Knowing what I know now and all that's been broadcast on the news and in media, I think I would have definitely … made a different decision . . . I don't think I could have made a decision to go forward with the charges that were put before us. I don't think those charges would have been the proper charges, based on what I know now.
The other, remarkably, said that he had no regrets about the decision to indict, but nonetheless now had doubts about the case. Both expressed puzzlement as to how Nifong could not have dropped all charges after the accuser radically changed her story on December 21.
The special prosecutor has promised a thorough inquiry: one aspect should be granting immunity to the grand jurors from any contempt charge, and allowing them to reveal what they were told.
269 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 269 of 269[What is more likely to produce shoddy police work? Some robbery or date rape case or a high profile carjacking that leads to rape and murder or some police officers shot down in cold blood?]
As far as shoddy goes, I would think the former. If you mean that shoddy is in the form of incompetent. Maybe you want to toss in cutting corners in this category too.
If you mean a situation where the police intentionally railroad someone, then the rate may be higher if there is pressure to convict someone. A good example here is they guy that "confessed" to shooting Charles Stewart and his wife.
Both types of situation require some kind of motivation if intentional. I'm sure that there are districts and circumstances not in the high-profile murder category that provide that kind of incentive. Such as maximizing ones pension.
there are OJ type juries all over the country just looking to get the racist white people in this world. They talk and act dumb but they are smarter then they appear as they have been brainwashed by Jackson and Sharpton to be a huge tool of the NAACP and the Democratic party. This whole case can happen to any of us.
> I like to stick to facts, it
> helps prevent agendas from
> taking over.
It also limits your thinking.
I'm glad the folks at Apple, Inc. and Google don't just stick to the facts.
Happily, since white people are rarely even accused of committing violent crimes against blacks, let alone convicted of same, it isn't much of a problem in the real world.
That's part of the reason the black community is hanging onto this case, they thought it was the myth come to life and they can't bear that it's going to turn out to support the other myth of the promiscuious, devious lying black person. That's what they can't stand.
It also limits your thinking.
--------------------------
So you advocate that drawing conclusions based on what, then, hunches, personal experience, is better than evidence and facts?
You must be a graduate of the Mike Nifong school of thought then.
> So you advocate that drawing
> conclusions based on what, then,
> hunches, personal experience, is
> better than evidence and facts?
Have you ever studied any theoretical math? Computer Science? Physics? Have you ever invented something?
Have you ever optimized an image rendering algorithm to shave 70% of the runtime?
I personally don't think that Nifong has either. Look at the products we use today and compare them to what we had 40 years ago. How do you think all of these products get developed? From existing facts? Or from math, physics, biology, chemistry, computer science, materials science, etc. What if we all just stuck to the facts over the last 1,000 years? I guess you wouldn't be using this message board.
What does INVENTING things have to do with drawing conclusions on the efficacy of the criminal justice system?
You don't need facts and statistics to write poetry either, but that is totally IRRELEVANT to what we are discussing.
The GOVERNMENT has to run on facts and evidence...what works, what doesn't work, when you do X, you get Y, when you add A you get B.
When the government makes decisions based on other agenda driven crap you get just what we have now, a stupid war that no one knows how to get out of.
I don't like this thread. Too much speculation. Not enough info.
All sizzle. No steak.
I want all the grand jurors to be granted immunity and I want to hear every last detail----down to the shape of every obstreperous bead of sweat on the forehead of beak-nosed Nifong----as to what they were told and by whom.
The public needs to know why they decided on indictments.
Debrah
Or from math, physics, biology, chemistry, computer science, materials science, etc.
------------------------------
I believe these also run on facts. You look at all the existing facts and evidence, if you want to do something new, you come up with a theory, you test the theory to see if it works. The factual results guide your research.
Or on what basis do you think basic science and applied science work if not factual and evidentiary? Praying to the baby jesus? Magic? The power of positive thinking?
