Jim Crow era convictions need to expunged, and the victims need to be compensated

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Jim Crow legally lasted up until 1965 (and really lasted longer). There are black persons who are still in prison who were convicted of crimes under this racist system. These convictions cannot be trusted regardless of what the evidence looks like. These convicted individuals need to be re-tried. Any person that the state cannot re-convict should be compensated at a rate of $25 million a year for every year he (or she) has spent in prison plus a $100 million dollars for the conviction itself.

We should also look at convictions where the person has already been been released. A special system should be set up where if the state cannot establish the crime (or misdemeanor), the conviction will be expunged and the formally convicted person will be compensated at the same rate as above (with $50 million for a misdemeanor conviction and $100 million for a felony conviction).

Those individuals that are re-convicted get nothing for their prison or jail time, but they still get the $50 million or $100 million for the original conviction.

And these re-trials and reviews should really be necessitated for any conviction that happened before Batson v. Kentucky.

[Marley23]

I don't think I buy into your reasoning that every conviction should be tossed, although any questionable ones should be reviewed (if that hasn't happened already), and between the trial and settlement costs, your plan sounds absurdly unaffordable. Did you arrive at that figure by any particular reasoning, or does it just sound like a nice, round number? And do you have any idea how many people this would apply to?

[jonesj2205]

Why even bother including the part about re-trying people? What evidence or witnesses from 45+ years ago is going to be available today?
And under your figures you're talking about a minimum of $1.225B per person for someone still in prison. How is that number reasonable or even slightly practical?

[Smitty]

On March 6, 1961, Executive Order 10935 was signed, marking the beginning of Affirmative Action. Every white person in the country should get $100 million dollars, and $25 million per year for every year since.

What? Makes just as much sense as the OP!

[pravnik]

In terms of feasability, giving every black person with a pre-1965 conviction $50 million for a misdemeanor and $100 million for a felony plus $25 million a year for each year in prison is about as doable as giving them a unicorn that poops wishes. We don't even compensate exonerated death row inmates that much.

[Giles]

Yes, if you're going to do it, a better standard would be the wages that they might have expected to earn outside prison, so divide those figures by a thousand to give something more realistic (i.e, something like $25,000 per year).

[Pierrot Le Fou]

On March 6, 1961, Executive Order 10935 was signed, marking the beginning of Affirmative Action. Every white person in the country should get $100 million dollars, and $25 million per year for every year since.

What? Makes just as much sense as the OP!

Only a racist would compare denial of basic human rights with affirmative action.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Yes, if you're going to do it, a better standard would be the wages that they might have expected to earn outside prison, so divide those figures by a thousand to give something more realistic (i.e, something like $25,000 per year).

They are not just being compensated for lost wages. They are being compensated for being denied basic human rights.

[Marley23]

Only a racist would compare denial of basic human rights with affirmative action.
Knock it off. Insults aren't allowed in this forum and you do not get to degrade someone's character for disagreeing with your premise. Your thread topics have been too ridiculous to take seriously and if you're going to insult people on top of that, your threads will get locked in a hurry.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

In terms of feasability, giving every black person with a pre-1965 conviction $50 million for a misdemeanor and $100 million for a felony plus $25 million a year for each year in prison is about as doable as giving them a unicorn that poops wishes. We don't even compensate exonerated death row inmates that much.

If I had offered you a $100 million plus $25 million a year when you were 20 years old to spend the next 45+ years in prison, would you have taken the deal?

Now, that I think about it, the amount I gave is not enough. It should be a minimum of $50 billion for anyone that spent over 40 years in prison. Would you agree to spend the majority of your life in prison for $50 billion? Maybe it should even more.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Knock it off. Insults aren't allowed in this forum and you do not get to degrade someone's character for disagreeing with your premise. Your thread topics have been too ridiculous to take seriously and if you're going to insult people on top of that, your threads will get locked in a hurry.

If insults are not allowed, why are you insulting--and allowing others to insult--my arguments? Why are those insults okay?

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Your thread topics have been too ridiculous to take seriously and if you're going to insult people on top of that, your threads will get locked in a hurry.

Why is it ridiculous to think that people who were denied basic human should be fully compensated for the human rights denials? Are human rights ridiculous?

[Giles]

If insults are not allowed, why are you insulting--and allowing others to insult--my arguments? Why are those insults okay?
I'm not a mod, but even without the rules of the SDMB you should know to attack the argument, not the person. Say, "This argument is racist," but not "The person making this argument is racist."

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Who here has family members that were abused by the Jim Crow system?

For those that did not, how would you expect the government to compensate your son if they took away his freedom for the majority of his life without due process?

[runner pat]

If insults are not allowed, why are you insulting--and allowing others to insult--my arguments? Why are those insults okay?

They can call your arguments foolish, they cannot call you a fool.

[Marley23]

If insults are not allowed, why are you insulting--and allowing others to insult--my arguments? Why are those insults okay?
Insulting an argument is allowed. Insulting another poster is not.


Why is it ridiculous to think that people who were denied basic human should be fully compensated for the human rights denials? Are human rights ridiculous?
Compensation isn't ridiculous. The ideas you're proposing are kind of ridiculous and the numbers are totally absurd. So far I'm surprised you haven't suggested the imprisoned get eleventy gajillion dollars per year.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

The federal government should also seek ongoing conspiracy convictions against any state official that played any role in any state or local government that operated under Jim Crow.

Only when the victims and been compensated and the perpetrators are in prison, can we move forward as a nation.

There are surviving police officers who turned fire hoses and dogs on men, women, and children. These surviving police officers have never spent any time in prison. They should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

[Shodan]

The federal government should also seek ongoing conspiracy convictions against any state official that played any role in any state or local government that operated under Jim Crow.
Including the black ones?

Regards,
Shodan

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Compensation isn't ridiculous. The ideas you're proposing are kind of ridiculous and the numbers are totally absurd. So far I'm surprised you haven't suggested the imprisoned get eleventy gajillion dollars per year.

Give me your honest answer: at 20 years old, how much money would you have required to agree to spend 45+ years in prison without due process? Would you have agreed to do it for $50 billion? The fact is no amount is really enough. We should error on the side of a really high number.

[Asympotically fat]

This idea is absurd, what honestly did you expect, everyone to say "Hey that's a great idea, wish I'd thought of that!".

Clearly it is not wrong to revisit past convictions that may've been unjust, but expunging all convictions, even those which are not questionable is silly and the compensation scheme proposed is absurdly unrealistic.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Including the black ones?

Regards,
Shodan

Not, if they were victims of the system. If they actively and deliberating sought to deny others' human rights, they should be imprisoned. But we have to take into consideration that they were also denied basic human rights. They did not have the opportunities of the white perpetrators.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Clearly it is not wrong to revisit past convictions that may've been unjust, but expunging all convictions, even those which are not questionable is silly and the compensation scheme proposed is absurdly unrealistic.

They are all questionable. Black defendants were not given fair trials. I have not called for expunging all convictions. I have called for all convictions to be re-tried.

[Marley23]

Give me your honest answer: at 20 years old, how much money would you have required to agree to spend 45+ years in prison without due process? Would you have agreed to do it for $50 billion? The fact is no amount is really enough. We should error on the side of a really high number.
I would not have done it for any dollar amount. And I still wouldn't. No amount is enough, so throwing insane amounts of money around does not help. Say you find three of these people in Mississippi. The state is now bankrupt and has to slash all kinds of essential services to start paying down this crippling deficit. You've just damaged the quality of life of millions or people to compensate three people. How is that justice, and on what planet is it a good idea?

[Mr. Miskatonic]

They are all questionable. Black defendants were not given fair trials. I have not called for expunging all convictions. I have called for all convictions to be re-tried.

Not feasible. And frankly if racism were the root cause of the conviction there would have been indications or appeals already. I should qualify that with the point that the racism in question should have been tangible and a factor.

You seem to be under the impression that every black person on trial was another Scottsborough boys case. This is simply not true.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Not feasible. And frankly if racism were the root cause of the conviction there would have been indications or appeals already. I should qualify that with the point that the racism in question should have been tangible and a factor.

You seem to be under the impression that every black person on trial was another Scottsborough boys case. This is simply not true.

Black defendants were all denied juries of their peers. Black defendants were all tried under a system that denied their basic human rights.

[John Mace]

Jim Crow legally lasted up until 1965 (and really lasted longer). There are black persons who are still in prison who were convicted of crimes under this racist system.

Re-trying a crime from ~50 years ago is generally not possible. Awarding an arbitrary amount of money, in the 10s of billions of dollars is absurd. What is the precedent?

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Black defendants were all denied juries of their peers. Black defendants were all tried under a system that denied their basic human rights.

All of them? You really have a very simplistic view of the world, don't you?

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Not feasible. And frankly if racism were the root cause of the conviction there would have been indications or appeals already.

