What? This is how you get to be Vice President, just a little harsher.

You were OK with that, right?

This is not the country we're supposed to be.

That scores of guilty people should escape justice before one innocent should be made to suffer capitally is a principle that predates the Roman Empire.

The first person to codify this principle into a distinct dictum was John Fortescue, Chief Justice of the King's Bench of England 1394 - 1476, "One would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally."

Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1289202-thomas-jefferson-it-is-more-dangerous-that-even-a-guilty-person-sho/.

Fortescue's sentiment has been echoed by luminaries such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, William Blackstone, Increase Mather, and John Adams.

That the office of the chief prosecutor for the people, the District Attorney, is frequently used as a political stepping stone has rendered the main concern of that office the conviction rate of its holder rather than the dispensation of justice for the citizenry at large.

That the vice president of these United States, and presumptive party nominee for president in the next election, once held such an office only compounds the concern that the office will continue to be brutally used by the politically ambitious and morally ambivalent.

from 2010:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/the-problem-wit-4.html

Me: I mean, I really don't know what to say - or think - when I hear people talk about the execution of innocent prisoners as if they were so many pesky mice. *I* don't even have to ask myself "what if the innocent party were a friend of mine." There's a REASON we say that it's better to let a dozen guilty men go free than to put one innocent man even in JAIL.

And:

From lawyer (and now-critic of the ACLU) Wendy Kaminer's essay "The Wrong Men," Dec. 1992:

"A less frivolous line of attack is that these wrongful convictions are anomalies. The authors, however, contend that the cases they describe are typical of hundreds or perhaps thousands of others. Readers will be guided by their own instincts and experience in deciding whether this claim is true. The authors do suggest, persuasively, that coerced confessions are a particular problem in capital cases: people plead guilty out of fear of receiving the death penalty. They also point out that in questionable cases, investigations of guilt and innocence are rarely pursued after an execution has been carried out. Except for the occasional cause celebre, like the Rosenberg case, people's cases die with them.

"Finally, some statistical evidence indicates that capital punishment is not fairly applied. Practically all the more than two thousand defendants currently on death row are poor; many have received less than competent defense counsel at trial, particularly in states that rely on court-appointed private attorneys, who may have little criminal litigation experience, instead of seasoned public defenders. There is also much evidence that the system is racially biased, particularly with regard to the race of the victims, suggesting that the lives of white people are valued more within the system than the lives of blacks. Of the 231 victims whose convicted killers have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated, 194 were white.

"It's difficult to predict how supporters of capital punishment would react to statistics like this if they were publicized, say, on Oprah. Some might lose faith in the system; others might question the reliability of the statistics or dismiss their implications. The Supreme Court has held that the greater statistical likelihood of being sentenced to death for killing a white person 'does not demonstrate a constitutionally significant risk of racial bias.'

"Support for capital punishment requires leaps of faith like this..."

(snip)

You can read the rest in Kaminer's essay collection: "True Love Waits." She's great.

It starts on page 256.

Oh, hey, racial bias! Not so much.

There are capital crimes in which there is zero doubt about both the savage nature of the crime and the identity of the criminal.

By far, the easiest way to deal with such a savage is to defend yourself personally, because pudding-brained others intent on signalling virtue will do everything they can to save that poor misunderstood man, offended as he was by your bleeding all over him.

I've had debates for years over the integrity of our criminal justice system.

Most recently, I told a friend that I thought a mistrial should be declared in the Chauvin case and another trial be conducted. They were aghast "you don't think he should go to prison????" My response was that I think he is at fault for Floyd's death and should go to prison, but we still must only try people with impartial juries (there was a protester on the jury) who are not under pressure (drop the threats and stay away, Maxine Waters). If the guilty do not have those rights, then the innocent do not have them (especially the innocent who are believed to be guilty).

Years back, I was against the civil trial of OJ Simpson, I thought his burglary conviction was excessive, and he served enough time and met the criteria for release of the convicted crime. Someone said they want him to never get out for the double murder including his wife. While I absolutely believe OJ Simpson was guilty of murder, he was acquitted and we do not have double jeopardy for good reason. We cannot sentence people for one crime based on another they were acquitted of. That isn't to protect the guilty, it is to protect the innocent.

This is also why I'm against mandatory minimum prison sentences. Our system is based on the belief that it is better to let the guilty go free than lock up the innocent. Likewise, I think it is better if sentences are too light than if they are too harsh.

Got longer than I intended but I'm passionate about this.

The Hitchens essay on cap punishment is highly recommended, can't remember which book googling okay it's

Love, Poverty, and War is a 2004 collection of Christopher Hitchens's journalism—the "War" section includes pre- and post-9/11 journalism.

