This kind of thing drives me nuts. In a murder trial last year, the prosecution was barred from showing a photo of the victim unrelated to the crime -- a photo that showed her as a lovely, talented woman slaughtered at 26 by a disturbed kid. The judge disallowed the photo because it was inflammatory. It said, "here's this beautiful woman, here's a defendant in jail clothes, someone has to be punished, you know what to do."

The young lady's parents, in their pain, were outraged that their daughter's picture couldn't be shown, and they took their concerns to the House Minority Leader, who pushed through a bill (with unanimous support, mind you) to make it legal to show murder victim photos in court, with the trial judge's approval.

There is no point to this other than to convince a jury that someone must be punished for killing these people. If it were a punishment phase, that'd be different, but this is for determining guilt. The family of the victim said this was a "great day for victim's rights" and that they'd sought the change in the law to "level the playing field a bit."

It's not supposed to be a level playing field. You are innocent until proven guilty. Amplifying the magnitude of the crime only increases the pressure on the jury to convict whoever they're trying, and that's why photos have been banned before. The governor will sign this, but it shouldn't have even left committee.

Today is the seventh anniversary of the Murrah Building bombing, so victims are on my mind, but it's hard to believe the best way to honor them or remember them is by increasing jury pressure to convict whoever the DA trots out. Leave the photos for the punishment phase when they're relevant -- once someone is convicted, then focus on what he did instead of whether he did it or not.