Many of their appeals were up long before the end of Jim Crow. The Supreme Court never required that all the convicted be re-tried with juries of their peers (others that had been denied basic human rights under the law). The Supreme Court did not required retroactive application of its decisions, nor did civil rights laws apply retroactively. All of the convicted should at least have new trials where other people in their situation are allowed on the jury. Other people who have been denied basic human rights can understand how the state abuses people in their situation. That is one the reasons a jury of one's peers is so important.

All blacks tried under Jim Crow were denied this basic human right.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Many of their appeals were up long before the end of Jim Crow. The Supreme Court never required that all the convicted be re-tried with juries of their peers (others that had been denied basic human rights under the law).


Even the Scottsborough boys got a trial, albeit a sham one. Your claim that blacks did not get trials is ludicrous.


The Supreme Court did not required retroactive application of its decisions, nor did civil rights laws apply retroactively. All of the convicted should at least have new trials where other people in their situation are allowed on the jury. Other people who have been denied basic human rights can understand how the state abuses people in their situation. That is one the reasons a jury of one's peers is so important.

All blacks tried under Jim Crow were denied this basic human right.

Nonsense and unworkable even if true.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

All of them? You really have a very simplistic view of the world, don't you?

Blacks were not allowed on juries. Because of the Jim Crow laws, whites were not blacks legal peers, because whites and blacks were different classes with different rights under the law.

Blacks were denied the ability to vote and have a voice in the law. Blacks were denied the ability to serve as elected official and have a voice in the law.

Yes, all blacks were denied basic rights.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Even the Scottsborough boys got a trial, albeit a sham one. Your claim that blacks did not get trials is ludicrous.


I have never claimed blacks did not trials. They got trials. But they did not get trials with juries of their legal peers.

[jonesj2205]

Including the black ones?

Regards,
Shodan

To be consistent they should be imprisoned and given $100 million plus $25 million a year for being imprisoned.

[Marley23]

You've got a fair argument about the jury of their peers thing, actually. But the expense of just retrying all those cases would be enormous, nevermind the absurd amounts of money you made up. Amounts that would dwarf the BP settlement or any comparable case. And I have no idea how you think anybody could get a reasonable retrial at this point. You're also redefining when Jim Crow ended, which makes it difficult to even figure out who did get a fair trial.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Re-trying a crime from ~50 years ago is generally not possible. Awarding an arbitrary amount of money, in the 10s of billions of dollars is absurd. What is the precedent?

There is no precedent, but it time we do what is right.

Do think the convictions under Jim Crow can be trusted? Did the black defendants get juries of their peers?

[Mr. Miskatonic]

I have never claimed blacks did not trials. They got trials. But they did not get trials with juries of their legal peers.

How do you define legal peers?

[Shodan]

You do realize that your scheme would very likely violate the clauses of the US Constitution prohibiting ex post facto laws (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto), do you not?

I would also like you to consider Mr. Miskatonic's very cogent point, that cases of true racism leading to conviction were a small minority of the total. Then as now, most crime was inter-racial, and most of the crimes committed by blacks were against other blacks. You will then need to explain to a large number of black families that the person who robbed/raped/assaulted/murdered/etc. them or some member of their families that the perps were going to receive tens of millions of dollars for doing so - and that the money was going to come out of their taxes.

Regards,
Shodan

[Pierrot Le Fou]

You've got a fair argument about the jury of their peers thing, actually. But the expense of just retrying all those cases would be enormous, nevermind the absurd amounts of money you made up. Amounts that would dwarf the BP settlement or any comparable case. And I have no idea how you think anybody could get a reasonable retrial at this point.

What's worse: the denial of basic human rights or spilling a lot of oil?

Do you think the convictions of people that were denied fair trials should stand because their were a lot of such trials, making it expensive to fix the problem?

If a retrial is not feasible, the conviction should be dropped.

What amount do you think the compensation should be?

[John Mace]

There is no precedent, but it time we do what is right.
Walk us through the logic of how you determined the amount of payment for a wrongful conviction. Seriously, you do realize that courts don't just make up dollar amounts, right?

Do think the convictions under Jim Crow can be trusted? Did the black defendants get juries of their peers?

Probably not and probably not. But I also think that retrying a case from 50 years ago is generally not going to be possible.

Exactly how many people are we talking about?

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Walk us through the logic of how you determined the amount of payment for a wrongful conviction. Seriously, you do realize that courts don't just make up dollar amounts, right?

I made up numbers I thought were fair. There is no formula. What do you think is a fair number?

Probably not and probably not. But I also think that retrying a case from 50 years ago is generally not going to be possible.

Exactly how many people are we talking about?

I do not know the numbers. I don't think it matters whether it is one or a million. Fairness is fairness.

What do you think should be done with the convictions that you admit probably cannot be trusted and probably did not comply with due process? Should we ignore the problem because re-trials would be difficult? Should we tell the victims that we are sorry that they were denied fair trials but it too late to do anything now?

[Voyager]

You do realize that your scheme would very likely violate the clauses of the US Constitution prohibiting ex post facto laws (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto), do you not?

I would also like you to consider Mr. Miskatonic's very cogent point, that cases of true racism leading to conviction were a small minority of the total. Then as now, most crime was inter-racial, and most of the crimes committed by blacks were against other blacks. You will then need to explain to a large number of black families that the person who robbed/raped/assaulted/murdered/etc. them or some member of their families that the perps were going to receive tens of millions of dollars for doing so - and that the money was going to come out of their taxes.

Regards,
Shodan
Even those accused of black-on-black crimes might have suffered, if an all-white and bigoted jury just assumed that all blacks are inherently criminal. But I'm not endorsing the OP in any way. We have no idea of the number of convicted people who were actually innocent and who were convicted because of racism. It is clearly > 0 and much less than 100%.

I could see a re-examination of those still in prison - but they'd have to have been in for 45 years, which implies a murder conviction. That might be feasible.

BTW, please do tell us all the black people in positions of power in 1963 Alabama. A few mayors, at best, I'd guess.

[Marley23]

What's worse: the denial of basic human rights or spilling a lot of oil?
I don't know how you would even start to compare the two things. It's not a contest in any case.

Do you think the convictions of people that were denied fair trials should stand because their were a lot of such trials, making it expensive to fix the problem?
I think there is already an appeals process to deal with these kinds of situations. Some might still exist, but I think most were dealt with decades ago. You haven't convinced me that the problem still exists, much less that each state needs to spend somewhere between millions and hundreds of billions of dollars to fix it.

If a retrial is not feasible, the conviction should be dropped.
That's not enough reason to void a conviction. Particularly since most people who get jail sentences of this length get them for murder and other violent felonies.

What amount do you think the compensation should be?
I'll say several million dollars each for people whose convictions are overturned. As far as I can tell, that's how it's done now.

[Lemur866]

Seriously you guys? Why are you bothering responding to this?

[Shodan]

BTW, please do tell us all the black people in positions of power in 1963 Alabama. A few mayors, at best, I'd guess.I wasn't confining myself to Alabama, nor did the OP, so the number is actually several hundred. Cite. (http://www.google.com/#q=black+elected+officials+history&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=ivns&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=GNUcTevyHJGosAOu6JXSAg&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&sqi=2&ved=0CF0Q5wIwCg&fp=bdddfab3d4d782f2) I am sure most of them are dead by now, but then again so are black convicts from the same period. Which is another factor making the idea of a do-over so ridiculous.

Regards,
Shodan

[Pierrot Le Fou]

You do realize that your scheme would very likely violate the clauses of the US Constitution prohibiting ex post facto laws (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto), do you not?

Requiring re-trials would not be an ex post facto violation nor would compensating the victims.

Seeking convictions of the state perpetrators would not be a violation if we can find laws that were on the books were the statute of limitations has not run.

I would also like you to consider Mr. Miskatonic's very cogent point, that cases of true racism leading to conviction were a small minority of the total. Then as now, most crime was inter-racial, and most of the crimes committed by blacks were against other blacks. You will then need to explain to a large number of black families that the person who robbed/raped/assaulted/murdered/etc. them or some member of their families that the perps were going to receive tens of millions of dollars for doing so - and that the money was going to come out of their taxes.

Regards,
Shodan

Blacks were not allowed on juries. Because of the Jim Crow laws, whites were not blacks legal peers, because whites and blacks were different classes with different rights under the law. Blacks were denied the ability to vote and have a voice in the law. Blacks were denied the ability to serve as elected official and have a voice in the law.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

] I am sure most of them are dead by now, but then again so are black convicts from the same period. Which is another factor making the idea of a do-over so ridiculous.

Regards,
Shodan

You don't think there are people who convicted of crimes in the late 50s and early 60s that are still in jail?

[Snarky_Kong]

My grandfather was killed by nazis. Germany owes me infinity dollars because I'd not accept any amount to kill a family member.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Even those accused of black-on-black crimes might have suffered, if an all-white and bigoted jury just assumed that all blacks are inherently criminal. But I'm not endorsing the OP in any way. We have no idea of the number of convicted people who were actually innocent and who were convicted because of racism. It is clearly > 0 and much less than 100%.


In response to that, consider the first fate of 'Mr. Freeman' who molested a very young Maya Angelou during that era and was found guilty but sentenced to just one day.*


* And was kicked to death, presumably by Maya's uncles, the day after he got out.

