Blogcritics: Comments on The Race Card

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:20:17 EST

Arguments could certainly be made for a 3-way freak show. David and Liza opening and Michael Jackson as your headliner.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:35:29 EST

if "freak" applies to any living human, it applies here

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Thu, 27 Nov 2003 15:42:34 EST

Anybody who would try to drag race into the Michael Jackson case would probably admit to having a fantasy about golden showers from Lisa Minnelli and David Guest. He's not black, he's not white, he's a freak! Even Musto disowned him. Does this bring the level of discourse down to the appropriate level Eric?

This is a very interesting and measured discussion of very important matters - I commend all involved.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:14:21 EST

This is a very interesting and measured discussion of very important matters - I commend all involved.

Comment by Bill Wallo

Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:36:10 EST

Mac - You know, I kind of hoped you wouldn't take my last post the wrong way, and I'm glad you didn't. As for Muhammad and Malvo: the jurisdictional stuff really isn't a new debate. I remember when McVeigh and Nichols were arrested for the Oklahoma City bombing, there was a bit of debate about how or where they would be tried (state or federal court). While it may be "normal" for a criminal defendant to be tried where the first or the majority of the crimes took place, I'm not sure that there's more than one of those unwritten rules about it. While I will concede that the trials in Virginia could be racially motivated, I'm not sure that it was overtly racist. If you look at a variety of forums and see one with that is a little death penalty happy (and has the terrorism provision) maybe you think that's where you should try them, regardless of race. If you're interested, CNN had a good article by a Findlaw columnist on reasons why the Muhammed conviction might be overturned: the terrorist statute is only one (the other, and potentially more intriguing, aspect is the so-called "triggerman rule").

Comment by Mac Diva

Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:10:14 EST

It is normal for the jurisdiction where the first or most of the crimes in a spree occurred took place to try the accused. (Most of the crimes will never go to trial due to redundancy once there is a conviction.) Forum shopping for the sole purpose of getting the death penalty is, in my opinion, unseemly. What one should pursue is justice, not a particular penalty. Many states have decided life in prison for egregious crimes is sufficient. If you read my link, you will see I am not saying the sniper cases don't fit the general definition of terrorism. I'm saying the intent of that statute, to hold Osama bin Laden accountable and make him subject to the death penalty if he were prosecuted in Virginia, is not applicable in these circumstances.

Comment by Al Barger

Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:31:37 EST

Oh beloved Diva, are you saying that somehow the DC snipers were NOT committing acts of terrorism? How figure? I am open to issues of race in the justice system if they involve innocent people being unfairly punished. If, for example, some innocent brother is thrown in the slammer just because he's black, I'll be first in line to march on the courthouse or the governor's mansion. That kind of thing was apparently somewhat common in some parts of the country as recently as 40 or 50 years ago, so I can understand why you might be sensitive about such a thing. The DC snipers, however, goddam did it. There doesn't seem to be any question about that. They're clearly being prosecuted because they are GUILTY. The arguments that white murderers don't get the death penalty as often as blacks is not an argument for letting black criminals off the hook. It is an argument for whacking more whities. And where did you get the stuff about what order the murders should be prosecuted in? Is there some book of prosecutorial conduct that says that a crime spree should be prosecuted in chronological order? Starting with the easiest prosecutions in the toughest courtrooms seems like fair prosecutorial strategy from anything I know. I'm not real gung ho about the death penalty. As a libertarian, I don't trust the government for much, and I'm not real big on giving them the authority to kill people. However, just such jackasses as the DC snipers make it really difficult to object. They need to be dead. The young age of the boy doesn't impress me in the least. He was old enough to pick up that rifle and kill people, again and again. Those people are just as dead as if he were 40. He's done struck out as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully he won't see 21. It won't hurt my feelings if he gets murdered in prison. He deserves just about any possible bad thing that can happen to him, and the world will be a little better place when he's gone.

Comment by Mac Diva

Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:14:45 EST

The above comments were meant for Bill, but also address Barger's remarks, which I didn't read until after the post.

