More good news for Illinois Democrats: Blago pick tried executing an innocent man

With Emmitt Till, you’re using a sensational case to make a statement regarding the generality. Yes, what happened to Till was an injustice and was rooted in racial attitudes–attitudes shared by “progressives” such as Woodrow Wilson, i might add–of that period. It in no way detracts from my argument that our judicial system is an adversarial one where the greater number of injustices stem from the simple human desire to defeat the opponent which sometimes overcomes the human need to seek proper justice.

Regarding the prosecution of rape cases–the issue of rape laws is very complex in that for many centuries, rape was generally regarded not as a crime of violence, but as a property crime. The Latin root word for rape is “raptus”–to take or steal. Also included in rape charges were elopements where the woman willingly departed with the man–generally because of parental disapproval of their relationship from either or both sets of parents. These laws only began to be changed circa the 13th century–at least in England. Also, judicial requirements traditionally called for the woman to raise the “hue and cry” or to show signs of physical violence. Of course, injustice did happen in that the rapist would intimidate the woman into silence and compliance, or the victim would simply freeze in shock.

Part of the reason to for the harsh attacks on victims in courts was based on, again, protection of the accused.
Should not the accused have the right to face his accuser and have her testimony cross-examined? Don’t you “progressives” believe in protecting the rights of the accused? Oh, that’s right–only when protecting those rights are convenient to you. As both the Duke rape case and the child molestation witch hunts of the 80s proved, there is real danger in just blindly accepting the word of the victim without proper cross examination–both cases again examples of “liberal/progressive justice” at its best. Here is another difference between conservatives and “progressives”: We realize that there are flaws in the system and that injustices do take place. But because we do not believe in our own perfection, we are willing to do what we can to make the system better–but we insist that those changes be carefully evaluated to protect all interests–the rights of the accused, the victim, and the need of the state to ensure that justice is done.

Matt Helm on January 2, 2009 at 11:52 AM

I used Emmitt Till because it ISN’T an exceptional case, but rather, was the rule throughout the entire southern region of our country (a big part) for over a century (a long time). The majority of injustices for this huge chunk of our national history was not rooted in the adversarial system, it was rooted in the politics of white supremacy which demanded the judicial system transform racist attitudes into the supposedly “objective” rulings of the court/jury etc.

Not all southern cases involved African-Americans though–in fact a majority did not. A major flaw is to assume that race permeated all aspects of southern jurisprudence pre-Civil Rights. You forget, the great majority of the 19 through later 20th century population in the south was caucasian. While you will find injustices in the racial politics, you’ll also find injustices based on class, on religion, on region, on personality, and in basic human nature as seen in the adversarial system–where individuals will seek political or personal gain through victories. It’s not all identity politics–in fact, it’s mostly not identity politics.

But who was engaging in those harsh attacks? In theory the defense attorney perhaps? But we know that it was often the prosecution and police, the supposed victims advocates, who would be attacking the rape victim. Again if your logic is to hold up, that prosecutors just like to pile up wins, then they would do whatever they could to make the case would they not? Culture and politics trump again.

See above answer, but you’re attaching motive to the prosecution and police. In some cases, yes, their underlying motives might be “she was asking for it”. In others, they’re wanting to be sure that they’ve got a real rape and not a false accusation, and in still other instances other motives might apply. Again, if Crystal Maugham were subjected to a proper and rigorous examination by the prosecution and defense instead of a prosecution intent on winning at all costs–and also pandering to identity groups and to radical elements within the university community–so yes, some politics was involved, her story might well have collapsed.

Of course our judicial system is a political animal–all governmental systems are–so what? Conservatives realize that, flaws and all, it is still better than most others and recognize that it does need to be watched over carefully. Conservatives run the gamut on the death penalty from complete opposition to it to using it in rare and unusual circumstances (my position) to complete support. This again, supports my contention that conservatives are more concerned for the individual than progressives. And no, most conservatives would not have backed what Burris did. Again, because conservatives accept that we are flawed, we are much more likely to want to ensure that true justice is done than progressives who cannot accept that they might be wrong because to do so would be to admit that their ideology might be wrong. And–it was progressive/liberals who were the driving forces behind the 80s witch hunts–not a conservative response to the gay rights movement. The prosecutors and officials were almost all Democrat and liberal.

Matt Helm on January 2, 2009 at 1:02 PM