- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,962
If We Fix Racism, Will Government Be Fixed?
http://mises.org/blog/if-we-fix-racism-will-government-be-fixed
Ryan McMaken (18 December 2014)
The Washington Post reports:
With the conviction tossed, we now know that we have yet another person convicted and sentenced to death in government courts but who was never proven guilty by any respectable legal standard. In this case, it seems, the courts engaged in no due diligence, denied the defendant numerous rights supposedly guaranteed by the American legal system, and was executed with zero physical evidence. Also — and this is rarely emphasized in cases of wrongful conviction — if Stinney was not the kliller, then the actual killer or killers were never brought to justice: the police and the DA found their scapegoat, won a conviction, and then quickly moved on without any regard to the safety of the community.
What's the lesson to be learned? An organization that can't deliver the mail on time or deliver health care competently can certainly not be trusted to objectively administer the death penalty. Indeed, government courts should always be viewed with extreme suspicion and a presumption of a tendency toward abuse. The highest possible standards should always be demanded of them, and they should be forced to jump through a myriad of hoops before a conviction can be attained.
But if one peruses the numerous media articles on this topic, the lesson, apparently, is not that the legal system is broken, that police and DAs have entirely too much power in the courtroom, that children should not be executed, or that capital crimes should perhaps require some actual evidence. Nope, the only lesson to learn here, it seems, is that racism is bad.
Yes, racism is bad, but it's rather beside the point. Prosecutors, police, and judges are guilty of all kinds of bigotries, prejudices, and malicious feelings toward other people. All human beings are. The idea that "impartial" judges and DAs can be found to administer the legal system has always been a contemptible fantasy. Of course many of them have been racists, and many are racists to the present day. Many are also biased against drug users or people who have unpopular opinions, or people from other countries, or people who are ugly, or short, or stupid, or poor, or practice religions we don't like, or any of the myriad of other characteristics that bias others. How will these people hope to obtain a fair trial?
Well, they certainly won't get it if we all declare "if we can get non-racist DAs and judges, all will be fine!"
The reason people like Stinney don't get fair trials is because the police and the courts can get away with unfair trials. Naturally, citizens, if they have any sense of self-preservation, want the police and courts to convict the guilty parties. When an innocent person is convicted, the guilty party goes free. On the other hand, if people have a naive view of police and the courts and simply assume that they will reliably work hard to find the guilty party and provide a fair trial and due process, then the courts can get away with pretty much anything. Were the jurors in the Stinney case racists? Probably. If they were racists, they were probably more than willing to believe that a black person committed the terrible crimes of which Stinney was accused. But, given that they deliberated for ten minutes before convicting, they didn't seem much interested in making sure they convicted the right black person, either, even though convicting the wrong person means they are setting the actual killer free.
Racism alone might explain things if they were asked to choose between a white defendant and black defendant. But they weren't asked to do that. They were asked to convict based on little more than the government assurances that this guy did it. Racism can explain why they would want to convict a black person, but a pro-government bias does help explain why they so easily convicted this particular black person. The jurors were apparently happy to blindly do what the government told them to do.
Today, it's definitely progress when we look at police and the courts and doubt their competence and impartiality when racism might be a factor. That's good. But it's not nearly enough. We should also doubt their competence and impartiality if the defendant is white, or foreign, or poor, or ugly, or disabled, or wealthy, or male, or female. Any decent appreciation of the nature of government, and the coercive power it holds over private citizens, demands it.
http://mises.org/blog/if-we-fix-racism-will-government-be-fixed
Ryan McMaken (18 December 2014)
The Washington Post reports:
When George Stinney Jr. was executed for the killings of two white girls in 1944, he was so small that the straps of South Carolina’s electric chair didn’t fit him properly, and he had to sit on a book for his electrocution.
With the conviction tossed, we now know that we have yet another person convicted and sentenced to death in government courts but who was never proven guilty by any respectable legal standard. In this case, it seems, the courts engaged in no due diligence, denied the defendant numerous rights supposedly guaranteed by the American legal system, and was executed with zero physical evidence. Also — and this is rarely emphasized in cases of wrongful conviction — if Stinney was not the kliller, then the actual killer or killers were never brought to justice: the police and the DA found their scapegoat, won a conviction, and then quickly moved on without any regard to the safety of the community.
What's the lesson to be learned? An organization that can't deliver the mail on time or deliver health care competently can certainly not be trusted to objectively administer the death penalty. Indeed, government courts should always be viewed with extreme suspicion and a presumption of a tendency toward abuse. The highest possible standards should always be demanded of them, and they should be forced to jump through a myriad of hoops before a conviction can be attained.
But if one peruses the numerous media articles on this topic, the lesson, apparently, is not that the legal system is broken, that police and DAs have entirely too much power in the courtroom, that children should not be executed, or that capital crimes should perhaps require some actual evidence. Nope, the only lesson to learn here, it seems, is that racism is bad.
Yes, racism is bad, but it's rather beside the point. Prosecutors, police, and judges are guilty of all kinds of bigotries, prejudices, and malicious feelings toward other people. All human beings are. The idea that "impartial" judges and DAs can be found to administer the legal system has always been a contemptible fantasy. Of course many of them have been racists, and many are racists to the present day. Many are also biased against drug users or people who have unpopular opinions, or people from other countries, or people who are ugly, or short, or stupid, or poor, or practice religions we don't like, or any of the myriad of other characteristics that bias others. How will these people hope to obtain a fair trial?
Well, they certainly won't get it if we all declare "if we can get non-racist DAs and judges, all will be fine!"
The reason people like Stinney don't get fair trials is because the police and the courts can get away with unfair trials. Naturally, citizens, if they have any sense of self-preservation, want the police and courts to convict the guilty parties. When an innocent person is convicted, the guilty party goes free. On the other hand, if people have a naive view of police and the courts and simply assume that they will reliably work hard to find the guilty party and provide a fair trial and due process, then the courts can get away with pretty much anything. Were the jurors in the Stinney case racists? Probably. If they were racists, they were probably more than willing to believe that a black person committed the terrible crimes of which Stinney was accused. But, given that they deliberated for ten minutes before convicting, they didn't seem much interested in making sure they convicted the right black person, either, even though convicting the wrong person means they are setting the actual killer free.
Racism alone might explain things if they were asked to choose between a white defendant and black defendant. But they weren't asked to do that. They were asked to convict based on little more than the government assurances that this guy did it. Racism can explain why they would want to convict a black person, but a pro-government bias does help explain why they so easily convicted this particular black person. The jurors were apparently happy to blindly do what the government told them to do.
Today, it's definitely progress when we look at police and the courts and doubt their competence and impartiality when racism might be a factor. That's good. But it's not nearly enough. We should also doubt their competence and impartiality if the defendant is white, or foreign, or poor, or ugly, or disabled, or wealthy, or male, or female. Any decent appreciation of the nature of government, and the coercive power it holds over private citizens, demands it.