DNA Tests after death suggest he did the deed
A 1 in 19,000,000 chance that it was not him.
I like the Roger Colman case because it shows how easy it is to convince people of good will that you are innocent, when in fact, you are a pscychopathic liar.
It is at least to the credit of the people who spent in some cases 10-15 years trying to exonerate this piece of garbage that they accepted the DNA evidence with grace. All except the nut job girlfriend he acquired while in jail.
A non biased look at the evidence made it pretty clear this guy was almost certainly guilty. He had opportunity and motive and two sex crime convictions. But when you conveniently overlook this and decide in advance that the backwoods cops were incompetant hicks, then of course, your guy is innocent....
I have never gotten the idea that just because someone who can string two sentences together says he's innocent that I should believe him. Truth is, the police ususually get it right.
And I suspect in this case, if it had been left up to the police, the boys would never have been arrested, let alone persecuted for almost a year.
I think Nifong would have gone to trial in Durham. Clearly, he knows his audience. It was said by fellow lawyers that "frequently, he dropped the charges the day before trial." that is inexcusable - He is a bully and liked execcuting power. somehow, from playing with the little traffic guys, he thought he was big time. I think after seeing Brad, Joe, Kirk, Wade, Jim and the lawyers preform in court, he realized he was not the Souths greatest lawyer and not in their league."I would not want to try a case against me either" Right, big guy.
Science is largely based on fact, but progress is made very often by artistic conjecture. However, and it is a big however, the conjecture must then stand up to experimental scrutiny.
The major problem with the soft "sciences" is that that last stage - which was the original cornerstone of the scientific method - is either impossible or ignored. The only validation of conjecture depends on "accepted knowledge" or on who can swing the best PR.
Law, unfortunately but inevitably, follows the path of the soft sciences, restrained somewhat by "originalists" and "strict constructionists." However, experiments in law are being done every day, and we are all potential laboratory rats in these experiments.
It was said by fellow lawyers that "frequently, he dropped the charges the day before trial."
--------------------------
I think he would have done something similar in this case. I can't believe no matter how much of an arrogant, egomaniac he is that he ever intended to put this woman on the stand and allow her to be cross examined. She can't tell the same story twice even to police who no doubt did all they could to lead her into a believable narrative, and all they got for their trouble was a new story with no rape, a sexual assault that occured virtually simultaneous to her own cell phone calls and an unexplained ONE HOUR time period between the brutal assault and her feeling the scene.
She never, never, enver would have been put on the stand.
11:28 How - because they are dumb.
12:04 I sure hope you are right. Thanks Johnny for A rush to judgement." RIP
Perhaps if Emile Zola had the internet available, Alfred would not have spent five years on Devil's Island.
Yes, Debra, we should try and stick to facts to make our arguments. For instance, if you were to decide whether the ACLU has had any involvement with this case, whatsoever, you'd probably like to know that they sponsored a panel with KC Johnson as a key part of it. Y'all could've come on down if you'd like!
5:23 PM
Nice try moving the goalposts... what are you, George Bush playing war games in Iraq?
Thanks for highlighting the point... most of the ACLU 'position' is political or agenda driven. Shuck, jive, dance, but the 'facts is the facts'!
7:04 Debrah
How do you grant immunity from community reprisal?
Most Durhamites fear their own!
TO 8:14PM---
It's a tough call. One has to value truth more than ease of living and being liked.
:>)
Debrah
TO 8:11PM---
A panel sponsored by the ACLU would be a dubious venture, IMO.
In Durham? Ain't going to happen. Reason the hoax continued on and ond.
In Durham? Ain't going to happen. Reason the hoax continued on and on
Debrah at 8:23pm
Is that smiley symbol your demeanor after you've swallowed?
You go, girl!
Sister Morphine
"I think, if anything,[CGM's] life is ruined," said the empathetic juror. This was, I believe, the same one who isn't quite sure even now that she wasn't raped!
