Missing the Paigow (et al.) [sniff]

[andViolins]

Originally posted by spookyfish
I actually would find such candor in Ohio kind of refreshing, since most of our politicians suck.

You say "Finger!" I'll say "Hut!"

Finger! Hut!

Finger! Hut!

Dear God, you're right.

aV

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I know it must happen, but has anyone seen one of these stories that didn't involve a black man?



http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/23/dn....ap/index.html

DNA frees man after 24 years in prison

TM

Late to the party, but this dude is white.

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...509#post229509

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by dtb
I didn't say I don't wear it, just that it's not my favorite. It is convenient, I'll say that!

For what? Easy access?

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Here are some questions that have appeared on recent I.Q. tests.

I have an IQ of 300, but it's been a while since I took an IQ test. Are these actual questions or even at all representative of them? I seem to recall a Cosby show focused on the cultural bias but the example there was something like "How many people can sleep in a house that has one double bed, two sets of bunk beds, and a cot." The answer was supposed to be 7, but Theo said something like 42 because people could sleep on the floors, in the bathtub, etc.

And I remember thinking, "I totally relate!" because my bitchy grandma told everyone how dumb I was (am) because in response to the question of "how many people can stay in your cabin at summer camp" with "it depends how many beds they put in the cabin."

[dtb]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
For what? Easy access?

uh...

yes

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
I have an IQ of 300, but it's been a while since I took an IQ test. Are these actual questions or even at all representative of them? I seem to recall a Cosby show focused on the cultural bias but the example there was something like "How many people can sleep in a house that has one double bed, two sets of bunk beds, and a cot." The answer was supposed to be 7, but Theo said something like 42 because people could sleep on the floors, in the bathtub, etc.

And I remember thinking, "I totally relate!" because my bitchy grandma told everyone how dumb I was (am) because in response to the question of "how many people can stay in your cabin at summer camp" with "it depends how many beds they put in the cabin."

You're like, totally in a class by yourself, in terms of geniusity.

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Is he being lame or am I just too demanding?

I would suggest carrying the remote yourself. Become distracted from time to time. He may wish to play then, but if not.....you still win.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by dtb
uh...

yes

That's the kind of attitude that killed Eazy.

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I think she should wear it and keep the controller with her and make it obvious (to him) when she's using it. That'll show him.

TM

Well, I see I should have read a few lines down before responding. I'm guilty of failure to STP. You don't even have to check my DNA. I'm white, by the way.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Translation: Flower has a DUI.

The dirty little secret of the criminal justice system is that while cross-racial eyewitness identifications are particularly unreliable (as the boom in DNA exonerations is now proving), all cases built around victim identifications are inherently troubling and always have been, even though intuitively we believe this is the best, most reliable form of testimony. Both the prosecution and the defense bar were complicit in telling juries that eyewitness testimony was better than "circumstantial evidence" whenever they had it on their side, and juries believed it.

I suppose if you were inclined you could say that a DA who prosecutes a D who was positively, honestly, and erroneously identified by the victim is "railroading" the D, or that the jury of twelve peers who believe the victim are suckers, but I don't see it that way. DAs don't get all insufferably smug about their jobs because they wantonly convict the innocent; on their worst day they're operating on a good faith mistaken belief the D is the perp because a cop or victim told them so. Like there was a better way to know in 1982?

It's fucked up that women who are raped by a person of another race are occasionally wrong about whodunnit. I'm sure they pretty much have the decency to feel like shit when it turns out the wrong guy did eight years; I assume they'd rather the real perp did that time instead, thank you very much. On the other hand, what the fuck was the DA supposed to do when there was an eyewitness ID in the days before DNA? Some cop or judge or DA is a racist because they obtained a conviction in 1982 based on a victim identification? It's not like they made that shit up on purpose.

I'm glad there are DNA exonerations, but they're hardly evidence of "railroading" or the inherent racism of the cops, DAs, judges or juries. (Besides, it's unnecessary: If you want evidence of the inherent racism of juries or cops, just talk to them for five minutes.) Meanwhile, the judges and DAs are pretty much doing what the situation calls for --- prosecuting the person IDed as the perp under the best available technology. That's not a broken system; that's a system that works. I'm personally pleased the technology's changing, but the same defense attorneys touting these DNA exonerations will go to court tomorrow to exclude inculpatory DNA evidence as categorically unreliable.

