Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Man
Bullshit on you. My point was that in fact it is not only blacks that have been held in prison when DNA can prove their innocence.
|
Oh. Well then I apologize. Maybe I was misleading in my initial post when I used hyperbole to make a point. My bad. It seemed obvious that I wasn't implying that every single case overturned was one involving a black man. I thought you got that, which led me to believe that the real point behind your post was the one that wasn't blatantly obvious.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Man
My secondary point was that I hope the UW law school professors who got the law changed are happy with their work. If it helps to separate those points more by putting them each in their own paragraph I could do that too.
|
Maybe you can explain why they shouldn't be happy with their work? Are they supposed to take responsibility for a man who shouldn't have been sitting in prison in the first place committing a crime later on because it was similar to the one he was initially charged for?
I'm sure they have guilt pangs about that case, but they can hardly be blamed for it. And I definitely don't see why their work as a whole should be called into question (and that's exactly what you were doing). Should they throw up their hands and say, "Well, this doesn't work. Everyone is going to commit a heinous crime at some point in their lives, so it doesn't matter
when they do it. Let 'em all rot, guilty or not-yet-guilty."
So, maybe you can tell us if your points consisted of something deeper than (i) it isn't
always black people and (ii) I hope those meddlesome professors are happy with their work freeing innocent people.
Because if there isn't, it would seem like you were just upset because some prick raped and murdered your friend's friend. And, while that is certainly understandable, I still don't get what it has to do with turning over false convictions.
TM
