He called me to express that concern after I wrote about some questionable shaken-baby prosecutions for the New York Times Magazine last year. Guthkelch told Joseph Shapiro of NPR about an Arizona case he found particularly troubling after reviewing it for the defense. “I think I used the expression in my report, ‘I wouldn’t hang a cat on the evidence of shaking, as presented,’ ” he said.
Guthkelch, who is 96, was talking about the conviction of Drayton Witt, who was an 18-year-old when he was charged with shaking his 4-month-old son, Steven, to death in 2000. Based on the standard medical theory of the time, the case looked like a classic case of abusive shaking to doctors who treated Steven in the hospital as well as to the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy. Later at trial, these doctors testified against Witt, who was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 20 years.
But now the case doesn’t look so clear-cut. It may, instead, be an example of doctors applying an outdated method of diagnosis—one that ignored Steven’s troubled medical history and thus missed an alternate explanation for his death. It’s not just Guthkelch who is raising the alarm: The medical examiner who testified against Witt, pathologist A.L. Mosley, has recanted his position at trial. Mosley now believes that Steven died of natural causes. Which raises a couple of questions: Is Drayton Witt serving time for a crime he did not commit? Will prosecutors in Arizona continue to argue that his conviction should stand?
Advertisement
Steven Witt’s health problems started at birth. He was born with the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck, and he had trouble breathing. He got better and went home, but a few weeks later, his mother, who lived with Drayton Witt and later married him, brought the baby to the doctor because he’d been feverish and vomiting for three days. A few weeks later, Steven was sick again, with a fever and an upper respiratory infection. From then on, his mother was in frequent touch with the pediatrician.
A few days before Steven turned 4 months old, his mother took him to the emergency room because of what was by then his familiar fever, congestion, and vomiting. The doctors thought he had pneumonia, and they prescribed an antibiotic. After Steven took his first dose, his left eye couldn’t focus, he refused the bottle, and he lay limp. The next morning, he threw up and started shaking. Witt came home from work, and he and Steven’s mother rushed the baby to the hospital.
In the ER, Steven had a grand mal seizure. He spent the next six days in the hospital, with a fever and pupils that weren’t dilating normally. The doctors weren’t sure what was wrong, but tests showed more massive seizures, even though Steven was taking anti-seizure medication. His mother told the doctors that Steven had lost head control and couldn’t track with his eyes as he could before. Still, they sent the baby home with his parents before the week was up, on May 7, with antibiotics and the anti-seizure drug Phenobarbital.
According to Witt’s defense, Steven was never again a normal, healthy baby. Sometimes, his eyes twitched back and forth. He threw up repeatedly. His mother called the pediatrician and the hospital; his grandmother worried about his health; and a neighbor who was a nurse noticed the baby’s recurring problems. Steven’s mother brought him back to the pediatrician on May 26 because he’d again had a fever for days and had been projectile vomiting. She was told to continue the antibiotics and Phenobarbital, and she and the baby were sent home.
On June 1, Witt took care of Steven during the day while his mother went to work. Shortly after 8 p.m., Witt told Steven’s mother over the phone that he thought the baby was having another seizure because his eyes weren’t normal. They agreed that Witt would pick her up at work and they would drive to the hospital. On the way, Steven had a major seizure, and Witt tried to resuscitate his son. At the hospital, it took 32 minutes to get Steven’s heart started again. He was also seriously dehydrated—because of the vomiting, he’d been unable to keep down food or liquids.
Drayton Witt and his wife.
Drayton Witt and his wife
Courtesy of the Arizona Justice Project
And yet despite the baby’s long medical saga, Witt was almost immediately suspected of abuse. The social worker from child protective services who talked to Witt and his wife at 4 a.m. on June 2 wrote in her notes that the couple had no specific explanation for the baby’s “severe head trauma.” After Steven’s death on the afternoon of June 2, Dr. Mosley, who knew that the doctors at the hospital thought he’d been killed by shaken baby syndrome, concluded that the death was a homicide caused by “shaken/impact syndrome.” Mosley noted that Steven had no neck injury, no bruising or fractures, no external signs of abuse. But none of that mattered. At Witt’s trial, Mosley testified against him, along with several other doctors. Because of the state of the science at the time, Witt had just one doctor in his corner, who only partially rebutted the shaken-baby theory.
Twelve years later, lawyers from the Arizona Justice Project have gone to court asking for a hearing for Witt. They want the state courts to reopen the case and order a new trial, based on the way the scientific understanding of shaken-baby syndrome has shifted. The mainstream position still holds that it is possible to shake a baby to death. But many doctors now allow that a history of illness like Steven’s can account for the subdural and retinal bleeding, and brain swelling, that used to be blamed exclusively on shaken-baby syndrome.
It’s Steven’s medical history that distresses Norman Guthkelch. “This was always a sickly baby,” he told me when I reached him over the phone. “I was taught to start by considering the non-criminal explanation, and this little guy was in sufficient trouble without any need to postulate someone had shaken him.” Mosley has joined Guthkelch in asking the Arizona courts to revisit Witt’s conviction. “There is now no longer consensus in the medical community that the findings I reported in my autopsy report are reliable proof of SBS [shaken baby syndrome] or child abuse,” Mosley told the court. “Steven had a complicated medical history, including unexplained neurological problems. He had no outward signs of abuse. If I were to testify today, I would state that I believe Steven’s death was likely the result of a natural disease process, not SBS.”
Drayton Witt reminds me of Shirley Ree Smith, a grandmother accused of shaking her baby to death in California in 1996. Both may well have been convicted based on past medical assumptions that may not stand up to present scrutiny. That may also be true of some people sent to prison more recently. I still wonder about the conviction of Trudy Munoz Rueda, a daycare provider whom I wrote about in the Times Magazine. Another is a former New York daycare provider named Alma Calderaro. When she was convicted of assault and child endangerment in 2009, and sentenced to eight and half years in prison, Calderaro’s lawyer did not call a single medical expert to testify on her behalf. Now on appeal, three doctors are saying that the baby who collapsed in Calderaro’s care had subdural bleeding that was chronic and that this condition, rather than shaking, probably caused her injuries. Prosecutors have until mid-April to respond.
By calling attention to these cases, I don’t mean to suggest that every defendant convicted of harming a baby who has the symptoms associated with shaken-baby syndrome is innocent. I’ve learned from my reporting that these cases are incredibly fact-specific. In a pending prosecution in Queens that has gotten a lot of attention, the baby who died, Annie Li, had serious bone fractures as well as internal bleeding. The lawyer for Li’s father, who has been charged with manslaughter and second-degree murder, says that while the test results aren’t in yet, a congenital bone condition may be to blame for the fractures. We’ll see.
Meanwhile, the district attorney who prosecuted Drayton Witt hasn’t responded to his petition for a hearing and a new trial. As these cases move through the courts, they are testing prosecutors’ and judges’ willingness to undo old verdicts. That’s never an easy step to take. But sometimes it’s the only one that is just.