The "Poverty" section includes Scenes From An Execution, published in Vanity Fair in 1998, in which Hitchens viewed an execution, and wrote up his thoughts on it.

That was fifteen or twenty years ago, and I was convinced.

> What?

Raddy… Give us sincerity. For two sentences at the top, every time you comment. Then you can go nuts.

Try it for one month, you'll never look back.

> Oh, hey,

Raddy.

Conan the Grammarian at July 30, 2021 5:43 AM

"Ambivalent" is a strikingly generous word choice.

> July 30, 2021 8:30 AM

That is to say, Hitch changed my mind after a lifetime of thinking there were things a person could do which would forfeit one's right to another sunrise: Here's an example from contemporary Cali politics.

"My response was that I think he is at fault for Floyd's death and should go to prison,..."

Have you seen the autopsy report?

It's a big enough challenge when everybody plays things straight. But what about when you've got a prosecutor willing to lie? Then things are worse. And given that prosecutors often face no consequences for misconduct, it's not surprising that some are willing to lie about it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/08/justice-honesty-government-prosecutor-column/24611623/

There is a lot wrong in Missouri. A lot of it seems to be in Family court.

Justice is never going to be perfect, and I think the death penalty is a red herring. Kind of like black men killed by police, the number of actual innocents put to death is vanishingly small. Most of the supposed cases when I started to look them up, is “guy was a murderer, dead to rights, or at least a felon with several convictions, but he may (or may not) have been guilty of the particular murder he got the death penalty for.

A bigger concern in my mind, is the fact that the process is now the punishment. You can remain in jail for a relatively minor crime for up to a year, without ever being convicted.

In addition there is the damage done to the rule of law itself when the DA can target persons or groups they don’t like while ignoring blatant crime through selective prosecution.

This does a lot of damage to the social fabric, and increases the chances that if ANTIFA comes knocking at your door, you will shoot first, and call the police after.

Well said Isab.

Rad, does the autopsy report have anything to prove that Floyd would have died even WITHOUT someone's knee on his neck for over a minute?

Besides, it's flabbergasting that anyone believes that anyone WOULDN'T die after 8 minutes of that. Try just holding your breath for three minutes.

(I also have the weird feeling that if Floyd had consumed alcohol rather than drugs, at least some people wouldn't be blaming Floyd.)

I'm also reminded of some case, decades ago, where a burglar was surprised by the return of the youngish female houseowner. He hid behind a door and then hit her with some heavy object. She died. He said, tearfully, in court, that he thought she would just be knocked unconscious - as in the movies.

Any truly smart person (and I know most criminals aren't) should realize that anyone who's hit hard enough to become unconscious could easily suffer brain damage or worse.

I also remember Jim Bullard, a police lieutenant from Tennessee saying, in his book on physical self-defense, that one tactic is to clap both hands on the attacker's ears. But, he added, there is a not-so-small chance that that could KILL the attacker. (Even without drugs, presumably.)

“Rad, does the autopsy report have anything to prove that Floyd would have died even WITHOUT someone's knee on his neck for over a minute?”

There is no evidence that Chauvin had a knee on any part of Floyd’s neck that would restrict his breathing. It was, in fact between his shoulder blades in an approved police hold.

Read the autopsy report yourself. Floyd died from a Fentanyl overdose combined with heart disease.

Floyd was a foot taller that Chauvin, a hundred pounds heavier, and drugged to near immobility.

History has made its judgment. In younger days, people asked why a guy would make a career in television… But this is the power of video, specifically of editing.

I also have the weird feeling that if Floyd had consumed alcohol rather than drugs, at least some people wouldn't be blaming Floyd. ~ Lenona at July 31, 2021 6:16 AM

Well, since alcohol does not suppress the respiratory system the way opioids like fentanyl do, the outcome would likely have been very different even with all the same actions taken by each party.

Acknowledging the very real effects Floyd's consumption of large amounts of fentanyl had on his body is not "blaming" Floyd. Had he consumed alcohol instead of fentanyl, his body would have reacted differently and the pressure Chauvin applied would likely have had a different result.

Remember, Floyd was saying "I can't breathe" well before he was restrained. He was already in distress from taking a potentially lethal amount of fentanyl.

Additionally, the crowd yelling at the police played a role. EMTs decided to move Floyd away from the vicinity so they could work on him without danger from what was building up to be a hostile crowd. That delay in administering treatment was likely detrimental to Floyd's chances of survival.

""My response was that I think he is at fault for Floyd's death and should go to prison,..."

Have you seen the autopsy report?"