Comment by Mac Diva

Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:11:20 EST

I made the retraction because I can tell you are the kind of person who has considered the issue of race and the criminal justice system from your response. There are quite a few hard Right people in the blogosphere who don't think about these matters at all. The status quo, no matter how unfair, if fine with them. I don't want to mistakenly classify you with them. I believe the Muhammad and Malvo cases should have stayed in D.C. or Maryland, where the first murders in the regional string occurred. (The first murder was actually way out here in the Pacific Northwest. I was really surprised when an 'East Coast story' ended up being ours, too.) The forum shopping to get the trials to Virginia was most unseemly, particularly when one considers it is one of few states that executes convicts who were very young when their crimes were committed. Most recently, the prosecutor, Ebert, said Muhammad deserved the death penalty because 'only the worst people get it.' As you know, recipients of the death penalty are usually black people who kill white people. Does that make them the 'worst' ? (I can think of several white serial killers who killed more people in more ghastly manners and received life sentences.) I don't care about the race of the victims in the sniper trials, but Ebert and Ashcroft probably do. To repeat, Michael Jackson may not be being singled out because of his race. Maybe there is the molestation equivalent of a smoking gun and we don't know it yet. Nor am I an advocate for Muhammad. What bothers me about that situation is that I believe a fair trial, without the manipulation that took place, would serve justice better. (Side note: I also have deep doubts about the terrorism conviction of Muhammad because I don't believe the Virginia statute was meant to be used in these circumstances.)

Comment by Al Barger

Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:07:55 EST

The whining about all the supposed "racism" in the justice system wearies me. There may be some amount of bias against black defendents, which is bad. On the other hand, black Americans apparently have a much higher crime rate than whites. Not that no white folk commit crimes. They do, and there are a lot of them in prison, too. But a lot of black folks are commiting crimes. I doubt there are very many black folk in prison who are INNOCENT. I'm not going to be real sympathetic to complaints of racism in defense of people who are in fact guilty. Diva, again much love, but invoking the DC snipers in any way to make an argument about supposed racism is likely to fall on deaf ears. They committed what, 15 or 20 murders? How many of their victims were black? You appear to have pulled this thing about how the order of prosecutions was picked entirely out of the frickin' air. The observation that other legal commentators have made (for whatever validity they may have) has been that they started with prosecuting murders that were committed in the state of Virginia, because juries in that state have a higher likelihood of giving a death penalty.

Comment by Bill Wallo

Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:18:00 EST

Mac: I didn't ask you to retract anything. You can think as you wish. However, while "race" may be there whenever a black defendant is arrested, racism isn't necessarily there. The presence of racism in the system doesn't mean that a particular situation is automatically racist, any more than the fact that most criminal defendants are probably guilty makes a particular defendant guilty. The issue was never about race alone, but about playing up the racism angle. Doing so without proof of actual racism as a motive for charging Jackson is little more than crying wolf without ever sighting one. That was, and is, my complaint. One doesn't have to be "blind" or be "self-satisfied" in order to voice that complaint (or white, either). Though I am white, which I suppose in some folks eyes makes me both blind and self-satisfied, if not smug. Notwithstanding the fact that I do understand how race can "always be there." I went to a predominantly (overwhelmingly?) black school growing up and had an elementary school sweetheart inform me rather matter of factly that she could never marry me because I was the wrong color, and my mother had to fight to get me into a different class one year after the school officials (who were black) had put me in a class with the other five or so white kids - "so I could be with my friends." Or the fact that I've been a lawyer for almost thirteen years and a part of the federal judiciary for almost ten years, in which time I've seen most of what the "system" is capable of (either intentionally or not). But none of that could possibly help shape an opinion, right? Must just be a blind white guy. As an aside: I must admit that I didn't follow the Muhammed trial all that closely: are you really saying that a black woman died in the sniper attacks and they didn't charge him with the murder? I'd agree that would seem odd, to say the least.

Comment by Taloran

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:30:22 EST

I say hang all the bastards. Traffic ticket - off with your head. Jaywalking gets you the chair. Littering leads to guillotining. Natalie Maines - firing squad. Public indecency, you get drawn and quartered. First, it'll get rid of this racial inequity once and for all. Apply the letter of the new law equally and without bias. Second, there'll be far fewer idiots in my way as I'm driving.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:39:00 EST

Well, I retract "smug." As I said before, I don't know that race is a factor in Jackson's case. It appears the prosecutor really, really believes Michael molests little boys. We will have to wait and see if he has sufficient evidence to prove it. Race is just 'there,' once a black defendant is fingered. For example, the prosecutors in Virginia were careful to try John Muhammad and Lee Malvo for the murders of white victims because they know those are the ones that result in death penalties. That's glaring, but somehow they fail to see they are playing the race card. And, no, I am not at all sympathetic to Muhammad. You may remember the gist of Kafka's The Trial -- the defendant is convicted as much for what he is as for the crime he may have committed. That is what's troubling about cases against nonwhite defendants.