[Voyager]

I wasn't confining myself to Alabama, nor did the OP, so the number is actually several hundred. Cite. (http://www.google.com/#q=black+elected+officials+history&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=ivns&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=GNUcTevyHJGosAOu6JXSAg&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&sqi=2&ved=0CF0Q5wIwCg&fp=bdddfab3d4d782f2) I am sure most of them are dead by now, but then again so are black convicts from the same period. Which is another factor making the idea of a do-over so ridiculous.

Regards,
Shodan

Just an example, of course, and we're only talking the South here, since there weren't Jim Crow laws in the North (though I'm sure there were biased juries.) I can think of 3 or 4 black elected officials in 1963 New York off the top of my head - out of the 300 nationwide in 1965, I don't think your cite indicates that a lot were in the South. And we are talking then, not now.

[pravnik]

If I had offered you a $100 million plus $25 million a year when you were 20 years old to spend the next 45+ years in prison, would you have taken the deal?

Now, that I think about it, the amount I gave is not enough. It should be a minimum of $50 billion for anyone that spent over 40 years in prison. Would you agree to spend the majority of your life in prison for $50 billion? Maybe it should even more.That completely misses the point. I didn't say whether your numbers were fair, I said they weren't feasable, as in simply not possible. You'd bankrupt every government in the union, and still wouldn't have your program paid for. You might as well propose we give everybody Green Lantern rings.

[Voyager]

In response to that, consider the first fate of 'Mr. Freeman' who molested a very young Maya Angelou during that era and was found guilty but sentenced to just one day.*


* And was kicked to death, presumably by Maya's uncles, the day after he got out.

If you are going to add sexism to the mix, it will get way complicated.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

That's not enough reason to void a conviction. Particularly since most people who get jail sentences of this length get them for murder and other violent felonies.


The Supreme Court never made the requirements for allowing black jurors retroactive, so even if they appealed, they would not have gotten a new trial on that ground. And it is a very important ground. These defendants were not given juries of their peers--whites and blacks were not legal peers under Jim Crow.

The fact that they were convicted of a serious crime is more reason to require a new trial. These were defendants tried for very serious crimes without a jury of their peers.

Leaving aside the amount of compensation, I think from your earlier statement you believe that black defendants were denied juries of their legal peers. Do you agree with that statement? Do you agree that all defendants have a right to a trial by a jury of their legal peers? Do you agree that a having a right to a jury of one's peers is necessary for a fair trial? Do you think that even if it is difficult, we should give black defendants that were convicted under Jim Crow the fair trial (with a jury of their peers) that they were denied when they were convicted? Should every defendant get a fair trial?

[El_Kabong]

What's worse: the denial of basic human rights or spilling a lot of oil?

Spilling a lot of oil, of course.

Do you think the convictions of people that were denied fair trials should stand because their were a lot of such trials, making it expensive to fix the problem?

Yes.

What amount do you think the compensation should be?

They shouldn't get anything. In fact, I think they and/or their heirs should be made to pay back all the money that taxpayers spent maintaining their lives in prison.

Note: I don't actually believe any of the things I just said, but it's clear the OP badly needs a feeling of moral superiority, so I thought I'd just help out a bit. Cheers.

[Marley23]

The Supreme Court never made the requirements for allowing black jurors retroactive, so even if they appealed, they would not have gotten a new trial on that ground.
So there's no legal basis for what you're suggesting, right? That's on top of it being (I'm not sure what order to put this in) impossible, impracticable, and impractical.

Leaving aside the amount of compensation, I think from your earlier statement you believe that black defendants were denied juries of their legal peers. Do you agree with that statement? Do you agree that all defendants have a right to a trial by a jury of their legal peers?
Yes, and yes. I also think if you try to right every historical wrong (especially with money), you'll never stop. There's no way this works, and it just doesn't make sense.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Yes, and yes. I also think if you try to right every historical wrong (especially with money), you'll never stop. There's no way this works, and it just doesn't make sense.

So let's say we don't compensate them with one penny. What about the convictions? Do we just let them stand? Even for the people still in prison? You have admitted they did not get fair trials.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

So let's say we don't compensate them with one penny. What about the convictions? Do we just let them stand? Even for the people still in prison? You have admitted they did not get fair trials.

So can you give me examples of blacks who were innocent of the crime they were accused of, were railroaded by a racist jury, had all their appeals denied during the racist Jim Crow period and are still alive?

[Shodan]

Seeking convictions of the state perpetrators would not be a violation if we can find laws that were on the books were the statute of limitations has not run. I was talking about this foolishness - The federal government should also seek ongoing conspiracy convictions against any state official that played any role in any state or local government that operated under Jim Crow. On what law will you rely to indict and prosecute state officials for serving in government prior to 1965? I thought you were suggesting charging them with human rights violations merely for serving in government. I don't think there is currently any law saying that it is a human rights violation to work for the government prior to 1965, and passing one to make it illegal retroactively runs into the ex post facto provisions previously mentioned. You don't think there are people who convicted of crimes in the late 50s and early 60s that are still in jail? I think they are pretty rare, yes. I thought you were talking about re-trying all felony and misdemeanor convictions. Has that changed? How about the part where we pay them millions even if they turn out to be guilty?

Regards,
Shodan

[Pierrot Le Fou]

I was talking about this foolishness - On what law will you rely to indict and prosecute state officials for serving in government prior to 1965? I thought you were suggesting charging them with human rights violations merely for serving in government. I don't think there is currently any law saying that it is a human rights violation to work for the government prior to 1965, and passing one to make it illegal retroactively runs into the ex post facto provisions previously mentioned.

I think laws like kidnapping, battery, assault, murder would cover the things that were done. Since these activities were well known, anyone who joined the government knew they were joining a criminal organization and conspired to commit these crimes even if they were not personally aware of every crime.

I think they are pretty rare, yes. I thought you were talking about re-trying all felony and misdemeanor convictions. Has that changed? How about the part where we pay them millions even if they turn out to be guilty?

Regards,
Shodan

Eventually, we need to get to them all, but we should start with the people in prison right now.

[Martin Hyde]

Just an example, of course, and we're only talking the South here, since there weren't Jim Crow laws in the North (though I'm sure there were biased juries.) I can think of 3 or 4 black elected officials in 1963 New York off the top of my head - out of the 300 nationwide in 1965, I don't think your cite indicates that a lot were in the South. And we are talking then, not now.

There were some Jim Crow laws in the North, just thought I'd correct that assuming you weren't being facetious.

[HRoark43]

I would not have done it for any dollar amount. And I still wouldn't. No amount is enough, so throwing insane amounts of money around does not help. Say you find three of these people in Mississippi. The state is now bankrupt and has to slash all kinds of essential services to start paying down this crippling deficit. You've just damaged the quality of life of millions or people to compensate three people. How is that justice, and on what planet is it a good idea?
Let me see if I get this correctly. If three black people are serving prison terms for crimes they did not commit, they should not be compensated because it would bankrupt the state? That's like saying "I falsely imprisoned you and robbed you of xx years of wages and productivity but to punish me would ruin me and my family". That is not logical and for a person it would not hold up as a defense against liability in a court of law. That is, IF this is what you're saying.

I do not like the idea of mass reparations for blacks but for those who are alive and who have been wronged, rule of law does say you compensate those that have been wronged.

As a Libertarian I must also point out that the State subjected these black people to exactly the kind of oppression that you can come to expect from having too much Government around. They had no Constitutional right to decline due process for these individuals. Going bankrupt is a heavy price to pay but if that is what must occur then it is a logical and necessary consequence. Such actions must be punished.

[Voyager]

There were some Jim Crow laws in the North, just thought I'd correct that assuming you weren't being facetious.

Not in 1963 in New York, not that I could remember. If you consider Maryland the North, then maybe (I'd have to look it up.)

I doubt earlier either. When my mother went to Georgia in 1944 to be near my father in an army camp, she outraged the locals by drinking from the colored fountains, since she thought the distinction was stupid.
Note I'm not saying we were free from discrimination - just that it wasn't legally established in the early 1960s.

[Martin Hyde]

Let me see if I get this correctly. If three black people are serving prison terms for crimes they did not commit, they should not be compensated because it would bankrupt the state? That's like saying "I falsely imprisoned you and robbed you of xx years of wages and productivity but to punish me would ruin me and my family". That is not logical and for a person it would not hold up as a defense against liability in a court of law. That is, IF this is what you're saying.

I do not like the idea of mass reparations for blacks but for those who are alive and who have been wronged, rule of law does say you compensate those that have been wronged.

As a Libertarian I must also point out that the State subjected these black people to exactly the kind of oppression that you can come to expect from having too much Government around. They had no Constitutional right to decline due process for these individuals. Going bankrupt is a heavy price to pay but if that is what must occur then it is a logical and necessary consequence. Such actions must be punished.