Well I think, if anything... if there was ANY way Nifong could have dragged this rotten case before a local jury, that those boys were in real trouble. I think Nifong knew that very well.
And I think it wouldn't have mattered one bit what impossibilities poor ruined-life CGM spouted from the stand, or how irrefutable the evidence was that was produced to prove those boys' innocence.
I think why it wouldn't have mattered is obvious.
And I think, too, that extremely serious charges against those boys have not yet been dismissed.
Petition to North Carolina Attorney General Cooper to end the hoax :
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/208340697
Petition to the Justice Dept. to investigate corruption in the Durham city administration :
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/465788496
Petition to Alberto Gonzales to investigate civil rights
violations and hate crimes in the Duke lacrosse case :
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/728631166
> Science is largely based on
> fact, but progress is made
> very often by artistic
> conjecture. However, and it
> is a big however, the
> conjecture must then stand
> up to experimental scrutiny.
This is wrong. You can work
on mathematics that is provable and completely useless in the current time that can then be very useful tens or hundreds of years later.
Proofs can be done via logic needing no experimental model to verify them.
Much of science is experimental. But there is a lot of science that is theoretical that may be useful now, in the future or never.
[I believe these also run on facts. You look at all the existing facts and evidence, if you want to do something new, you come up with a theory, you test the theory to see if it works. The factual results guide your research.]
Logic. Theoretical mathematics. There is a tremendous amount of theoretical mathematics in computer science and we can manipulate data structures and algorithms in our head to see if they are worthwhile. Many algorithms are provable without implementation.
Take a look at a book on compiler theory and I think that you'll be amazed at the amount of mathematics involved.
Or graph theory, some invented a long time ago before there was a use for it. Is an algorithm in graph theory provable by experimentation? Or do you need a mathematical approach? Since you can never reproduce an infinite number of nodes, you can never do a proof on certain algorithms by exhaustion. But there may be mathematical ways to do a proof on an algorithm.
re: 7:04
The original topic was whether or not a false conviction rate for death row targets can be extrapolated to other prison populations.
Someone said that there's no way that you can extrapolate death row targets to other populations. I suggested using creativity in the form of statistics to extrapolate. Is it exact? No. Would it be useful? Maybe. More information would be necessary.
I don't know what happened to the thread after M. Simon posted his 5% to 10% numbers based on data from Wikipedia.
What the hell is going on?
"A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment. The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas."
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54132
Isn't this funny. We have this one left-wing ACLU wacko repeating the same issue all over again. Since ACLU arranged one event at Duke they must be honest.
ACLU was involved from day 1, along with New Black Panthers, Al Sharpton and other hate groups. Yes, ACLU has taken few high-profile cases (Nazi march, Rush) trying to create of illusion of honesty, but ACLU was founded by marxists, and it is run by marxists. They love terrorists (Al-Qaida, Hamas, Arafat), blacks and gays. They hate republicans and christians in general.
Free speech according to ACLU means leaking secret wartime information to the enemy. Critising ACLU (especially if you a ACLU board members) is absolutely not allowed.
ACLU makes me sick. It is just a rich version of KKK.
anonymous 9:40pm
What the hell is going on?
Same old same old, only now it's not left up to the MSM to report
9:43, I hope someday your opinion of the ACLU will change (I won't stay up waiting), but you're entitled to your opinion and I won't take personal offense to it, just because I'm a member.
Some of what they do does make me uncomfortable, but when I think about it from a purely legal standpoint, sometimes even in those cases I think they're right. For instance, one of the cases that bothers me when I don't think about the legal issues is the whole NAMBLA thing. When you really look into it though, the prosecutions were for owning DRAWINGS of boys doing [whatever it is NAMBLA likes them to do] (paring the issue down from a long, complicated case). Similar issues would involve young LOOKING 18+ actors playing the role of a boy doing [whatever it is NAMBLA people like to do].
