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.
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?
Damuri,
I’m unclear where you stand on this. Can you elaborate?
I’d totally do it for a Green Lantern Ring.
Leaving aside compensation, who is for and who is against re-trials? For those against, do you admit the original trials were unfair?
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.
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.
I am ready to drop the call for compensation of any amount, but the retrials are necessary.
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.
Every trial was unfair.
Every defendant has a right to a fair trial.
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?
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.
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.
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.
What Supreme Court decision are you referring to?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.