Post
by steve-o » Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:34 pm
I didn't have time to read all the posts in here but for someone who just fininshed his 2nd year of law school mid terms, I thought I could chime in.
First - Circumstancial Evidnce: Circ. ev. is not necessarily weaker then direct evidence. For example, DNA fingerprinting, forensics (CSI) is mostly Circ. Ev. So even if the 9th Circuit Appellat judge said it was circ. ev. it doesn't necessarily mean its any less relevant or convincing. The problem with evidence in general is that there are so many exceptions to admissibility that juries are likely prejudiced by evidence for one reason when its being offered for another purpose. For example, I'd bet that a lot of evidence was admitted to establish identity purposes, scene of the crime identifications, etc, that also described the gang related activities that Tookie participated in unconnected to the issues in the case. So even if there was no direct evidnce to prove Tookies guilt, alot of evidnce probably got in that described him as a bad man.
Seoncd - Plea Bargain Testiony: MOst of the testimony by tookie was by fellow criminals through a plea bargain process. This means that, but for the state letting them off the hook, they wouldn't have testified. Perjury is common in this situation, and probably one of the number one reason for, in my opinion, false convictions behind, ahem, faulty DNA and forensic evidnce
Third - the legal system: I'm against the death penalty personally. However, reform of the criminal process can't begin in the governors office or judge's chambers. It has to start at the polls when we vote for these people who ultimately have the power (state and congressional represnetatives. Prison-based corporations are already quite successfull due to the fact that they barely, if at all compensate prisoners for their labor. I see no reason why prison couldn't be incorporated and use those assets to fund a proper rehabilitation program for felons like Tookie. However, thats probably not going to happen anytime soon, so rehabilitation programs would have to get their funding from federal and state taxes. Joe and Jane America are probably not going to want to help rehab felons when they have to worry about gas prices, mortgage payments, education osts for kids, disposable income to buy new video iPods, etc.
Last minute judicial review, while helpful, is not really the solution because it interfers with the whole system of governemnt the country is based on (for those who are interested, seperation of powers and federalism). If the SC always overturned state laws (like Cali's in this case) then the feds would be interfering with the rights of Californians. (However, they did just that with medical marijuana, although the charges were federal CSA drug violations rather than the state law violations we see with Tookie)
Only 50% of our population (thats registered) vote. 50% either can't or don't care. And the majority of the 50% that do vote are Joe and Jane America. So I see the soultion taking to large steps: (1) allow free and easy access to those elgible to vote regardless of registration. Are you a citizen, over 18? Then you can vote, you're already registered. (2) MObilize activists to vote in areas of the country traditionally underepresented wth oppossing ideologies. It doen's matter if the entire states of NY and CA are outraged. If a little sttae like Rhode Island or Idaho or Utah or whatever state has a small population, has the same effective voting power, then thats where changes need to be.
I know lots people question the validity of elections, but we've seen now effecive they are recently, with the democratic swing in NJ and Virginia, and the bcomplete shut out of all of Arnolds propositions on the ballot a few months ago. So it can and does work when pople votre.
Finally - race: Given everything I've said, you have to be living under a rock to think that race didn't play a role in Tookie, doen'st play a role in the criminal judical process, and doesn't play a role in a states and this natons allocation of resources. We live in a country whose constitution was (1) designed to keep rich white men rich (2) protect slave owners and (2) suppress womens rights. Arguably, rights toward wmoen have changed over the course of the years. But blacks have been marginalized in our society: they are thugs, criminals, or rappers and sports stars. Its still rare to see black doctors and layers compared to white ones. And the problem starts all the way back at what schools they have access to, the crime in low income neghborhodds, and again, the allocation of state and federal resources to provie high quality education that insulates children from crimanl activity. But who's voting for the present day allocation of resources" jo and Jane. We need to push for more socialist reform that provides the kind of education, healthcare, job security,and access to resources that say, a country like Switzerland has. But now I digress.
I hope that thiis post wasn't too much of a bore to read. It will be nice surfing the forum again now that exams are over for three weeks.
Shouldn't "their families" get some money? I mean, cause just cause someone stabbed you up don't mean a brick broke off the roof and crashed into your skull killing you.