Comment by BB

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:43:15 EST

Pllllease! Let's at least wait for the facts to come out before even considering trumping the race card.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:33:24 EST

Bill, I totally agree with you about the death penalty and for similar reasons - it is such an extreme result that the presence of such racially skewed statistics is cause for not using it. You can make all kinds of relevant generalizations and theories regarding racism in the system, but for individual cases trotting out accusations of racism creates radically diminishing returns if not backed up with fact. We don't try the system, we try individuals and cases need to be looked at individually. In the case of Rick James, given his past, these kinds of statements sound preposterous.

Comment by Bill Wallo

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:11:27 EST

Ouch, Mac. That hurts. All I can say is that despite general conservative leanings, my opposition to the death penalty is based to a certain extent on exactly what you point out: namely, that it appears to be applied in a racially skewed manner (I also question the value of a "final solution" given the number of people on death row who have been proven not guilty of the crime for which they'd been charged). I agree that prosecutorial discretion is a concern (I've written about this before, and it does bother me quite a bit). My point is simple: if the evidence suggests that a crime was committed, I believe most people want (a) an investigation and (b) a prosecution. I said "appear" to be guilty simply because I don't like to leap to conclusions about a particular defendant's guilt or innocence. As for systemic racial inequity: while I believe it exists (and we've seen many recent cases where it would appear to be at play) I remain of the belief that racism is an easy charge. Perhaps we disagree, but it is my belief that the majority of criminal defendants (regardless of skin color) are actually guilty of the crimes for which they are charged, and the fact that there is racism in the system doesn't change that fact. Absent demonstrable evidence that racism played a motivation in a particular prosecutorial decision, I believe it is an easy and unverifiable way to distract attention from the actual facts: it is playing "the race card." Sorry if you found me blind to the reality of racism or somehow filled with smug white self-satisfaction. I said that a desire for the justice system to be colorblind was a "hard task" made impossible by these tactics, and I believe that: I don't see how that makes me "blind" to anything.

Comment by jadester

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:01:59 EST

i sympathise with the fight against racism, in any form, but playing the race card every single time there is a high-profile case involving a coloured person does not help matters. There are, i agree, plenty of racist white people out there, but if the race card is played as often as it is, this simply fuels their racism, and could possibly help towards other less-thinking individuals becoming racist. If the racist whites can make it look like the anti-racists have "turned racism around" or similar (i.e. anti-racists use the race argument so often that it tips the justice system in favour of coloured people) then they will do so. Granted, you can't necessarily change the views of the staunchly racist (no matter what race they are and what race/s they are against) people of the world, but those who know no better need education rather than arguments. I'm sure if some kind of evidence were shown that the charges are racist/a setup, then such claims would stand up far better to the arguments of those idiots who do remain racist.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:51:39 EST

MD, clearly race is an issue looking at the justice system in aggregate, but it's MUCH less of a factor when you control for socioeconomic status. In Jackson's case being extremely rich and famous and having the ability to hire whatever legal team he may desire more than overrides the potential racial factor. I detect no smugness here whatsoever.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 00:43:44 EST

Hey, on the bright side, crazy white folks have come after me before I've become famous! I don't know that Michael Jackson is a good example of the 'being talented while black will get you in trouble' rule but the rule itself is not baseless. It plays out miilions of times everyday in the lives of people of color. Nor do I believe there is any reason to believe the criminal justice system is free of racism. All the research says just the opposite. From who is arrested to who gets the death penalty, race is a factor. (And, no, it is not white people on the short end of the stick.) Indeed, why in a society that only gave up de jure segregation thirty-some years ago would one expect the system to be free of racism? This sentence is particularly interesting: "The reality of criminal justice is that those who appear guilty often must be charged with the crime." Appears guilty? (Says who? That can be a very subjective decision. ) Must be charged with a crime? (Not at all. That is totally up to the prosecutor. For example, it appears Laura Bush was never charged with a crime though she hit a man with her car and killed him.) What I see in this entry is blindness to the reality of racism and smug white self-satisfaction.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:17:01 EST

Absurd and preposterous, but as you said, probably to be expected. it might make a tiny bit more sense if he was, in fact, still black. But humans don't get get much paler than Jackson this side of Johnny and Edgar Winter.