I wouldn't have wanted to, nor would I have, litigated that case (unless I was appointed by a Judge to do so, which happens, and someone has to do it). But in reality, legally, were they committing something that the government can punish as a Constitutional matter?
I don't think so, but I'm also glad that it wasn't my case! But technically, if they could regulate that type of thing, uber-conservatives (and supporter or not, lets not pretend Bush, the House and Senate before the rcent elections, Thomas, Scalia, Alito et al don't fit that bill) could basically ban whatever type of images and role-playing they want to.
This doesn't involve real boys/girls under the age of 18, it was fake. As long as you understand the actual framework of the case (and perhaps this wasn't the world's greatest synopsis), I have no problem with your criticism of the ACLU. It would be informed in that case, and there is nothing wrong with a contrary INFORMED opinion.
-Donny
Does anyone actually take the time to read the long posters? No
Also, 9:43, the issues on this thread (you can read, I know it), wasn't whether the ACLU has alterior motives or takes on Rush-type cases for political gain (to whatever extent the ACLU actually tries to win popularity contests by taking on cases like NAMBLA and rights of accused terrorists), it was WHETHER OR NOT THEY DID ANYTHING AT ALL, SAID ANYTHING, ETC.
They SPONSORED a panel, and KC was one of the key players. What else should they do? File a brief? I don't know the procedure down there... would that even be procedurally apprioriate at this time, before trial? Are you sure that they wouldn't be submitting something in the first place? Do you realize that it is more common for them to take action (i.e., file an amicus brief) at the appellate stage?
10:21: usually the people who are actually involved in the discussion (whether it be 2 or more) like to read the entire posts.
99.999999999% of inmates are guilty.
We have about 2.5 million in prison or jail.
99.999999999% of of 2.5 million = .000025 persons not guilty. Which says that we would hve to run 100 billion people through our prison system before finding even one not guilty person.
I don't believe even your "under 1%" number will support such a contention.
So either you have no facility with numbers or you are passing us gas.
BTW if you are able to get such levels of reliability in an unconstrained system the semiconductor industry has a place for you and the people who designed a justice system with such high levels of reliability.
The best the semiconductor guys can do these days is defects in the parts per million range in constrained and fairly well understood systems. To get even better levels of reliability in unconstrained and poorly understood systems is amazing.
9:40PM,
According to our "99.999999999%" guy they must be guilty.
At ease, men.
Let me get out of my chaps, and enter the wonderful rectum that is Durham-In-Wonderland.
What are we debating today, and does it have anything to do with sweet Precious Panties, the scholar from NCCU?
2.1 million prisoners in America are non Anglo-Saxon.
6:49 PM,
Actually they have been "brainwashed" by experience with the normal shoddy work of your average policeman.
They know cops lie. They know cops plant evidence (See LA Rampart scandal).
They know cops hire snitches and snitches will say anything.
Not to worry, we had a similar breakdown during alcohol prohibition. Since we know where that leads, what we have is what the American people want. A justice system so perfect that wrongful conviction is in the parts per trillion range. Plus the 13 death row anomalies in Illinois.
6:38 PM,
You are agruing that the higher the profile the case the more corrupt the police.
OK. If you read about a case in your local paper the police are probably trying to railroad them.
Sounds like a good rule to me.
If a guy gets caught with a dime bag - he did it. If he got caught with a ton - good chances of a frame up.
I don't think that that is exactly an endorsement of stellar police work.
6:48 Pm
"But there simply aren't any facts that come close to proving your contention that wrongful convictions are anything but an anomoly or that it is common or routine for innocent people to plead guilty in felony cases."
Strawman argument again. Nobody is saying that it is common or routine. Just that rough justice is a problem. It starts at the level of the local police, and works it's way through the court system. You don't want a part of it. Some police do lie on occasion. Some police routinely. Some prosecutors are occasionally unethical. Some are more frequently unethical. Some judges are unethical on occasion.
