The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Liu Fundraiser Facing Charges over Donations,” shows that political corruption goes beyond the big stories coming out of Washington and can extend all the way down to cities and local organizations.

The story about John Liu, the New York City comptroller, describes the practice of using “straw donors,” fictitious names or stand-ins to circumvent the city’s campaign finance limits of $4,950 per person. Using straw donors also involves a misuse of the city’s generous matching program of $6 for every dollar contributed.

The person arrested, Xing Wu Pan, was accused of fraud, and a specific fundraiser attended by the candidate’s treasurer included the straw donors mentioned. The nature of Mr. Liu’s relationship with Mr. Pan is still being investigated.

It seems inevitable that more misdeeds will be found as the investigation is just beginning, and usually these situations are widespread through a campaign instead of being just one isolated incident. Certainly, any future political ambition of Mr. Liu can be ruled out for the foreseeable future.

Once again, an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, posing as a businessman, blew open the case. With the movie J. Edgar, about Hoover and the FBI, just coming out, it is a testament to the effectiveness of the organization.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Sentencing Shift Gives New Clout to Prosecutors,” describes a developing situation in our judiciary that has grown over the years and now merits serious study: the fact that plea bargains have predominated so much that the right of trial by jury has been effectively overwhelmed.

The reasons cited are many including an overwhelmed system where public defenders can only handle a small fraction of their cases, prosecutors use their plea bargain power to coerce the accused, and judges are constrained by minimum mandatory sentences.

The prosecutors are using these minimum mandatories to threaten the accused with severe jail time unless they plead guilty to a lesser crime. This system creates, in effect, a trial penalty and may encourage innocent people to reluctantly plead guilty to avoid the vagaries of a jury.

The growing use of plea bargains and minimum mandatory sentences have concentrated power in prosecutors so much that they are now widely considered more powerful than judges. This represents a dangerous development because it concentrates power in the enforcement sector, in the state, rather than a legal authority, the judge. And it leaves many of the accused with little-to-no options even if they are innocent. And that’s an intolerable situation for the United States of America.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Justices Order California to Cut Prison Crowding,” shows that in the United States, with the notable exception of Guantanamo, we believe every person deserves certain inalienable rights, to be treated with a minimum of dignity and respect.

The 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court mandated that California reduce its prison population by 30,000 people due to the extreme circumstances faced by inmates. Prisoners were living in gymnasium-sized common rooms with lockups into cells barely larger than a telephone booth with no toilet facilities. Medical and mental health care were atrocious.

The Court, as usual, split along ideological lines with Justice Kennedy providing the swing vote. Conservative Justices Alito and Scalia warned ominously of a coming crime wave when prisoners were released early to comply with the ruling.

But the majority opinion was, in my opinion, correct in that it affirmed that all people, no matter their station in life, even prisoners, are due a certain dignity and respect as human beings, that our values trump all other considerations. This is, indeed, a revolutionary thought in common with the founding of our nation, and perhaps that’s why it was so hard for the conservative Justices to swallow.

Because, in the end, the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is there for a reason, to be enforced in cases such as this one.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Officials Push to Bolster Law on Wiretapping,” demonstrates the ongoing conflict between the freedom of the Internet and security concerns by organizations such as the FBI and CIA.

The article describes an effort to strengthen a 1994 law called the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act. The law requires communications companies to ensure any new technologies they develop are designed in such a way that they enable wiretapping, if required by a court.

The rub comes in the following observation: any efforts to include the ability to wiretap for legal reasons can also be abused by politically repressive regimes to spy on their citizens.

In a disappointing development, the Obama administration is supporting the attempt to strengthen the law. While the FBI may be losing some of its surveillance power as new communications systems are developed, I think it would be better for law enforcement agencies to focus more on human intelligence. We already have more than enough surveillance capability, so much that our law enforcement institutions barely have enough time to review the tapes we have already amassed.