Rule of law says that compensation be based on damages done. Believe it or not there are legal precedents for how much damages (in terms of dollars) the court systems feels you suffered from things like wrongful convictions, losing a child, spouse or et cetera. Just because the "man on the street" would say "I wouldn't trade my child's life for anything in the world" doesn't mean the courts look at it and say "well, since people would never willingly trade their liberty for 40 years, or the life of a family member, when someone loses their liberty or a family member through the negligence of the state or some other party we'll just award them damages of TEN ZILLION DOLLARS."

Unlike the OP, courts have to do things based on reality. Which means a long prison term usually nets you several hundred thousand to a few million dollars, a wrongful death will generally net you a few million.

Some States have headed this off at the pass by establishing statutory provisions for compensating persons who have been wrongfully convicted. Those, as were mentioned upthread, tend to award things in the range of $25,000-30,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment. States which do not have such statutes tend to be at the mercy of the legal system as to how much they have to pay if they lose a wrongful death suit (of course, sometimes the award in such cases might be smaller than what is specified in some state's statutes.)

I see no reason that we should throw out logic and legal precedent and start talking about awarding people billions of dollars.

[foolsguinea]

On March 6, 1961, Executive Order 10935 was signed, marking the beginning of Affirmative Action. Every white person in the country should get $100 million dollars, and $25 million per year for every year since.

What? Makes just as much sense as the OP!No. It does not.

[Martin Hyde]

Not in 1963 in New York, not that I could remember. If you consider Maryland the North, then maybe (I'd have to look it up.)

I doubt earlier either. When my mother went to Georgia in 1944 to be near my father in an army camp, she outraged the locals by drinking from the colored fountains, since she thought the distinction was stupid.
Note I'm not saying we were free from discrimination - just that it wasn't legally established in the early 1960s.

Then you should have said "in New York" instead of "in the North."

New York certainly had laws we'd consider to be "Jim Crow" laws during its history, though. I'm not sure how far back you intended with your "earlier" but since it apparently is in your nature to only define such vague things when someone makes an assertion that is contradictory to them I'll assume you meant "back until New York did have such laws."

[foolsguinea]

White persons have not suffered anywhere near $100 000 000 in damages from Affirmative Action. In most cases, the statistical likelihood of losing a job to AA is less than 15%, & in many many cases it is exactly 0 for all intents & purposes.

Retrying a case, OTOH, doesn't even compensate a man for his time in prison. Nothing can bring those years back.

[Martin Hyde]

White persons have not suffered anywhere near $100 000 000 in damages from Affirmative Action. In most cases, the statistical likelihood of losing a job to AA is less than 15%, & in many many cases it is exactly 0 for all intents & purposes.

Retrying a case, OTOH, doesn't even compensate a man for his time in prison. Nothing can bring those years back.

Still doesn't mean you get a billion dollars for them.

[HRoark43]

Rule of law says that compensation be based on damages done. Believe it or not there are legal precedents for how much damages (in terms of dollars) the court systems feels you suffered from things like wrongful convictions, losing a child, spouse or et cetera. Just because the "man on the street" would say "I wouldn't trade my child's life for anything in the world" doesn't mean the courts look at it and say "well, since people would never willingly trade their liberty for 40 years, or the life of a family member, when someone loses their liberty or a family member through the negligence of the state or some other party we'll just award them damages of TEN ZILLION DOLLARS."

Unlike the OP, courts have to do things based on reality. Which means a long prison term usually nets you several hundred thousand to a few million dollars, a wrongful death will generally net you a few million.

Some States have headed this off at the pass by establishing statutory provisions for compensating persons who have been wrongfully convicted. Those, as were mentioned upthread, tend to award things in the range of $25,000-30,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment. States which do not have such statutes tend to be at the mercy of the legal system as to how much they have to pay if they lose a wrongful death suit (of course, sometimes the award in such cases might be smaller than what is specified in some state's statutes.)

I see no reason that we should throw out logic and legal precedent and start talking about awarding people billions of dollars.
The argument for increasing the payments far beyond the statutory provisions is solid if you base it on gross negligence or outright malice, the latter of which would be easy to prove in a large number of Jim Crow-era imprisonments. This is a logical case for punitive damages.

Of course I'm talking about a civil award of millions, not billions of dollars.

[Little Nemo]

Does the OP really think that there is anyone who has spent the last fifty years in prison because he drank out of the wrong water fountain or sat in the wrong seat on the bus?

[Martin Hyde]

The argument for increasing the payments far beyond the statutory provisions is solid if you base it on gross negligence or outright malice, the latter of which would be easy to prove in a large number of Jim Crow-era imprisonments. This is a logical case for punitive damages.

Of course I'm talking about a civil award of millions, not billions of dollars.

Yeah, and there is precedent for cases like that, too. I think in the back of my mind I'm aware of a case where a prosecutor or police officer blatantly caused a gross miscarriage of justice and the improperly convicted person got like $5-6 million. No precedent or logic exists for numbers like $25million or $100million or $1billion or $50 billion.

Let's also keep this in mind, the court system isn't ever going to do something that would bankrupt the government of the state beyond any hope of recovery. If they tried to do so the legislature would find a way around it, ditto for any Federal cases.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Does the OP really think that there is anyone who has spent the last fifty years in prison because he drank out of the wrong water fountain or sat in the wrong seat on the bus?

No, but they denied juries of their peers.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

No, but they denied juries of their peers.

were denied

[pravnik]

Rule of law says that compensation be based on damages done. Believe it or not there are legal precedents for how much damages (in terms of dollars) the court systems feels you suffered from things like wrongful convictions, losing a child, spouse or et cetera. Just because the "man on the street" would say "I wouldn't trade my child's life for anything in the world" doesn't mean the courts look at it and say "well, since people would never willingly trade their liberty for 40 years, or the life of a family member, when someone loses their liberty or a family member through the negligence of the state or some other party we'll just award them damages of TEN ZILLION DOLLARS."

Unlike the OP, courts have to do things based on reality. Which means a long prison term usually nets you several hundred thousand to a few million dollars, a wrongful death will generally net you a few million.

Some States have headed this off at the pass by establishing statutory provisions for compensating persons who have been wrongfully convicted. Those, as were mentioned upthread, tend to award things in the range of $25,000-30,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment. States which do not have such statutes tend to be at the mercy of the legal system as to how much they have to pay if they lose a wrongful death suit (of course, sometimes the award in such cases might be smaller than what is specified in some state's statutes.)

I see no reason that we should throw out logic and legal precedent and start talking about awarding people billions of dollars.Exactly. A man recently released from Death Row in Texas after 18 years is suing for $1.4 million, which is the statutory amount he's entitled to, $80,000 per year plus free college tuition. The OP isn't talking about a settlement of a million or a few million dollars for a relatively small number of people, he's talking about billions of dollars for huge numbers of people. It's not even a matter of "the state can't afford to spend that money in that matter" - the state doesn't have that kind of money to begin with.

[sweeteviljesus]

What about the juries who voted to convict or the judges who presided over the trials or the prosecutors? Should they stand trial?

BTW, out of curiosity, what state does the OP live in?

Thanks,
Rob

[Little Nemo]

No, but they (were) denied juries of their peers.Do you know what Jim Crow laws were? They had nothing to do with juries and the denial of voting rights. Jim Crow was about segregation - they were the laws that said black people couldn't share facilities like schools, drinking fountains, restaurants, and public transportation with white people.

[HRoark43]

Yeah, and there is precedent for cases like that, too. I think in the back of my mind I'm aware of a case where a prosecutor or police officer blatantly caused a gross miscarriage of justice and the improperly convicted person got like $5-6 million. No precedent or logic exists for numbers like $25million or $100million or $1billion or $50 billion.

Let's also keep this in mind, the court system isn't ever going to do something that would bankrupt the government of the state beyond any hope of recovery. If they tried to do so the legislature would find a way around it, ditto for any Federal cases.
I think we all agree that crimes should be punished. Moreso when it is downright willful/malicious. I feel I can safely say we also agree (except maybe the OP) that the punishment should not be downright excessive - and billions of dollars per victim would be excessive.

[jtgain]

The OP assumes incorrectly that the standard for tort damages would be a retroactive asking of a person: "Would you do XXXX for $XXXX?". If the answer is no, then the person should be awarded that amount.

I wouldn't choose to be paralyzed for a trillion dollars. But if someone negligently or intentionally injures me causing paralysis, the standard isn't a trillion dollars.

[Little Nemo]

There's no sum of money large enough to entice me into spending a lifetime as a prisoner. So by the OP's logic, the amount of money a person who was falsely imprisoned is entitled to is nothing.

[Saint Cad]

You do realize that your scheme would very likely violate the clauses of the US Constitution prohibiting ex post facto laws (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto), do you not?


I thought ex post facto prohibitions were for criminal and not civil cases.

[Swords to Plowshares]

Can the OP give any real cites of blacks who were unjustly convicted under Jim Crow laws who are still in prison today? Come on, I'm throwing you a softball here. Since you started this debate you probably know a lot about this issue and gave it a great deal of thought.

[jtgain]

Can the OP give any real cites of blacks who were unjustly convicted under Jim Crow laws who are still in prison today? Come on, I'm throwing you a softball here. Since you started this debate you probably know a lot about this issue and gave it a great deal of thought.

