Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:53:03 PM
I recently had a comment posted by Rebel on
one of my articles. It reads as follows:
"Most manage to break all four rules, and more besides, asking to free Leonard Peltier, or Mumia abu Jamal, or various Puerto Rican separatists, all of which is more than enough to turn me off immediately. I don't care how much you believe in libertarian causes, to endorse freeing murderers for political reasons is libertinism, not libertarianism"
That's just swell.... I bet you felt the same way about Geronimo Pratt, too. Until they realized he was INNOCENT! As are Peltier and Mumia. It has nothing to do with their politics; it has everything to do with government persecution of innocent persons.
Apparently Rebel's logic is as follows: Pratt was framed by an FBI agent, so any political figure who is arrested must have been framed as well. (Otherwise, I can't figure out how he gets around the 4 eyewitnesses to Mumia's shooting, or the fact that even some of Peltier's supporters say he shot, but was justified.)
However, if we accept this logic, that all political figures who are arrested must be framed, where do we stop? If the FBI can frame people for political ends, can't local police forces frame people as well? And can't they do it for less political end?
So, isn't the logical conclusion that we should simply throw open the jail doors, as one suspect conviction makes all convictions suspect?
I'm sorry, but I have faith in my fellow citizens. Yes, juries can pass down incorrect sentences from time to time, and there is the rare law enforcement agent who frames someone, but those are the exception, not the rule. And I have trouble believing in the "Amerikkka" view that there is a massive conspiracy out there framing all political enemies and sentencing them to jail. (I also don't worry about CFR/NAU or 9/11 "truthers". Sorry, but I HAVE looked, and your conspiracies just don't hold water.)
And for all those who will point out to me some much ballyhooed case of "miscarriage of justice", I can point out hundreds and thousands of cases where there was no injustice. Also, recall that for all the rambling about "project innocence" proving innocence, a lot of times it simply shows that a new trial is warranted, not that a given individual is actually innocent. (Of course, as they take cases decades old, the chance of the prosecutor bother to try, or being able to gather evidence after a decade or more is small, so a new trial is equivalent to a Get out Of Jail Free card.) Lastly, don't confuse "not guilty" with "innocent", unless you really think OJ was viciously framed by Fuhrman.
I recall reading years ago about the ballistics team that wanted to prove for posterity that Sacco and Vanzetti were railroaded. Unfortunately, they found that Sacco's gun was the one that fired the famed "bullet no. 3". So before you go on about miscarriages of justice, recall that the supposed victims of the most famous "railroading" in history* were, in fact, guilty.
UPDATED 01/25/2008
In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that my father was in law enforcement, as were several other relatives. I spent almost my entire childhood in the company of local, state and federal law enforcement people, so my view is a bit colored by that.
On the other hand, as a child I was often allowed unimpeded access "behind the scenes" of law enforcement. I saw their behavior when they were not worried about prying eyes of the public, so I feel I know law enforcement a bit better than outsiders, and I can say a few things based on that:
1. Law enforcement is made up of normal individuals, not a number of sinister super villians, as the "Amerikkka" image seems to think
2. There is enough bickering and in fighting (as at any job) that an environment that would allow a conspiracy is a VERY rare circumstance. Most of the time, an angry coworker would reveal any conspiracy just to repay some slight. So I doubt conspiracies are anywhere near as common as my commenter thinks
3. Police lie all over the political spectrum. Yes, they are as a whole more conservative than the public (excepting the politicized higher ranks), but there are still many leftists on the police force. So to think that a group of police could easily just form a right wing conspiracy to railroad someone is absurd. There are enough leftist cops to make that pretty unlikely.
So, yes, growing up with the police has made me see them differently and may make me more inclined to trust that they are not some sinister conspiracy to railroad poor innocent activists. But it also gives me information which helps to support this view.
Just wanted to reveal my potential bias (and the basis for my beliefs) before someone asked. (I did mention my father's profession in a response somewhere below, so I knew sooner or later someone might bring that up.)
Footnote Added 01/25/2008* I suppose the Dreyfuss case may be the most famous in history thanks to Zola. So let us say that Sacco and Vanzetti were the most famous in US history (thanks to Dos Passos? That the French got Zola and we got Dos Passos may be the greatest injustice of all.).