>>Wojtek, How is killing god knows how many innocent persons (thanks to the
>>lack of decent legal aid access afforded the poor) going to do anything to
>>solve the problem of racisim in the US? Or that guy's racist attitudes
>>and actions...?
>
>Of course it will not. But how does defending these guys, even though
>those who got a raw deal? This is more of an issue of getting a fair trial
>-- a principle that even respectable conservatives would support, so why
>should it be central on the agenda of a labor movement?
We can't defend the "innocent" without defending the "guilty." Now, in the USA, it is legal to execute the "innocent," if death row inmates come up with new evidence that may exonerate them after they exhaust their appeals. Fair trials? Forget about it.
***** INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN (AND LIKELY WILL CONTINUE TO BE) EXECUTED.
...On January 25, 1993, the US Supreme Court ruled (in Herrera v Collins) that condemned prisoners who have exhausted their appeals and then come up with new evidence that could prove their innocence DO NOT have a constitutional right to be heard by a federal court. In essence, it is now legal in the USA to execute inmates who are innocent....
...On January 4, 1995, Texas became the 1st jurisdiction to execute a man (Jesse Jacobs) who prosecutors admitted did NOT commit the murder for which he was convicted....
...In November, 1998, Northwestern University Law School (in Chicago) hosted a conference for the wrongfully convicted innocent individuals who had been freed from America's death rows. Over 30 of the known 74 men and women who had been freed from death row were gathered together for the 1st time.
http://www.inetport.com/~ai500/TX&USA91299.html *****
In fact, it is not necessary to see the above empirical evidence to understand the necessity of defending the "guilty" -- a lesson learned in lynching & the Red Scare, of course, but also in the ordinary processes of criminal justice, welfare reform, and so on.
Yoshie