The result is that many factually innocent (not most) people experience rough justice (not routinely) in the form of accusation, investigation, indictment, trial, public humilation, and loss of income, home, savings, friends. We don't even have to count the falsely incarcerated.
It's like leprosy. It doesn't really happen, and even if it does, it certainly doesn't matter (to you). But dude, if it ever comes close to your life, it will disgust you.
But remember, the US Constitution tries really hard to protect people from false accusation and it's horrendous consequences because it is that important.
Aren't you the same two who don't believe there is evidence that global warming is caused by man?
Sounds like you believe what you want to believe and you cherry pick your facts to suit whatever it is you believe, whether that is that "many" people are in prison who are factually innocent, false rape complaints are "common" or the ACLU "hates" America.
As for rough justice? When most violent criminals are just that, violent criminals with long arrest and conviction records, records of commiting violent crimes and pleading down to lesser charges, WHO CARES???? I don't. I don't think rough justice can work for the crimnal underclass. But if it does, if it brings more pain to the families of those who bring pain to others, bring it on. I applaud it.
The Duke case is an abberition on just about every count and using this case,this complaining witness, this police force and this DA to indict the whole system is not logical.
[As for rough justice? When most violent criminals are just that, violent criminals with long arrest and conviction records, records of commiting violent crimes and pleading down to lesser charges, WHO CARES???? I don't. I don't think rough justice can work for the crimnal underclass. But if it does, if it brings more pain to the families of those who bring pain to others, bring it on. I applaud it.]
The impact is not only to the person but also their family and their extended family.
The example of rough justice given here by a lawyer a few days ago didn't sound like it was about a violent criminal. I suppose that you comfort yourself with rough justice only being dealt to violent criminals.
As has been said, it's only someone elses problem. Until it isn't.
9:12 AM
"The Duke case is an abberition on just about every count and using this case,this complaining witness, this police force and this DA to indict the whole system is not logical."
Again, strawman argument pertaining to "indict the whole system". Rough Justice includes people who are factually innocent. The US Constitution goes to great lengths in it's effort to prevent or limit abuse in all cases.
BTW, "many" and "common" are not words of fact, they are descriptive. It tends to be greater when it affects you, lesser when it doesn't.
The impact is not only to the person but also their family and their extended family.
----------------------------
Good. I am tired of seeing these wailing welfare mothers on TV claiming that their "baby" is innocent of all charges. Let her mortgage her house to try and keep her thug son out of jail.
The ONLY instances where I would agree that "rough justice" is an unfair use of the system would be drug relates crimes.
Rough justice is normally done by rounding up the usual suspects. The people no one cares about if a mistake is made per 9:12AM.
However, when it becomes a habit and the race and class boundaries are breeched there is hell to pay.
Here is what Graham Greene has to say about who can be given rough justice and torture in his novel of the cold war "OUR MAN IN HAVANA":
"The poor in my own country, in any Latin American country. The poor of Central Europe and the Orient. Of course in your welfare states you have no poor, so you are untorturable. In Cuba the police can deal as harshly as they like with emigres from Latin America and the Baltic States, but not with visitors from your country or Scandinavia. It is an instinctive matter on both sides. Catholics are more torturable than Protestants, just as they are more criminal.
The Biggest Cover Up Of All
He goes on in that section of the book to decry the crossing of boundaries.
=====================
The sad thing is that bad blacks in our society and bad Mexicans are torturable. They know it the police know it and the Angy Studies folk live for it.
[Good. I am tired of seeing these wailing welfare mothers on TV claiming that their "baby" is innocent of all charges. Let her mortgage her house to try and keep her thug son out of jail.]
These people make babies at a faster rate than the productive class or demographics can be a nightmare. I guess you want the whole country to look like South Central and Durham.
I don't get the desire to kill families via the criminal justice system to create a bigger and bigger underclass but I guess it provides jobs for those that feed off that system.