Hmmm. Apparently I must have said somewhere that my belief that there are flaws in the criminal justice system is solely and exclusively based on my personal view that a DA's good faith reliance on eyewitness identifications in criminal prosecutions amounts to the railroading of criminal defendants. Despite your acknowledgement that eyewitness idenitfication is inherently unreliable, you have persuasively stated a case that we should not abandon this form of evidence. In fact, I now feel a little silly for calling all prosecutors, judges, and juries evil racists simply because some of them rely in good faith on cross-racial eyewitness identification in prosecuting/convicting criminal defendants. In hindsight, I kind of wish I had brought up other issues such as failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, coerced confessions, coerced/unreliable confidential informant testimony, tainted evidence, soliciting perjured testimony from law enforcement officers, etc., in supporting an argument that some -- not all, not most, but some (and in my opinion, far too many) -- criminal defendants are "railroaded" by the system. Live and learn.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Translation: Flower has a DUI.

The dirty little secret of the criminal justice system is that while cross-racial eyewitness identifications are particularly unreliable (as the boom in DNA exonerations is now proving), all cases built around victim identifications are inherently troubling and always have been, even though intuitively we believe this is the best, most reliable form of testimony. Both the prosecution and the defense bar were complicit in telling juries that eyewitness testimony was better than "circumstantial evidence" whenever they had it on their side, and juries believed it.

I suppose if you were inclined you could say that a DA who prosecutes a D who was positively, honestly, and erroneously identified by the victim is "railroading" the D, or that the jury of twelve peers who believe the victim are suckers, but I don't see it that way. DAs don't get all insufferably smug about their jobs because they wantonly convict the innocent; on their worst day they're operating on a good faith mistaken belief the D is the perp because a cop or victim told them so. Like there was a better way to know in 1982?

It's fucked up that women who are raped by a person of another race are occasionally wrong about whodunnit. I'm sure they pretty much have the decency to feel like shit when it turns out the wrong guy did eight years; I assume they'd rather the real perp did that time instead, thank you very much. On the other hand, what the fuck was the DA supposed to do when there was an eyewitness ID in the days before DNA? Some cop or judge or DA is a racist because they obtained a conviction in 1982 based on a victim identification? It's not like they made that shit up on purpose.

I'm glad there are DNA exonerations, but they're hardly evidence of "railroading" or the inherent racism of the cops, DAs, judges or juries. (Besides, it's unnecessary: If you want evidence of the inherent racism of juries or cops, just talk to them for five minutes.) Meanwhile, the judges and DAs are pretty much doing what the situation calls for --- prosecuting the person IDed as the perp under the best available technology. That's not a broken system; that's a system that works. I'm personally pleased the technology's changing, but the same defense attorneys touting these DNA exonerations will go to court tomorrow to exclude inculpatory DNA evidence as categorically unreliable.

Well, there are some holes in your essay.

1. Whether or not someone was intentionally put behind bars who someone along the line knew or should have known was innocent, the fact is, innocent people get locked up and in some cases can be cleared by DNA evidence. I don't understand for one second why people are against using it to remove innocent people from jail or death row. It just makes no sense to me. If they're guilty, they're guilty. If they're not, why the fuck would you want them to rot?

2. Your statements about DAs sound so nice, but let's face it. The nature of the job is to get as many convictions as you can. If you're going to argue that DAs don't intentionally overlook evidence here and there that would result in them losing more often if brought to the attention of the court, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

3. This statement is troublesome because it sounds like someone plugging their ears to the underlying argument: "Some cop or judge or DA is a racist because they obtained a conviction in 1982 based on a victim identification?"

The fact is, it has been shown that cross-racial identification is unreliable (and in my opinion, it is even more unreliable when a white witness is asked to identify a black person). Add to that the willingness of cops to arrest any black man within arm's reach when a crime has been committed, the fact that whites, on the whole, have access to better counsel (which can result in all sorts of benefits from moving the trial so the criminal can receive a "fair" trial to double-testing the results of the police lab) and the fact that not only do judges tend to be white, but so do the juries.

What you want is a smoking gun. It's easy to say, "You can't stand there and tell me, 'That man is racist!' so, our system works.'" It's harder to take a deeper look at the problems our system has. And when I point out that it seems fucked up that black men overwhelming seem to be the ones who are rotting in jail for no reason, you tell me, "Well, that's a system that works." Pardon me if my response is: You can suck it.

Where's the incentive to change it? Answer?: There is none. As long as the system isn't as unfair to white people as it is to black people, I'll continue to hear reasoned responses that tend to ignore the underlying issues that seem so glaringly obvious to people like me.