Floyd died from a massive fentanyl overdose, but, from the moment he was arrested, Chauvin was responsible for Floyd's health and well-being. Chauvin, the other officers, and the EMTs did not do enough to save Floyd, but it was not manslaughter, certainly not murder, nor anything else requiring a prison sentence.

I know, but there's video.

Just another douchebag machine cog with power and authority. Bad mix for the citizenry.

Remember, Floyd was saying "I can't breathe" well before he was restrained.
_____________________________________

All the more reason not to do more than put chains on his wrists and ankles. Had he had some serious medical condition that had nothing to do with drugs, he'd be just as dead - and plenty of people do have such conditions. (Not to mention that having that much weight likely doesn't help in a position like that.) Just because it was "an approved police hold" doesn't mean it couldn't kill a less-than-healthy person.

Btw, I know a man in his 60s who looks perfectly healthy, though overweight - but he's had sleep apnea for years and had every reason to be terrified of COVID.

"All the more reason not to do more than put chains on his wrists and ankles."

Ah, yes, another of the, "If I was a police officer..." smartphone experts.

So you didn't see the autopsy report. No reason not to comment.

Because George Floyd was a special person, you see. Any ordinary white man, of any age, would have died without comment.

I have extensive experience as a prosecutor handling this exact kind of case.

I would NEVER want to keep an innocent person in jail. I'd quit before I ever ignored exculpatory evidence---which is also illegal, btw.

It's tough because there ARE innocent people in jail and they deserve immediate release and recompense if we can show that.

Here's the problem: almost all of the people who are serving long sentences in prison ARE guilty. And almost all of them file these post-conviction appeals, many times over (which is their right).

Guess what the most common kind of appeal issue is? The original witnesses recant! The average person has no idea how often this happens, and so when they hear that a person is in jail but witnesses have recanted, they think that is excellent evidence that the person is actually innocent.

To my last post, I should have added that there's a reasonable chance that my friend could have suffocated IF any adult had been kneeling on him that long, in that position. Besides, how much damage can anyone do with hands cuffed behind the back - and shackled ankles?
___________________________________

Any ordinary white man, of any age, would have died without comment.
___________________________________

How do you know?

Also, it seems logical to me that adults who actively resist arrest should at least be suspected of having drugs in their systems or of being mentally ill, so they can handled in non-lethal ways. I'm reminded of the 2015 case of Anthony Hill, the mentally ill Air Force veteran in Georgia who was shot to death - while naked in public. In other words, he was obviously unarmed.

Did the autopsy report contradict anything here?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/us/does-it-matter-whether-chauvin-knelt-on-floyds-neck-versus-his-shoulder.html

"Does it matter whether Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s neck versus his shoulder?"

April 8, 2021, By Shaila Dewan and Sheri Fink

In the widely viewed bystander video of George Floyd’s arrest, it seemed plain that Derek Chauvin had positioned his left knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck.

But Mr. Chauvin’s defense has repeatedly suggested, and tried to get witnesses to agree, that his knee was actually on Mr. Floyd’s shoulder.

The most obvious reason for this is that the medical examiner, Dr. Andrew Baker, attributed Mr. Floyd’s death in part to neck compression.

But several experts said it did not matter: The knee could be lethal in either position, neck or shoulder.

“In my opinion, does it make a difference?” asked Dr. Alon Steinberg, a cardiologist who has published a review of the scientific literature on prone restraint deaths. “No.”

Dr. Steinberg said that multiple factors, including the restriction of breathing and of blood flow, contributed to death during prone restraint.

Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist who has written extensively about the case, said, “Even in the absence of pressing on the neck, you’re putting strain on the cardiovascular system, especially if somebody is fighting or struggling against the restraint.”

The prosecution on Thursday appeared to be pursuing a similar argument. The first witness was Dr. Martin Tobin, a pulmonologist who specializes in the mechanics and physics of breathing.

He said that Mr. Floyd had died from a “low level of oxygen” that led to brain damage and an arrhythmia that “caused his heart to stop.” Dr. Tobin said terms such as hypoxia or the prosecution’s preferred word, asphyxia, are “really other words for a phenomenon that is a low level of oxygen.”

Mr. Floyd’s breathing was restricted, Dr. Tobin explained, by the way the officers pushed in his cuffed hands, squeezing his rib cage against the hard pavement, and by Mr. Chauvin’s placement of his left knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck and right knee on his back.

Mr. Chauvin’s left knee was on Mr. Floyd’s neck “more than 90 percent of the time,” Dr. Tobin said, and his right knee was on Mr. Floyd’s back at least 57 percent of the time. Dr. Tobin said that for the rest of the time, the available video did not provide a good view of the location of Mr. Chauvin’s right knee.