Rough justice is normally done by rounding up the usual suspects.
------------------------------
Good again.
How did you get to be one of the ususal suspects?
Answer: You already have a history of criminal activity and criminal associations.
[Good again.
How did you get to be one of the ususal suspects?
Answer: You already have a history of criminal activity and criminal associations.]
You seem to be fine with harrassing innocents. Most would find that disgusting with respect to criminal justice. Do you work in the business?
10:02AM,
Catching on?
Rough justice is not real justice. It is a short cut. Short cuts have consequences.
When rough justice is the norm the innocent get no break.
The purpose of justice is to prevent the rise of a vendetta culture. It is bad for business.
Rough justice erases the line between guilt and innocence. It is an unwise policy.
I would hardly call an individual with a criminal history and known criminal associations "innocent" and I think most Americans who DONT have family members in gangs would agree with me.
If you have a history of armed robbery or home invasion and are a known gang member living in neighborhood X, and an armed robbery or home invasion occurs I would EXPECT the police to first check in on the people in the community with a history of committing similar crimes. This isn't rough justice it's police investigation 101.
I also think most Americans would agree with me that the problem of criminal recidivism is MUCH more significant than the "problem" of innocent people being convicted of crimes they didnt' commit.
In fact, if you look at the actual histories of MANY, but not all of the recent exonerations you will find that some of these "innocent" guys were not very nice afterall. Of course The Innocence Project doens't want the public to know that most of these 'innocent' men had long criminal histories, but they happened not to have committed the particular crime they were jailed for, THIS TIME.
THe Duke students on the other had are truly INNOCENT in all senses. They had good records, not bad ones, they were on their way to being productive members of society, not thugs, and they are factually innocent of this crime.
> I would hardly call an individual
> with a criminal history and known
> criminal associations "innocent"
> and I think most Americans who
> DONT have family members in gangs
> would agree with me.
I saw a case where two people touched each other and charged each other with simple assault and it went through the system. This is basically touching someone with your finger. And they both plead to misdemeanors. So both have a criminal history. This happend outside a polling place as both were campaigning for their candidates.
As far as the term "innocent" goes, one can apply it to the person's history or to a particular incident. They may very well be innocent of a discrete crime. If you take the approach of rounding up the usual suspects, then of course it will be most likely that they are innocent.
> If you have a history of armed
> robbery or home invasion and are
> a known gang member living in
> neighborhood X, and an armed
> robbery or home invasion occurs I
> would EXPECT the police to first
> check in on the people in the
> community with a history of
> committing similar crimes. This
> isn't rough justice it's police
> investigation 101.
Nice strawman. There's a lot in
between violent crime and parking
tickets. And those trying to get
their lives back on track don't
need interruptions at their place
of work.
> I also think most Americans would
> agree with me that the problem of
> criminal recidivism is MUCH more
> significant than the "problem" of
> innocent people being convicted
> of crimes they didnt' commit.
They change their mind when it becomes personal. Or when they can
relate to someone that it happens to. As in the Duke case.
> In fact, if you look at the
> actual histories of MANY, but not
> all of the recent exonerations
> you will find that some of these
> "innocent" guys were not very
> nice afterall. Of course The
> Innocence Project doens't want
> the public to know that most of
> these 'innocent' men had long
> criminal histories, but they
> happened not to have committed
> the particular crime they were
> jailed for, THIS TIME.
And it's okay to execute them
because we think that they're bad
guys. Please provide a link to
documentation on the innoncence
project "bad guys" report.
> THe Duke students on the other
> had are truly INNOCENT in all
> senses. They had good records,
> not bad ones, they were on their
> way to being productive members
> of society, not thugs, and they
> are factually innocent of this
> crime.
If it can happen to rich innocents,
it can happen to poor innocents.
Question: do you think that Nifong has done this to poor innocents?
10:38AM,
I agree on all points but one.
The level of error I'm willing to tolerate.
