HappySqurriel said:
All I was suggesting was that most wrongful conviction cases have several reasons why the person was convicted; and unless there is obvious evidence that the conviction was racially motivated, it is unfair to say that the conviction was based on systemic racism. We can say today that convicting someone based on a vague description, questionable witness and having the same (very common) blood type as the assailant is unreasonable; but that was more evidence than many cases had back in the day, and the legal system was in an awful position of having to convict people with very weak evidence. I’m certain a lot of mistakes were made, a ton of people were convicted of crimes that they didn’t commit, and certain ethnic groups may have been disproportionately impacted by wrongful conviction; but I suspect that the reason for this disproportionate impact (at this point in time) had far more to do with poverty than race, because a decent lawyer could point out how weak the evidence was and poor people couldn’t afford a decent lawyer. |
Whike this may be true, I think even the best lawyer in some cases couldn't save an innocent black person (usign To Kill a Mockingbird as an example would be silly, as it's a work of fiction, but I'm sure that there were cases like that in real life).
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)