Not to hijack your question, but I would be interested in just ONE person who:

1) Was convicted before 1965.
2) Has been incarcerated since then to present day.
3) Evidence indicates that his conviction was due to a denial of due process because of his race. (all white jury would qualify)
4) Evidence indicates that he may be factually innocent of the crime.

Just one.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Not to hijack your question, but I would be interested in just ONE person who:

1) Was convicted before 1965.
2) Has been incarcerated since then to present day.
3) Evidence indicates that his conviction was due to a denial of due process because of his race. (all white jury would qualify)
4) Evidence indicates that he may be factually innocent of the crime.

Just one.

Go to Georgia prison inmate site and search for Guy Akins. His GDC ID (the easiest way to search) is 0000361926.

His incarceration began in 1933; he is still in prison; Georgia did not allow blacks on juries in 1930s; since he was denied a jury of his peers, his innocence is in question.

edit - link: http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/GDC/OffenderQuery/jsp/OffQryForm.jsp

[runner pat]

The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a jury of your peers.

The Sixth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

You could argue that someone could not get an impartial jury but you still need to explain why you think the inmate you referenced did not commit the crime he was convicted of.

[Martin Hyde]

I firstly applaud runner pat for pointing out what the sixth actually says, since no one had challenged the "jury of one's peers" proclamations at all in this thread (myself included.) However, court cases have found that the sixth mandates an impartial jury, and one aspect of an impartial jury (based upon court precedent) is that it be drawn from a cross section of society. So a jury in a state with a large black minority that did not permit or even voir dire any blacks would probably violate that aspect of the sixth amendment.

[Martin Hyde]

Go to Georgia prison inmate site and search for Guy Akins. His GDC ID (the easiest way to search) is 0000361926.

His incarceration began in 1933; he is still in prison; Georgia did not allow blacks on juries in 1930s; since he was denied a jury of his peers, his innocence is in question.

edit - link: http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/GDC/OffenderQuery/jsp/OffQryForm.jsp

I don't want to be difficult, but really if that page is accurate you're looking at a 100 year old inmate. I find it odd I can't find a single newspaper article mentioning him at all. With a centenarian inmate not appearing in a search at all I'm suspicious that maybe you've just stumbled upon some bad data in the GDC database--unless you personally know the inmate in question, of course.

[runner pat]

I don't want to be difficult, but really if that page is accurate you're looking at a 100 year old inmate. I find it odd I can't find a single newspaper article mentioning him at all. With a centenarian inmate not appearing in a search at all I'm suspicious that maybe you've just stumbled upon some bad data in the GDC database--unless you personally know the inmate in question, of course.

I wondered about that, too. Though it's likely that there's not much from that long ago that is available online without a subscription. I did Google "100 year old inmate" and found a very few so it might be possible.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

You could argue that someone could not get an impartial jury but you still need to explain why you think the inmate you referenced did not commit the crime he was convicted of.

I don't care if he did it. He did not get a fair trial because of his race.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Hill, jeff lee
gdc id: 0000362686

jenkins, johnny lee
gdc id: 0000363108

bellamy, william james
gdc id: 0000364106

beardon, sam
gdc id: 0000361988

anderson, henry
gdc id: 0000361870

fann, willie
gdc id: 0000362523

brown, herus
gdc id: 0000362432

cooper, leon
gdc id: 0000362027

[runner pat]

All murder convictions.
All suspiciously old.

Hill YOB 1922- 88 YO
Jenkins YOB 1924- 86 YO
Bellamy YOB 1935- 75 YO
Beardon YOB 1912-98 YO
Anderson YOB 1914-96 YO
Fann YOB 1908- 102 YO
Brown YOB 1916-94 YO
Cooper YOB 1904=106 YO

Only Bellamy has a photo and physical description.
All the rest list no weight, height, eye or hair color.

I find it unlikely that so many can reach that age in that environment without publicity. Few reach those ages on the outside.
Something is odd here.

Just because you have black convicts from that time does not prove the trials were unfair. Any newspaper stories or court records?

[Pierrot Le Fou]

All murder convictions.
All suspiciously old.

Hill YOB 1922- 88 YO
Jenkins YOB 1924- 86 YO
Bellamy YOB 1935- 75 YO
Beardon YOB 1912-98 YO
Anderson YOB 1914-96 YO
Fann YOB 1908- 102 YO
Brown YOB 1916-94 YO
Cooper YOB 1904=106 YO

Only Bellamy has a photo and physical description.
All the rest list no weight, height, eye or hair color.

I find it unlikely that so many can reach that age in that environment without publicity. Few reach those ages on the outside.
Something is odd here.

Just because you have black convicts from that time does not prove the trials were unfair. Any newspaper stories or court records?

Blacks were excluded from the juries, making the trials unfair.

[runner pat]

Blacks were excluded from the juries, making the trials unfair.

Just because there were no blacks on the jury does not prove the trial was unfair.
Saying so means you're saying that blacks will never vote to convict each other no matter what the evidence shows.

Which is another type of unfair trial, this time to society.

The Sixth requires an unbiased jury.
Your hypothetical jury with blacks would not be unbiased according to your logic.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Just because there were no blacks on the jury does not prove the trial was unfair.
Saying so means you're saying that blacks will never vote to convict each other no matter what the evidence shows.

Which is another type of unfair trial, this time to society.

The Sixth requires an unbiased jury.
Your hypothetical jury with blacks would not be unbiased according to your logic.

Blacks were systematically excluded from juries. (The Supreme Court later held this is an unconstitutional denial of a fair trial, but the Court did not make its decision retroactive.) Blacks and whites were different legal classes of citizens under Jim Crow. For a jury to be an accurate representation of the community, the jury must have had at least the possibility of including member from the black legal class. People from the black legal class, which was systematically abused by the legal system, would be the only people that could accurately understand the legal system's abuses of blacks and that the legal system thought nothing of treating blacks as less than full human beings.

[runner pat]

The end result of Batson vs. Kentucky, while disallowing race as a reason for jury selection challenges, did result in Batson pleading guilty rather than risk a retrial and continued to get in trouble with the law and is on probation until 2026.

So while you claim the jury was biased, it appears he was guilty of the charges in the original trial.

You still have not proven that all trials were biased and a significant number of inmates were actually innocent.

[jtgain]

According to Wiki, this guy is the world's longest serving prisoner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Heirens

[jtgain]

Georgia did not allow blacks on juries in 1930s; since he was denied a jury of his peers, his innocence is in question.


As stated elsewhere, this guy is not still in prison, but let's assume he was.

Your statement does not mean that his innocence is in question. Were all-white juries unfair? Absolutely. But unless you've got step #4 in my question above, then I'm not willing to invest the state's money to compensate this guy, or anyone else.

What if 60 black witnesses, including ministers, nuns, monks, and the leaders of the community testified in front of the all white jury that they saw him kill someone? What if he confessed on the witness stand? Should he still get $50 billion?

[Voyager]

Then you should have said "in New York" instead of "in the North."

New York certainly had laws we'd consider to be "Jim Crow" laws during its history, though. I'm not sure how far back you intended with your "earlier" but since it apparently is in your nature to only define such vague things when someone makes an assertion that is contradictory to them I'll assume you meant "back until New York did have such laws."

The OP said 1963, which was my anchor date. NY allowed slavery at one time, but that hardly makes them guilty of discrimination in the same way a state with Jim Crow laws in the 1960s is.

[BigT]

Just because there were no blacks on the jury does not prove the trial was unfair.
Saying so means you're saying that blacks will never vote to convict each other no matter what the evidence shows.

Which is another type of unfair trial, this time to society.

The Sixth requires an unbiased jury.
Your hypothetical jury with blacks would not be unbiased according to your logic.

Now this is ridiculous. The argument is that an all white jury during a racist time period could not be counted upon not to use racism in part of their convictions. Throw in one black person who can threaten a hung jury if there's any racism, and you help correct that balance.

The bigger problem with retrials is that it's been too long, and almost invariably murderers are going to go free. There just won't be enough evidence that has survived to reach the status of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's a reason why appeals tend to happen right after trials.

[Martin Hyde]

The OP said 1963, which was my anchor date. NY allowed slavery at one time, but that hardly makes them guilty of discrimination in the same way a state with Jim Crow laws in the 1960s is.

Jim Crow laws as I understand the term refers to laws which segregated blacks from whites, and which discriminated against whites in various ways. These laws existed throughout the North after the Civil War. When they ended and to what degree they existed of course varies from place to place.

My only issue is what I feel was a very blanket "since there weren't Jim Crow laws in the North" statement, I didn't feel that, given its position in the post in question it was properly indicated that you were only talking about a specific place or a specific time.

In some states in the North Jim Crow continued up until not too long before it started to go out in the South, in many Northern states it had long since been eradicated. (Segregated schools in New York were shut down once and for all by Theodore Roosevelt when he was governor, well over 100 years ago--and even then I believe it only impacted two schools that were in operation.)