Every time an injustice is done in the opposite direction, the world can't handle it. Hell, white people were crying in the streets over the injustice of the OJ trial. And whether or not OJ was innocent is not the point. I've never heard so much about injustice in my life, even though that shit has been going on for centuries in the opposite direction. I'll never forget all those white people with tears in their eyes when the verdict was read. And I'll never stop asking where those tears are for the black guy (in what seems like a long string of black guys, as I said in my first post) who just got out after serving 30 years for a crime it was just proven he did not commit.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Fugee
So when and why did Harry Belafonte get on the ultra-conservative shit list? With the resolutioners filling up the gym lately, I got stuck on the treadmill in front of the FoxNews TV a couple times and saw some talking heads ranting about him like he was Osama bin Fonte.

Harry went to Venezuala, met with Chavez, and called Bush the World’s biggest War Criminal at a rally.

Harry's pretty angry for a guy who appears to have played a couple of goofy tunes into a really easy life. I won't besmirch a man for speaking his mind, but I wonder why a cat like Harry isn't busy banging a harem and crooning out that banana tune in Vegas instead of bickering with Bill O'Reilly in the press.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Hmmm. Apparently I must have said somewhere that my belief that there are flaws in the criminal justice system is solely and exclusively based on my personal view that a DA's good faith reliance on eyewitness identifications in criminal prosecutions amounts to the railroading of criminal defendants. Despite your acknowledgement that eyewitness idenitfication is inherently unreliable, you have persuasively stated a case that we should not abandon this form of evidence. In fact, I now feel a little silly for calling all prosecutors, judges, and juries evil racists simply because some of them rely in good faith on cross-racial eyewitness identification in prosecuting/convicting criminal defendants. In hindsight, I kind of wish I had brought up other issues such as failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, coerced confessions, coerced/unreliable confidential informant testimony, tainted evidence, soliciting perjured testimony from law enforcement officers, etc., in supporting an argument that some -- not all, not most, but some (and in my opinion, far too many) -- criminal defendants are "railroaded" by the system. Live and learn.

a few weeks ago I might have complained that this sort post is far too heavy and likely to discourage potential newbers. Now we know there are no potential newbers, so I give you the green light.

[Sparklehorse]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Harry went to Venezuala, met with Chavez, and called Bush the World’s biggest War Criminal at a rally.

Harry's pretty angry for a guy who appears to have played a couple of goofy tunes into a really easy life. I won't besmirch a man for speaking his mind, but I wonder why a cat like Harry isn't busy banging a harem and crooning out that banana tune in Vegas instead of bickering with Bill O'Reilly in the press.

He's been politically active for years. As per Wikipedia, "Harry Belafonte was an early supporter of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and one of Martin Luther King's confidants."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
2. Your statements about DAs sound so nice, but let's face it. The nature of the job is to get as many convictions as you can. If you're going to argue that DAs don't intentionally overlook evidence here and there that would result in them losing more often if brought to the attention of the court, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

This is the flaw in the adversarial system on both the crim and civil side. When I defended criminal cases, the AUSAs were under intense pressure to win at all costs. I could understand perverting truth and making absurd claims look plausible for money on the civil side because, well, thats just money. Doesn’t make it right, but its hardly as loathesome as pushing a crim case you know is weak. I honestly don’t understand how some DAs and AUSAs do the immoral shit they do. The most often used rationalization I heard back then was “well, they’re guilty of something,” or “getting him off the street was unquestionably a benefit to society.” That’s true, I guess. But doesn’t that mean that some guilty party is left running around in society? How do you reconcile that morally?

The worst of the worst are the politically motivated prosecutors. People like the USA in Pittsburgh who agrees to test novel pornography and drug paraphenalia prosecutions to curry favor with Bush to get an appointment to some cushy DC gig or Court or Eliott Spitzer, who started off with a decent cause and then became an out of control megalomaniacal whore, force their minions to do all sorts of awful shit to make their offices look tough. Prosecutors should not be allowed to run for higher office right out of their prosecutorial gigs. They should have to take 3 years off in between, to make the whoring-up they do before a run at the governorship less attractive a vote-garnering investment. There’s an inherent conflict of interest there.

Fuck, Bill Clinton executed a man so mentally disabled he asked the guard to keep a piece of pie for him before he was taken to the death chamber. He said wanted to eat it when he got back. Bill did that because if he didn't, a pack of assholes who love to say "we need to get tougher on crime" wouldn't vote for him. We are pretty tough on crime. That stupid plank of the GOP and Dem party platform should have been retired around 1985.