I'm an aerospace kind of guy. We build the stuff so it is safer to fly than to drive. We have a system for getting this done and correcting errors in a very timely fashion. Why not a justice system held to a similar standard?
An error is an error even if it takes a bad guy out. The quality of justice counts just as much as the quality of our airplanes. Either can take your life.
And yeah. It is going to cost more money to do things right.
The money is there. All we have to do is give up on drug prohibition and give the problem to those best qualified to handle it. Doctors.
===
Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime,
It won't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime.
Nevertheless, we're for it.
Franklin P. Adams, 1931
=============
Isn't it time that our justice system met the quality level of our air travel system? In terms of getting you to your destination alive? I will say it would be nice if your luggage arrived with you a bit more often.
Consider that the baggage system that goes with air travel makes about the same level of error as our justice system - in the range of 1%, and we are deeeply unhappy with that level of performance.
We ought to apply the same standards to justice as we do to baggage delivery.
Question: do you think that Nifong has done this to poor innocents?
------------
I'm sure he has. But that has nothing to do with the wider criminal justice system. In fact, given that Mike Nifong is on his way to sanction or disbarment, it appears that the system works.
It also doesn't take a research survey to know that those with more resources are more likely to be acquitted WHETHER OR NOT they are guilty than those who are poor and can't afford top flight lawyers, investigators and PR people. But, that's life. Rich people also get better health care, live in safer neighborhoods and so on.
Crime is a problem, recidivism is a problem, the criminal underclass is a problem, lenient sentences for violent crimes are a problem.
The evidence leans heavily toward all of these problems being more predominant than the problem of false convictions of the factually innocent.
If anything the Duke case is more representative of racial politics than it is of the malfeasance of the criminal justice system.
[I'm sure he has. But that has nothing to do with the wider criminal justice system. In fact, given that Mike Nifong is on his way to sanction or disbarment, it appears that the system works.
It also doesn't take a research survey to know that those with more resources are more likely to be acquitted WHETHER OR NOT they are guilty than those who are poor and can't afford top flight lawyers, investigators and PR people. But, that's life. Rich people also get better health care, live in safer neighborhoods and so on.
Crime is a problem, recidivism is a problem, the criminal underclass is a problem, lenient sentences for violent crimes are a problem.
The evidence leans heavily toward all of these problems being more predominant than the problem of false convictions of the factually innocent.
If anything the Duke case is more representative of racial politics than it is of the malfeasance of the criminal justice system.]
The ease with which you dismiss the problems of false convictions is quite disturbing to me. I fall into the group with assets and resources but the fact that this stuff happens is enough to jolt a comfortable life.
The money is there. All we have to do is give up on drug prohibition and give the problem to those best qualified to handle it. Doctors.
----------------------
I am all for ending the 'war' on drugs.
I would also venture to guess, but I have no evidence to back it up, that it is in drug related crimes where police are most often tempted to falsify evidence. They've already got the seized guns and drugs, it is a lot easier to plant some drugs on a guy than creatively smear his DNA all over the crime scene.
What effect ending the war on drugs and decriminalizing drug possession and drug selling would have on the criminal underclass, I can't say.
I don't think drugs, drug taking or drug selling per se creates the violent criminal. Gangs would still exist if there was no drug money to fuel them. Whether or not they would exist at the same robust levels we have know, I don't know.
The ease with which you dismiss the problems of false convictions is quite disturbing to me.
------------------------------
It's all proportional. Speeding is a problem, too. It contributes to accidents and higher insurance costs. I don't consider it a problem of much magnitude.
Factually innocent people are ON OCCASION, convicted of crimes they did not commit. This is a terrible tragedy that shouldn't ever happen. But in the scheme of things, this problem is a rare one, and is simply not deserving of the same level of attention as containing the criminal underclass, jailing violent criminals for life or, for that matter, improving how the system treats legitimate rape victims.