[Martin Hyde]

Now this is ridiculous. The argument is that an all white jury during a racist time period could not be counted upon not to use racism in part of their convictions. Throw in one black person who can threaten a hung jury if there's any racism, and you help correct that balance.

The bigger problem with retrials is that it's been too long, and almost invariably murderers are going to go free. There just won't be enough evidence that has survived to reach the status of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's a reason why appeals tend to happen right after trials.

In the modern criminal justice system a very high percentage of cases end with plea agreements (the number I've seen is 90%.) If that was the case in places that only allowed white juries, but the defendant plead out before a jury was ever selected, can we really argue from a legal perspective the defendant was denied an impartial jury? I know we can make the argument that perhaps part of the reason a black defendant in 1930s Louisiana may have plead out is because he knew the jury would be all white and unlikely to acquit him, but that's speculation. If the fact of the matter is no jury was selected and if no jury made a decision at trial it would be hard for me to say "well we should compensate this person for being denied an impartial jury." The impartiality of a jury is only relevant if the jury was actually selected, and perhaps only if the jury actually rendered a verdict.

[Honesty]

Just because there were no blacks on the jury does not prove the trial was unfair.
Saying so means you're saying that blacks will never vote to convict each other no matter what the evidence shows.

Which is another type of unfair trial, this time to society.

The Sixth requires an unbiased jury.
Your hypothetical jury with blacks would not be unbiased according to your logic.


No, the reverse. What about about the all-white jury acquittals in the killings of Ed Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Ed_Johnson), Medgar Evers, Rodney King? What about the Jena Six? How do you handwave that away? How do you possibly rationalize these outcomes without coming to the conclusion that the all-white juries impede justice?

- Honesty

[Miller]

Rodney King was killed?

[Martin Hyde]

The jury that acquitted the police officers in the Rodney King case was mostly white, not all white.

On the flip side, the jury that acquitted O.J. had something like nine blacks on it.

I'd argue that a 9/12 jury of blacks is not a representative cross section of society in most jurisdictions, whereas a mostly white jury would be. (Whites are almost 80% of the U.S. population, so in most jurisdictions I'd expect a jury would be mostly white--de facto prohibitions against specific minorities serving on a jury is obviously racist and terrible, but we shouldn't expect juries to not reflect the majority status of the majority "race" in America.)

[Rumor_Watkins]

No no. fuck that shit.

each japanese american interned in our federal concentr.... happy camps during WW2 needs to be compensated far more than the 1.6 billion they received.

let's up the compensation rate to 100 billion dollars per day of incarceration. after all, there's no price for human rights.

[Odesio]

Do you know what Jim Crow laws were? They had nothing to do with juries and the denial of voting rights. Jim Crow was about segregation - they were the laws that said black people couldn't share facilities like schools, drinking fountains, restaurants, and public transportation with white people.

Jim Crow was a bit more expansive than segregation in restaurants, water fountains, and trains cars. Poll taxes and literacy tests were specifically created to disenfranchise black voters and are included under the broad umbrella of Jim Crow.

[Honesty]

The jury that acquitted the police officers in the Rodney King case was mostly white, not all white.

On the flip side, the jury that acquitted O.J. had something like nine blacks on it.

I'd argue that a 9/12 jury of blacks is not a representative cross section of society in most jurisdictions, whereas a mostly white jury would be. (Whites are almost 80% of the U.S. population, so in most jurisdictions I'd expect a jury would be mostly white--de facto prohibitions against specific minorities serving on a jury is obviously racist and terrible, but we shouldn't expect juries to not reflect the majority status of the majority "race" in America.)


Listen, I'm not advocating that there be affirmative action in jury selection. I'm pointing out that the relationship between all-white juries and acquittals in the US Courts isn't a casual one. It's a real, bona-fide phenomenon.

- Honesty

[Pierrot Le Fou]

As stated elsewhere, this guy is not still in prison, but let's assume he was.

Your statement does not mean that his innocence is in question. Were all-white juries unfair? Absolutely. But unless you've got step #4 in my question above, then I'm not willing to invest the state's money to compensate this guy, or anyone else.

What if 60 black witnesses, including ministers, nuns, monks, and the leaders of the community testified in front of the all white jury that they saw him kill someone? What if he confessed on the witness stand? Should he still get $50 billion?

A person is innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial. Defendants that were denied a jury of their peers didn't get fair trials. Whether the defendant was actually innocent is irrelevant. Every defendant deserves a fair trial.

[Guinastasia]

The murderers of Emmett Till were given a "jury of their peers". So obviously they were fairly aquitted. No doubt that the jury was unbiased, and the trial was completely fair.

[Little Nemo]

Jim Crow was a bit more expansive than segregation in restaurants, water fountains, and trains cars. Poll taxes and literacy tests were specifically created to disenfranchise black voters and are included under the broad umbrella of Jim Crow.But disenfranchisement and segregation were two seperate issues. You also had the black codes, which restricted black employment; miscegenation laws, which outlawed interracial relationships; redlining, which restricted where blacks could live and start businesses; and lynching, which was terrorism directed against blacks. There were several distinct (I'm tempting to say seperate but equal) methods used to discriminate against blacks. This was why civil rights was not just a battle - it was more like a war being fought on multiple fronts.

[Voyager]

Jim Crow laws as I understand the term refers to laws which segregated blacks from whites, and which discriminated against whites in various ways. These laws existed throughout the North after the Civil War. When they ended and to what degree they existed of course varies from place to place.

My only issue is what I feel was a very blanket "since there weren't Jim Crow laws in the North" statement, I didn't feel that, given its position in the post in question it was properly indicated that you were only talking about a specific place or a specific time.

In some states in the North Jim Crow continued up until not too long before it started to go out in the South, in many Northern states it had long since been eradicated. (Segregated schools in New York were shut down once and for all by Theodore Roosevelt when he was governor, well over 100 years ago--and even then I believe it only impacted two schools that were in operation.)

Since the question was about people currently in prison, laws that went out of effect before anyone now serving a sentence was tried seemed to be irrelevant.
And while there were no officially segregated schools in New York, there were de facto segregated schools. Though it was only three blocks from the beginning of a predominantly black neighborhood, my elementary school had maybe one black person in it. My junior high may have had none - I'd have to check my yearbook to see. I'm hardly saying Northerners were angels.

[Odesio]

But disenfranchisement and segregation were two seperate issues. You also had the black codes, which restricted black employment; miscegenation laws, which outlawed interracial relationships; redlining, which restricted where blacks could live and start businesses; and lynching, which was terrorism directed against blacks. There were several distinct (I'm tempting to say seperate but equal) methods used to discriminate against blacks. This was why civil rights was not just a battle - it was more like a war being fought on multiple fronts.

I do not believe they are as separate as you think. They were all designed to ensure that white supremacy reigned and that blacks continued to stay in their "proper" place. Permitting blacks to participate in civil government was not conducive to maintaining white supremacy.

[Little Nemo]

But as legal issues (and we are talking about laws) they were seperate. A court ruling which overturned segregation in public restaurants, for example, would have no effect on voting.

[Really Not All That Bright]

How many black people convicted of crimes under Jim Crow are still in prison?

[Odesio]

But as legal issues (and we are talking about laws) they were seperate. A court ruling which overturned segregation in public restaurants, for example, would have no effect on voting.

As legal issues they certainly are separate. However I brought it up because of something you said.


Do you know what Jim Crow laws were? They had nothing to do with juries and the denial of voting rights. Jim Crow was about segregation - they were the laws that said black people couldn't share facilities like schools, drinking fountains, restaurants, and public transportation with white people.

Laws that fall under the auspices of Jim Crow include more than just segregation as they include laws designed to disenfranchise black voters, limit the mobility of blacks, keep them from sharing the same facilities as whites, etc., etc., etc. You are wrong that Jim Crow laws had nothing to do with the disenfranchisement of blacks.

Odesio

[Little Nemo]

Laws that fall under the auspices of Jim Crow include more than just segregation as they include laws designed to disenfranchise black voters, limit the mobility of blacks, keep them from sharing the same facilities as whites, etc., etc., etc. You are wrong that Jim Crow laws had nothing to do with the disenfranchisement of blacks.Jim Crow obviously isn't an official term. But it generally refers specifically to segregation laws not just any law that discriminated against blacks. You can generalize the term to include black disenfranchisement but you could also generalize the term further to include laws that discriminated against hispanics or asians or native americans.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Who here has family members that were abused by the Jim Crow system?

For those that did not, how would you expect the government to compensate your son if they took away his freedom for the majority of his life without due process?

I have family members that lived under a similar system under Imperial Japan and there simply isn't enough money in the world to make up for what happened. How do you compensate a woman for getting raped? How do you compensate a man who spent his entire life in forced labour in Siberia for throwing rocks at Japanese soldiers? You don't. There is simply not enough money in the world.

I'm not saying "just get over it" but compensation in these cases can never make you whole, the most they can do is give you enough to get your life back together. I am firmly against lump sum payouts to guys who spent the last 40 years of their life in jail, they'll burn through it faster than MC Hammer and their life will suck again. I think annuities work a lot better and I think that anything more than a few million dollars is exorbitant unless you can prove they would have earned more during their time in jail.

