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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
All of them? You really have a very simplistic view of the world, don’t you?
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.
Even the Scottsborough boys got a trial, albeit a sham one. Your claim that blacks did not get trials is ludicrous.
Nonsense and unworkable even if true.
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.
I have never claimed blacks did not trials. They got trials. But they did not get trials with juries of their legal peers.
To be consistent they should be imprisoned and given $100 million plus $25 million a year for being imprisoned.
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.
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?
How do you define legal peers?
You do realize that your scheme would very likely violate the clauses of the US Constitution prohibiting ex post facto laws, 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
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?
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?
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 made up numbers I thought were fair. There is no formula. What do you think is a fair number?
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?
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.