Ex-KKK Member Convicted in 1964 Killings
- Thread starter Brutuskend
- Start date
Good I guess....dude is almost dead anyway. Only difference is that now the state will get to pay for his healthcare and keeping him alive. Hooray for that.
Don't get me wrong. If he did it or was one of those invoved he is a worthless pile of human garbage, but still convicting him 41 years later does what exactly?
Don't get me wrong. If he did it or was one of those invoved he is a worthless pile of human garbage, but still convicting him 41 years later does what exactly?
This is so stupid. We're using tax dollars on this 80-year man?! He got away with it! DONE DEAL!
If you're doing 90 down the highway and the cop can't get his car turned around, it's a done deal. I understand the severity *IN 1954* but this is retarded. We should also convict criminals from 3 centuries ago while we're at it.
Oh, and pay the great, great, great, great, great 2nd cousin's aunt of a slave some "reparations".
If you're doing 90 down the highway and the cop can't get his car turned around, it's a done deal. I understand the severity *IN 1954* but this is retarded. We should also convict criminals from 3 centuries ago while we're at it.
Oh, and pay the great, great, great, great, great 2nd cousin's aunt of a slave some "reparations".
I don't think so. The State prosecutors should be commend for reopening an investigation into this, otherwise nothing would of happened at all. I think of this as a positive not a negative. Same thing with Nazi war criminals, they're still being hunted and prosecuted today, 60 years after WWII was over.
and I think that is senseless as well. What good does it really do to hunt someone down 60 years after the fact? Yeah, yeah justice. Really though, these a-holes have already lived their life and for the most part got away with what they did. So how does hunting them down now do any good?
Now, I have a question. When they pick a jury for a trial, they go through and try to pick people the least biased towards a case as possible, right?
So, then, doesn't picking black people to be on the jury of the trial of a former kkk member seem about as biased as you can get? Of course they will find him guilty, just because of that conotation. I mean, they ask questions of racism and what not, and if one of the white members said he hated black people, he wouldn't have gotten on the jury board because he would have sided with the guy.
I'm not trying to be an ass, and trust me I am about as not racist as possible (over 50% of my friends are of minority groups), it just seems like a bad situation.
Take for example... lets say we have a guy on trial for... stealing a tv from someone who is white. Lets say this guy is white as well, and that he used to be in the kkk, and he admits to this. If the jury is all black, how do you think that verdict is going to go, even if the facts all point towards he is innocent?
So, then, doesn't picking black people to be on the jury of the trial of a former kkk member seem about as biased as you can get? Of course they will find him guilty, just because of that conotation. I mean, they ask questions of racism and what not, and if one of the white members said he hated black people, he wouldn't have gotten on the jury board because he would have sided with the guy.
I'm not trying to be an ass, and trust me I am about as not racist as possible (over 50% of my friends are of minority groups), it just seems like a bad situation.
Take for example... lets say we have a guy on trial for... stealing a tv from someone who is white. Lets say this guy is white as well, and that he used to be in the kkk, and he admits to this. If the jury is all black, how do you think that verdict is going to go, even if the facts all point towards he is innocent?
np, the OP said that there were 25% b;ack jury members. and I'm not saying that the blacks are racist at all, hell I would agree with them. I'm just saying, knowing he is a hater of your race will give you bias against him.
Think about, say, jewish jury members on the war trials of the nazis... hopw unbiased do you think they were? And that has nothing to do with racism on their part.
Nitemare
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
TheAdvocate
Platinum Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 2,561
- 7
- 81
What would be less intelligent would be letting the man go free, so the precedent is set for all future felons. There are reasons why there is no statute of limitations on murder, and they include others than retribution, so the man's age & the age of the crime are irrelevent.
The jury pool is selected randomly from registered voters. The defense and the prosecution then whittle the jury down using preemptory challenges and having jurors excused for cause when voire dire exposes bias or other concerns that make them unfit to serve. The process is bipartisan, and therefore, about as fair as you can get. If there is a problem with the entire jury pool, one of the attorneys can make a request for a venue change to a different geographic area where the bias does not exist.
PS - I applaud this man's conviction. I wish the jury had found him guilty of capital murder though. If you want to learn more about the case, you can watch Mississippi Burning with Whoopi Goldberg & James Woods.
I agree it takes the other 75%, but thats just it... you get a free 25%. In this case, maybe it would be better having an all white jury. Hate crimes are tricky, because it is very, very hard to get an unbiased jury.
Lets say, for example, you take this case and make it a black panther instead of a kkk member. This example does not fit right because not all black panthers were "bad" people by any stretch of the imagination, whereas I think if you are in the kkk it has a more negative connotation. I think having white people, specifically thsoe from cities with strong black panther influence ( say this just because the kkk is much broader in location and well known then the black panthers), then yeah I think white people would be mroe against then what they should be.
And to clarify, I would NOT have been a good candidate for this case. I am a 22 y/o white male, and the fact that he was in the kkk would make me biased enough that I would assume he was guilty from the start. People like me should be weeded out, this guy, like any of us, has the right to be innocent until proven otherwise, and I just couldn;t do that.
At this point I don't think anything would be fair.
I will say that the 25% black would carry a lot of weight in the jury rroom.
Also polls of other cases don't give me a lot of confidence in AA objectivity especially in a case like this. Of course that is just opinions of people that aren't presented with evidence and instruction but.............
25% free? so out of three black jurors (who have made it through jury selection) all will be racist to the point of ignoring evidence? i doubt it.
The guy was directly involved in murdering innocent civilians. There is no statue of limitations for murder because murder is the ultimate crime. You can not heal someone that is dead, you can not repay them, you can not do anything for their families that continue to suffer. The only thing you can do is ensure that the guilty are tried and convicted in a court of law.
This man was nearly convicted once and was clearly involved in this case. He deserves to be punished and will ultimately stand before God with blood all over his hands.
To say that the jury is biased because three members are black is a testament to some of the stupidity in here.. The typical knee-jerk reaction that is so prevalent. The jury was balanced for once, all it would have taken was one white juror to holdout and a mistrial would have been called. Perhaps the poster wishes for a time where all white juries were the norm when going after KKK members or other race baiters.
I just wonder how the reaction would be if the roles were reversed, if a member of the Black Panthers from the 1960?s killed a bunch of white conservatives who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. People would be screaming for blood, but in this case I guess it?s ok to forgive and forget about the murderer of a couple of jews and negroes. No big deal
This man was nearly convicted once and was clearly involved in this case. He deserves to be punished and will ultimately stand before God with blood all over his hands.
To say that the jury is biased because three members are black is a testament to some of the stupidity in here.. The typical knee-jerk reaction that is so prevalent. The jury was balanced for once, all it would have taken was one white juror to holdout and a mistrial would have been called. Perhaps the poster wishes for a time where all white juries were the norm when going after KKK members or other race baiters.
I just wonder how the reaction would be if the roles were reversed, if a member of the Black Panthers from the 1960?s killed a bunch of white conservatives who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. People would be screaming for blood, but in this case I guess it?s ok to forgive and forget about the murderer of a couple of jews and negroes. No big deal
My point is they aren't racist... they are BIAS which is different all together. This man could be white, hispanic, asian, but as soon as you present he is a memeber of a group who hates YOU you develop a negative conotation.
um, I guess you missed my post saying the exact same thing and how it WOULDN'T be fair to do that to the white panther member
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter