Like I pointed out and anyone can read for themselves in the link YOU provided. These are just the results of an INITIAL SURVEY. It then goes on to point out that they were just considering the 18 inmates currently on Federal Death Row (most trials seeking the death penalty are done at state levels). Who-hooo.....18 inmates! And ALL from the same court system. There's a representative sample for you! Loosely, I believe you're correct here. I have no idea why he would order a new study (although I've searched NIJ's website, and I can find NO mention of it....it seems only the ACLU knows about it). Why bother to study this? There isn't but about two dozen Federal death row inmates right now. It's not like you can derive any useful statistics when the population as a whole is so small. I'll make a deal with you: You convince people how an "initial survey" of a situtation that takes a small sample (18 vs the close to 4000 total US death row inmates) that comes from a very distinct portion of the population (Federal vs. all of the states) can produce ANY relevant statistics, and I'll take the time to debunk the other portion of the ACLU's article. You know Timing....the ACLU does have a slant.
I don't know if I could stop laughing, kinda like every time I see Eminem. I don't know if OJ actually did, but I lean towards the direction that he did, whether he did it himself or hired somebody is a whole other issue. Again, I was pretty young, didn't pay too much attention to the trial even though it was always on tv, but most of my memories lie in the jokes and sketches on SNL. So please, don't take my opinion as that of an informed person, it's just an opinion. Personaly, I think it's a good thing for white's in this country to get a taste of what being screwed over because of race is like, as people have pointed out. But, it doesn't mean that it's right. Especially if it came at the cost of letting a possibly guilty man of two horrible murders go free. Of course, deep down inside, the real reason I think that giving white people a taste of the other side wasn't good is because it didn't have the desired affect of understanding. I'm probably wrong, but I think the OJ verdict excarbated people's beliefs in other areas, believing that blacks in this country are treated favorably through things like affirmitive action. Hell, even wellfare can fit in this if you think about all the times you hear people say that it isn't fair that they have to work for a living while blacks get a free ride from the govt. I'm probably wrong, but that has to do with my youth more than anything. I don't remember hearing all the talk I just mentioned in the 80's or early 90's, but then again, I was too young to really pay attention.
OJ did it. LAPD tried to frame him. So in the end he deserved to get off. I think it is a ridiculous assertion that had the jury been anything but black that OJ would have been convicted. These claims of 'irrefutable' and 'overwhelming' evidence are simply not true. First, the DNA evidence: Scheck & Lee simply destroyed the prosecutions DNA evidence. Scheck was, IMO, the star of the trial. I watched the trial, and have been close to several other DNA trials since. This is not a case of one technical flaw in the evidence, but a series of events that were either grossly incompetant or conspiratorial. You can say neither the grossly incompetant nor the conspiratorial equates to irrefutable evidence. Most people just remember Marcia Clark's media soundbite that there was more DNA evidence than she had ever seen. They don't take into account that the statement doesn't mean anything.
Second, to say that LAPD would not risk a conspiracy is silly. If that were the case then there would NEVER be police conspiracy/misconduct, and there are THOUSANDS of documented examples that prove that is not true. Third, the glove: Remember that even if it was not planted, the prosecution made the mistake of having him put it on, and it not fitting. Their explanation that it must have shrunk was NEVER going to save their asses after that. They clearly anticipated it fitting, and clearly missed the boat. Further increasing reasonable doubt. Fourth, the glove and the bloody sock. Isn't it strange that OJ supposedly disposed of the knife and his bloody clothes, which would have had to be DRENCHED in blood, and yet kept the single glove and the bloody sock. Remember, the never found clothes or the knife. So even if he did it, he disposed of them somewhere OTHER than his estate. That means he took off all the bloody clothes, except for one bloody sock, and one bloody glove, which he kept on until he got home? That makes no sense. Fifth, it is fact that police have framed people before. There is no inherent reason it is not plausible that police immediately concluded OJ was guilty, since they had been involved with he and Nicole several times. Bottom line: OJ did it or had it done and the LAPD tried to frame him. Either their incompetance or their conspiracy is far more than needed for reasonable doubt.
John Ashcroft has a slant too which is all the more reason why it's appalling that he's in the position of Attorney General. We have ten years of studies from the GAO to independent analysis in various states all concluding racial bias in the judicial system, we have the American Bar Association calling for a moratorium on the death penalty because they believe a racial bias exists, and here comes Ashcroft in one swoop to reassure us all that our judicial system is just fine. That's great, I feel so much better.
Didn't Aschcroft just say on CNN that the detainees here in the states, are legal combatents in the terror war, there by justifying our holding of people without charging them of any crimes? Yeah, this guy is all there.
"Enemy combatant" has been a valid legal classification for a very long time. Persons classified as enemy combatants can be held in the manner the government has been. It is perfectly legal under our system. My understanding, however, is that an enemy combatant is a US citizen who is found, with gun in hand, fighting for the enemy. BTW...under the law, an enemy combatant forfeits their US citizenship.
I think Ashcroft needs to go for a lot of reasons. But your post begs the question...was Janet Reno so free of slant that it made her any more fair? Remember the pictures of an M-16 in Elian Gonzales' face.
I think the DNA evidence was the strongest they had but the technical nature of it was just beyond what the jury could understand. OJ trying that glove on...now that was something the jury could actually see and relate to. I think OJ was guilty as hell but if I had been on the jury,I'm probably not voting to convict either..You can't convict a man with so many holes in the prosecutions case even if your "instincts" tell you he did it.
I believe you, you are the lawyer. Now the question is, how many of the detainees, people who were nabbed for violating their Visa/being in the country illegally or something along those lines, qualify as legal enemy combatants? You just said they need to take up arms against their country. I'll I'm asking is for some charges to be filed.
Pissed? I wasn't even pissed when it happened. Whether he was guilty or not is not for me to say. The jurors got more information than I ever did and deliberated about it a good long time. I'll trust their judgement. The only thing that did piss me off was missing a Rockets comeback for the win in the playoffs to watch a low-speed chase. That sucked.
I remember being at work when the ruling came through on tv where I worked at the time. The Afro-Americans in the room jumped for joy and the everyone else just kinda sulked in disgust. I think that the two reactions said a lot about race relations in this country, which I find shocking at this point in time, after all we've been through as a nation. I think those reactions were reiterated when Columbine and more recently Sept. 11 and the Sniper killings took place: there seems to be an covered, unspoken distrust between the races (as a whole of course). The stereotyping here is incredible. Back to OJ...it is very true that most Afro-Americans (perhaps wrongfully) assumed that OJ was a victim of a prejudiced justice system (I know I felt that way originally). I could relate to police harassment because the police where I grew up would harass me and other people in my neighborhood every chance they got. I never bothered anyone, didn't have a record, but I was stopped anyway. In hindsight I agree with those that would say that it is probable that OJ was at least indirectly involved in the killings....but no matter what I think, the criminal trial jury didn't find him guilty as the killer.
I would gladly have sent OJ to prison for that. I could not believe they were showing it when the game was on.
As to those in the country illegally, they need to move them through the legal process and deport them if warranted. It seems to me that Ashcroft has done a quantum leap in logic in regard to the status of enemy combatant. Please note that since the people detained are not citizens, their right to Due Process is SIGNIFICANTLY lowered...although some kind of charges should be filed in order to justify the extended detention.
If you're saying Janet Reno is similar to Ashcroft in being heavy handed I don't see how that would put a slant on the initial findings. Along with the Elian situation, Reno was the one who ordered the gas attack in Waco so she wasn't exactly a civil rights peacenik