But most importantly, I think these folks deserve closure. They deserve to see the people who bore false witness against them go to jail for perjury. They deserve to see the judges that ignored due process defrocked.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Give me your honest answer: at 20 years old, how much money would you have required to agree to spend 45+ years in prison without due process? Would you have agreed to do it for $50 billion? The fact is no amount is really enough. We should error on the side of a really high number.

Then why not eleventy jillion dollars for every second spent in prison? At some point you are throwing money at an issue that cannot be resolved with money.

[Damuri Ajashi]

All of them? You really have a very simplistic view of the world, don't you?

In the South, yeah, ALMOST all of them. Even if they were guilty, they generally got longer sentences than their white counterparts, plea bargains were generally less generous than they were for their white counterparts, public defenders generally cared less about the fates of their black defendants than their white defendants.

I think the OP goes WAAAAAY over the top on the whole compensation issue but lets not whitewash the south under Jim Crow. It wasn't just some black folks getting their feelings hurt because people were calling them nigger. It was real institutional prejudice and injustice that manifested itself in the justice system.

[Damuri Ajashi]

You've got a fair argument about the jury of their peers thing, actually. But the expense of just retrying all those cases would be enormous, nevermind the absurd amounts of money you made up. Amounts that would dwarf the BP settlement or any comparable case. And I have no idea how you think anybody could get a reasonable retrial at this point. You're also redefining when Jim Crow ended, which makes it difficult to even figure out who did get a fair trial.

I think the whole "billions in compensation" argument is a bit far fetched but since when did we think taht keeping innocent men in jail was a good idea because the cost of a trial was too high.

[Damuri Ajashi]

I made up numbers I thought were fair. There is no formula. What do you think is a fair number?

I think this is the biggest problem people have with your OP. You made up numbers without really thinking about it.

[Damuri Ajashi]

I could see a re-examination of those still in prison - but they'd have to have been in for 45 years, which implies a murder conviction. That might be feasible.

Batson v Kentucky was decided in 1986, 25 years ago. Race is STILL a factor in convictions and prison terms. The conviction rate among black defendats is significantly higher than similar white defendants. The prison sentences are longer. The parole rate is lower. We are closer to being fair but we're not there yet just because we have a black president.

For example, Alan Crotzer spent 24 years in jail for robbing a liquor store and was denied compensation after he was exonerated.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0530/p01s02-usju.html

I remember a florida case where a promising college bound black high school football player got 10 years in jail for getting blow job from a 16 year old white girl.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Requiring re-trials would not be an ex post facto violation nor would compensating the victims.

Seeking convictions of the state perpetrators would not be a violation if we can find laws that were on the books were the statute of limitations has not run.

Despite all appearances, the constitution was in fact "on the books" back then, the problem is the statute of limitations, its almost never that long except in the case of murder and rape.

[Damuri Ajashi]

As a Libertarian I must also point out that the State subjected these black people to exactly the kind of oppression that you can come to expect from having too much Government around.

Jim Crow was not a consequence of too much government, it was a consequence of too much racism. It took government at the federal level to stop it.

[Damuri Ajashi]

The argument for increasing the payments far beyond the statutory provisions is solid if you base it on gross negligence or outright malice, the latter of which would be easy to prove in a large number of Jim Crow-era imprisonments. This is a logical case for punitive damages.

Of course I'm talking about a civil award of millions, not billions of dollars.

You're talking about punitive damages. The sort of award you dole out to punish and deter rather than compensate. Generally speaking, I think jail is just as effective a punishment as paying money.

[Damuri Ajashi]

The bigger problem with retrials is that it's been too long, and almost invariably murderers are going to go free. There just won't be enough evidence that has survived to reach the status of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

So it comes down to the old trade off between one innocent man going to jail or X guilty men going free. What do you think the proportion is in this case?

[spifflog]

Damuri,

I'm unclear where you stand on this. Can you elaborate?

[Kearsen]

That completely misses the point. I didn't say whether your numbers were fair, I said they weren't feasable, as in simply not possible. You'd bankrupt every government in the union, and still wouldn't have your program paid for. You might as well propose we give everybody Green Lantern rings.

I'd totally do it for a Green Lantern Ring.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Leaving aside compensation, who is for and who is against re-trials? For those against, do you admit the original trials were unfair?

[Shodan]

I am against re-trials, unless you can show that the original trial was unfair. If that helps.

Regards,
Shodan

[Pierrot Le Fou]

I am against re-trials, unless you can show that the original trial was unfair. If that helps.

Regards,
Shodan

I have repeatedly shown that they were unfair. If a state used the same procedures at any trial that was conducted today, the conviction would be overturned.

Do you really content that it is not unfair to exclude any entire race from the jury? Also keep in mind that the state excluded the only citizens that had the same legal status as the defendants. The states specifically excluded the only people that could understand the state's behavior toward and basis against the defendants.

[Little Nemo]

I'm open to the possibility of retrials but definitely not to the level suggested by the OP. The standard of "every black person who was convicted of any crime prior to 1965 is entitled to $100,000,000 (or $50,000,000,000)" is way over the top. I'm going to assume that some black people were justly convicted during that period.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

I am ready to drop the call for compensation of any amount, but the retrials are necessary.

[Little Nemo]

Only if you can create a more reasonable standard than every trial before 1965 where the defendant was black. Or demonstrate that that is a reasonable standard. But I think you'll have a difficult time doing that. You've created a universal standard. So all that's required to disprove it is to show that some black defendants with all-white juries prior to 1965 were not convicted.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Only if you can create a more reasonable standard than every trial before 1965 where the defendant was black.

Every trial was unfair.

Or demonstrate that that is a reasonable standard.

Every defendant has a right to a fair trial.

But I think you'll have a difficult time doing that. You've created a universal standard. So all that's required to disprove it is to show that some black defendants with all-white juries prior to 1965 were not convicted.

The standard is that every defendant deserves a fair trial--it is a universal standard. Even if some black defendants were found not guilty that does not show that the states did not substantially stack the deck against the defendants.

If a state is found to have fabricated evidence against a series of defendants, should we just have just ignore what the state did and not require retrials if a small number of defendants were still found not guilty?

[Little Nemo]

But if some black defendants weren't convicted how can you claim that black defendants had no chance in these trials? Obviously they had some chance of being found innocent. So the situation isn't as universal as you claim it is.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

But if some black defendants weren't convicted how can you claim that black defendants had no chance in these trials? Obviously they had some chance of being found innocent. So the situation isn't as universal as you claim it is.

I never said they had no chance. I said they did not receive fair trials.

[Little Nemo]

But if some all-white juries found black defendants guilty and other all-white juries found black defendants innocent, what's the basis for your claim that every trial with an all-white jury and a black defendant was universally unfair?

During the same period there were trials with all-white juries and white defendants. Some of those defendants were found guilty and some were found innocent. Do you think all those trials were universally unfair? Should we retry every white defendant?

If not, why not? The same system was used against black and white defendants and issued guilty and innocent decisions against both. So if it was universally biased against one race then you should form the same conclusion about both races. And you've stated that everyone deserves a fair trial.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

The Supreme Court has held that when a state purposely excludes blacks from a jury, that state violates a black defendant's right to equal equal protection, but the Court did not make it's holding retroactive. A defendant has a right to a jury that is drawn from a fair sample of the community. Southern states under Jim Crow denied black defendants the only jurors that could understand the way these states treated their black citizens.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that excluding blacks from juries violates a black defendant's rights, but the Court has refused a remedy. A right without a remedy is no right at all. The government is continuing Jim Crow by failing to give retrials.

[Little Nemo]

What Supreme Court decision are you referring to?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Damuri,

I'm unclear where you stand on this. Can you elaborate?

I think that all convictions of black men in the south prior to 1986 are suspect but I don't think we should give every black prisoner millions of dollars. I would review have judicial review of every case (including a review of the facts and the introduction of new facts and exculpatory evidence) no matter how expensive it was.

If they are found guilty again, then I would review their sentence and give the judge the ability to adjust their sentence. Otherwise I would set them free.

To the extent that anyone has served time they should not have served, I would give them 80K/year served PLUS an annuity PLUS support services to help them reintegrate into society if they needed it (this is what the state of Texas provides, it is on the higher end of the scale but it recognizes that these convictions were not merely innocent errors).

For example:

A black man has served 20 years of a life sentence for murdering someone. The evidence proves that he did in fact murder someone and that a life sentence is appropriate, then the guy rots in jail.

A black man has served 20 years of a 25 year sentence for robbing a gas station. The evidence proves that he did in fact rob the gas station. Any sentence of more than 10 years is inappropriate. The guy gets 800K and an annuity plus support services.

A black man has served 5 years of a 25 year sentence for robbing a gas station. The evidence proves that he did in fact rob the gas station. Any sentence of more than 10 years is inappropriate. The guy has his sentence commuted to 10 years.