You are free to devote your life and resources to the cause of those wrongly convicted of crimes when and if you find them. I prefer to devote my energy and my sympathy to the larger class of crime victims.
"You are free to devote your life and resources to the cause of those wrongly convicted of crimes when and if you find them. I prefer to devote my energy and my sympathy to the larger class of crime victims."
Excellent! Now, if the police, prosecutor, judge, or any of their agents or others working on their behalf engage in wrongful, neglegient and/or criminal behavior, please note that the "good guys" are now the bad guys and the "suspect" is actually a victim (and if you are OK with everyone else being hurt by the CJS, then please feel free to consider only those "suspects" who are factually innocent.)
11:20 AM
I don't think drugs, drug taking or drug selling per se creates the violent criminal. Gangs would still exist if there was no drug money to fuel them. Whether or not they would exist at the same robust levels we have know, I don't know.
If alcohol prohibition is any indication gang size ought to decline by a factor of 2X to 5X.
Prohibition is socialism all the way. A price support mechanism for criminals.
> It's all proportional.
> Speeding is a problem,
> too. It contributes to
> accidents and higher
> insurance costs. I don't
> consider it a problem of
> much magnitude.
Clearly society doesn't think that it's a problem as speed limits aren't enforced. They're enforced at some percentage higher.
Some people have the vehicles and skills to drive faster than others.
Distracted driving is fast becoming
a major problem where I am. We recently had a kid that caused serious injuries to other people when he dropped his cell phone and caused a head-on trying to pick it up off the floor. 17-year-old kid right now in a ton of trouble.
Kids grow up too fast today.
He would be in far worse shape if he was drinking even though the effect may be roughly the same.
Locally the police go after everything when an accident is involved.
> Factually innocent people are ON
> OCCASION, convicted of crimes
> they did not commit. This is a
> terrible tragedy that shouldn't
> ever happen.
Thanks. A good chunk of this conversation could have been avoided with that.
> But in the scheme of things, this
> problem is a rare one, and is
> simply not deserving of the same
> level of attention as containing
> the criminal underclass, jailing
> violent criminals for life or,
> for that matter, improving how
> the system treats legitimate rape
> victims.
I don't think that we have a strong lobby here rooting for violent criminals. Our state is one of the safest in the nation for that sort of thing. But I'd guess that it was due to the makeup of the population and the tax structure more than the level of crime enforcement.
I live in a state and a city that is highly 'diverse' with my city's mayoral candidates touting their plans to reduce gang violence in all speeches and commercials. I may be more attuned to the problems of the criminal underclass, bad public schools and gang violence since it's right around the proverbial corner. My city's government [Democratic] is also woefully incompetant and corrupt; the police force seems about average for corruption given the size and demographic make up. Residents who can afford to send their children to private school here do so or they move out of our urban diverse locale once their kids get to middle school.
"Junnier later told federal investigators that officers had lied to a magistrate judge about sending a confidential informant to Johnston's house to purchase drugs in order to get the warrant."
Instapundit
Why did this one get noticed? The woman fired on the home invaders, before the home invaders killed her.
As some one said up thread. Drug cases are the most prone to corruption.
re: 8:23
99.999998%
Michael,
Too funny. LOL
That is but the case wasn't. We drove down south a few years ago and stopped in downtown Atlanta to see the CNN building among other things.
I haven't been to Atlanta for quite some time before that.
I was pretty amazed at what I saw in the downtown area. Did I ever feel out of place. Someone wanted to hand me a flyer as we were walking down the street and I didn't want to accept it so he sent a few racist remarks my way.
That said, I get the feeling that law enforcement in drugs have to always be working on something; even if they make a mistake or have to lie to get past some rule there to protect constitutional rights.
I would think that there are enough bad guys out there so that they wouldn't have to make stuff up so that they could go after innocents. Maybe not on that day.
With the availability of electronic information today, they should have been able to do more research on the person before making such a tragic mistake.
Post a Comment