Surveillance is the easy way out in law enforcement. It avoids the need for thorough detective work, infiltration of suspect organizations and other more people-intensive techniques. Slapping another wiretap on someone just avoids the need for good police work in the first place.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Police Charged in 2005 Killings in New Orleans,” paints a chilling picture of a dysfunctional New Orleans police force during the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In a city widely plagued by lawlessness and desperate human needs, the police often hindered more than helped the situation. Many abandoned their posts and others added to the chaos and danger.

The indictment described in this story accuses four officers, now all in custody, of cold-blooded killing and wounding of members of the same family, the Brisettes, crossing the Danziger Bridge to get food at a nearby supermarket. Two former officers and two current ones stand accused of murder and could face the death penalty as a result. One of the officers is also accused of murdering a 40-year-old man with mental disabilities.

For those who claim oppression at the hands of the police around the country — an oppression most white people have never experienced and can not even imagine — this story provides poignant evidence in support of their views. Two homicide officers covered up the case and even met with the accused in an abandoned office to make sure their stories were consistent. A New Orleans judge dismissed the case before federal authorities became involved.

One wonders why this prosecution was not pursued during the Bush administration, and it took Attorney General Eric Holder, an appointment of President Obama to break open the case.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Death Sentence in New York Case is Struck Down,” describes a decision by the U.S. Appeals Court to revoke a death sentence decision against Ronell Wilson who had been convicted for killing two undercover New York detectives by shooting them in back of the head.

The reason involved denial of his constitutional rights because the prosecutors faulted him for not testifying — the Fifth Amendment forbids being forced to incriminate yourself — and his demand for a jury trial (Sixth Amendment right).

The article notes that New York State is the toughest jurisdiction to get a death penalty conviction as it has been denied 19 times prior to Mr. Ronell’s case. And, frankly, this is how it should be. Any modern citizen with a modicum of compassion will realize that in today’s society, the death penalty represents cruel and unusual punishment.

Maybe, a century ago, this wasn’t the case, but “cruel and unusual” needs to be taken in context with the world in which we live. Life without parole remains just as punishing a sentence without forcing the state to take a human life, a moral consideration as well.

And with today’s DNA evidence, we are finding more and more instances of incorrect convictions, and you can’t overturn a death sentence after it has been executed.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, titled “Safety is Issue as Budget Cuts Free Prisoners,” describes the role of many state governments releasing prisoners early in order to save money in very tight state budgets. The states mentioned include Oregon, Illinois, Colorado and California, to name a few.

Here we see the very real effect of the recession on political decisions with ramifications throughout society. The story mentions many early release offenders who committed additional crimes, and you really can’t measure the new victims in terms of dollars and cents. In addition, the overall level of anxiety rises as the population’s sense of public safety starts to erode.

It is hard to talk about moderation in early-release programs, and each case should really be dealt with on an individual basis. Of course, the same tight budget leading to an early release program also means the staff to deal with an increased number of parolees is also lacking.

The number of early release prisoners in some states is truly staggering ; they number in the thousands. I think prisoners should be freed early for good behavior and with some evidence of a real change of heart. The problem in undertaking these programs in order to save money, however, involves pressure to release more rather than less. In effect, the evaluation process is being short-circuited to the detriment of all.

Sunday’s lead article in The New York Times was titled, “F.B.I. and States Vastly Expanding Databases of DNA.” The article described the expansion of DNA collection by law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government.

The article was disturbing because it described how this program has expanded over time. At first, DNA was only collected for convicted murderers and sex offenders. Then, all convicts had to supply DNA samples, even for relatively minor crimes; in some cases, misdemeanors.

Law enforcement justified this expansion by arguing that privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment were diminished by criminal acts.

Now, however, the programs have been expanded to include anyone taken into custody. Thus, some innocent people have been added to the DNA database.

This is disturbing for a number of reasons. First of all, the DNA database could be misused by the government. Just because we have benevolent leaders now doesn’t protect us from future rulers. We know that power corrupts, and a DNA database provides enormous power to convict or exonerate individuals.

Secondly, the DNA database is skewed against minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics. Even though this matches the current demographics of the criminal population, that doesn’t make it right. The DNA database works against a level playing field in the legal process.

And I shuddered to read the final sentence of this article, a sentence used throughout time to justify all kinds of actions by police states around the world, “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.”