A black man has served 20 years of a 25 year sentence for robbing a gas station. The evidence proves that he did not rob the gas station. The guy gets 1.6MM and an annuity plus support services.

I think that we open investigations of anyone that committed perjury. I think we impeach bad judges. I think that anyone that violated the constitutional rights of other Americans should face the consequences.

[Little Nemo]

There's a slippery slope here.

We all agree that there were laws back in 1960 that are wrong by the standards of 2010. But they were the law back in 1960.

Should judges in 1960 have ruled based on what the law was in 1960? Or should judges rule based on what they think the law should be? I think most of us can see problems with the latter principle.

[villa]

A black man has served 20 years of a 25 year sentence for robbing a gas station. The evidence proves that he did in fact rob the gas station. Any sentence of more than 10 years is inappropriate. The guy gets 800K and an annuity plus support services.


Unless you add a further stage in, demonstrating that the reason for the higher sentence was the man's race, then you are creating a whole new set of problems.

[Damuri Ajashi]

There's a slippery slope here.

We all agree that there were laws back in 1960 that are wrong by the standards of 2010. But they were the law back in 1960.


Those laws were unconstitutional, they were unconstitutional since 1868 when they ratified the 14th amendment so they weren't good law when they were written.

Should judges in 1960 have ruled based on what the law was in 1960? Or should judges rule based on what they think the law should be? I think most of us can see problems with the latter principle.

All judges are sworn to uphold the constitution. Judges can make mistakes and from time to time, noone will realize that a law is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so but the principle of due process and trial by jury were well established enough by the 1960's that it should not have come a a surprise to anyone.

Contrary to popular belief, judges are not merely referees making calls based on clear rules. They sit in judgment of the laws themselves. They weigh the laws against the constitution and are sworn to strike down laws that do not meet that emasure.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Unless you add a further stage in, demonstrating that the reason for the higher sentence was the man's race, then you are creating a whole new set of problems.

What problems? If I can't presume institutional racism in Jim Crow South, then when can I presume racism? And aside from all of that, if the sentence is unreasonable or inappropriate, then it is unreasonable or inappropriate REGARDLESS of whter or not racism is the cause.

Are you saying that its unfair to all the white guys in jail that don't get their sentences reviewed as well? Well if you can prove institutional racism against white guys in Jim Crow South then your argument would have merit.

I think people forget how horribly racist this country was within living memory.

[Little Nemo]

Those laws were unconstitutional, they were unconstitutional since 1868 when they ratified the 14th amendment so they weren't good law when they were written.Unfortunately, the judges back in 1960 didn't have you and I there to tell them these laws were unconstitutional. They had to rely on what the Supreme Court told them.

[villa]

Are you saying that its unfair to all the white guys in jail that don't get their sentences reviewed as well? Well if you can prove institutional racism against white guys in Jim Crow South then your argument would have merit.


Is this an inevitable habit of yours to make things up and argue against them?

If I am not mistaken, you are a lawyer. You should know that it isn't enough to show discrimination, but you have to show harm from that discrimination.

The situation I quoted could lead to unfairness - let's say the robber got 25 years not from a racist judge, but from a tough on crime judge. The same judge sentenced white men in similar situations to 25 years. Releasing the black man and granting him compensation while not releasing the white men convicted by the same judge would be unfair.

And no, that doesn't mean all white criminals would have their sentences reviewed. Just that som analysis be done to demonstrate that the upward deviation in sentencing was the result of racial bias, not another factor.

[Little Nemo]

What problems? If I can't presume institutional racism in Jim Crow South, then when can I presume racism? And aside from all of that, if the sentence is unreasonable or inappropriate, then it is unreasonable or inappropriate REGARDLESS of whter or not racism is the cause.

Are you saying that its unfair to all the white guys in jail that don't get their sentences reviewed as well? Well if you can prove institutional racism against white guys in Jim Crow South then your argument would have merit.

I think people forget how horribly racist this country was within living memory.Don't confuse correlation with causality. Yes, obviously there was (and is) institutionalized racism against blacks in the United States. But that doesn't mean you've proven that the conviction and sentencing of black defendants was due to racism.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Little Nemo, is it your position that a defendant has not had an unfair trial unless it is shown that the trial created a situation where it was impossible for the defendant to have been found not guilty? Do you believe that even if a defendant has had an unfair trial that violated the constitution, that defendant should not get a retrial until it is shown that the unfair trial created a situation where there was no possibility of the defendant being found not guilty?

[Little Nemo]

Little Nemo, is it your position that a defendant has not had an unfair trial unless it is shown that the trial created a situation where it was impossible for the defendant to have been found not guilty? Do you believe that even if a defendant has had an unfair trial that violated the constitution, that defendant should not get a retrial until it is shown that the unfair trial created a situation where there was no possibility of the defendant being found not guilty?No. But I think you need to produce some degree of evidence to support your claim.

[Odesio]

Jim Crow obviously isn't an official term. But it generally refers specifically to segregation laws not just any law that discriminated against blacks. You can generalize the term to include black disenfranchisement but you could also generalize the term further to include laws that discriminated against hispanics or asians or native americans.


If you're going to correct someone you should really make sure you get your facts right. Of course when I say you I really mean me. So here we are. I am forced to admit to you that I was wrong and that you were right and that you've left me here eating crow.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Unfortunately, the judges back in 1960 didn't have you and I there to tell them these laws were unconstitutional. They had to rely on what the Supreme Court told them.

Yeah, so? We are talking about fixing their error. I'm not saying that that is the sort of situation where we wold impeach a judge but if a black man was convicted using unconstitutional procedures, why would we ignore that?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Is this an inevitable habit of yours to make things up and argue against them?

If I am not mistaken, you are a lawyer. You should know that it isn't enough to show discrimination, but you have to show harm from that discrimination.

The situation I quoted could lead to unfairness - let's say the robber got 25 years not from a racist judge, but from a tough on crime judge. The same judge sentenced white men in similar situations to 25 years. Releasing the black man and granting him compensation while not releasing the white men convicted by the same judge would be unfair.

And no, that doesn't mean all white criminals would have their sentences reviewed. Just that som analysis be done to demonstrate that the upward deviation in sentencing was the result of racial bias, not another factor.

I am proposing a PRESUMPTION of racism in Jim Crow South.

[villa]

I am proposing a PRESUMPTION of racism in Jim Crow South.

Yes, but you still have to show harm in the individual case. Look at the Supreme Court case McClesky v Kemp, for example.

You cannot simply show a racist court system - you have to show racism in the individual case. And if a judge is sentencing white criminals in the same way, then you probably will find that hard to do.

[Little Nemo]

If you're going to correct someone you should really make sure you get your facts right. Of course when I say you I really mean me. So here we are. I am forced to admit to you that I was wrong and that you were right and that you've left me here eating crow.It was really a minor issue and I'm sorry if it looked like I was belaboring the point. But I felt that it was indicative of the problem of the OP - a whole string of vague assertions, with sloppy concern for the details, leading to a universal conclusion and calling for a drastic solution.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Don't confuse correlation with causality. Yes, obviously there was (and is) institutionalized racism against blacks in the United States. But that doesn't mean you've proven that the conviction and sentencing of black defendants was due to racism.

I don't think we need causality.

I am using a presumption of racism to justify taking another look at black convictions in the south.

I am not presuming black prisoners are innocent, I am not presuming that racism might be the only cause for improper incarceration.

ANYONE that get exonerated would get the same sort of compensation I am talking about, but due to the history of racism and lack of due process in the south, I am willing to give them a case review by a judge but without a jury.

The underlying facts of the case would remain but I would discount inculpatory eye witness testimony (incorrect identification by eyewitnesses was a factor in over 70% of wrongful convictions, and is probably an even larger factor in Jim Crow South).

I would also measure sentencing according to the sentencing standards for white defendants during the same time period. If the difference is slight, then no problem but when you have white defendants going to jail for 5 years for mugging a little old lady and a black defendant gets 25 years for the same crime, I don't really need to cry racism to say that there has been an injustice.

[Damuri Ajashi]

No. But I think you need to produce some degree of evidence to support your claim.

Why would you need anything more than Jim Crow to create enough of a presumption to reexamine ALL black convictions?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Yes, but you still have to show harm in the individual case. Look at the Supreme Court case McClesky v Kemp, for example.

You cannot simply show a racist court system - you have to show racism in the individual case. And if a judge is sentencing white criminals in the same way, then you probably will find that hard to do.

I guess it depends on what we are talking about. Your case mayargue against changing a 25 year conviction in favor of a 10 year conviction absent a showing of something more than discriminatory effect but it does not rule out setting an innocent man free regardless of effect or intent.

You seem to be saying that you can't revisit old cases that were decided without a showing of some sort of racism in the process and I'm saying that I am presuming racism throughout the process in Jim Crow South where blacks were effectively barred from voting, serving on juries, being a policeman, marrying white people, and all that other stuff. And once you revisit the case, it doesn't matter whether an innocent man is in jail because of racism or because of non-racist judicial error, you still have to let the guy go and provide restitution.