Free Gary Tyler

Gary Tyler, black, now aged 48, is serving a life prison sentence in the infamous State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. He was convicted in 1975 for the murder of 13-year-old Timothy Weber, a white schoolboy who was shot during an attack by a white mob on a school bus filled with black students.

Tyler, who was 16 at the time of the incident, has consistently denied involvement in the crime. Since his trial, serious doubts have been raised about the evidence on which he was convicted, according to Amnesty International, which named him a prisoner of conscience in 1994 and which argues that Tyler was denied a fair trial and that racial prejudice played a major part in his prosecution. (Two months ago the human rights group renewed its call to the Louisiana authorities for a pardon to be granted Tyler.)

Tyler was tried by an all-white jury with members of the black community deliberately excluded from jury selection. The prosecution relied mainly on the testimony of one student, Nathalie Blanks, who was in the same bus with Tyler. She testified to having seen him fire the gun but after the trial she recanted her testimony. Other students who also testified against Tyler have later recanted, saying that they were coerced by the police to making the statements.

As Bob Herbert wrote in the first of a recent series of three New York Times' columns on Tyler, "That single shot in this rural town about 25 miles up the Mississippi River from New Orleans set in motion a tale of appalling injustice that has lasted to the present day." Herbert's reporting has helped revive interest in the case and and given the miscarriage of justice new visibility.

Building on this momentum, Nation sportswriter Dave Zirin recently contacted a range of people from the world of sports to ask if they would stand with Tyler at this critical time. Numerous athletes have joined their name to the cause, including NBA player Etan Thomas, boxer Ruben "Hurricane" Carter, olympic medalists Tommie Smith and John Carlos and former major league pitchers Jim Bouton and Bill Lee.

How you can help:

**Sign a petition to Kathleen Blanco, Governor of Louisiana, imploring her to issue a pardon, and send her office an email or fax.

** Download and distribute 'Time To Free Gary Tyler' flyers.

**Send a letter of support to Tyler. Here's his address: Gary Tyler # 84156, Louisiana State Penitentiary ASH-4, Angola, LA 70712.

**Spread the word about this travesty of justice. Click here to read and circulate background info on the case.

Comments (45)

1. Rio- Many people on the left work with victims of crime and their families.Who do you think most social workers and counselors are?Most of us are left wingers.I worked as a clinical counselor for sexually abused children and my lefty sister works for child protective services. By the way,the crime rate went down under Clinton,but is now rising under bush.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/29/2007 @ 6:52pm

2. "Rio- Many people on the left work with victims of crime and their families. Who do you think most social workers and counselors are?Most of us are left wingers. I worked as a clinical counselor for sexually abused children and my lefty sister works for child protective services. By the way,the crime rate went down under Clinton, but is now rising under bush."

   Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/29/2007 @ 6:52pm

   IM, that's not entirely true.The crime rate under Clinton did not go down. Things weren't rosey during his 2 terms either. And what does being "left wingers" have to do with social workers or counselors? You speak as if the "lefties" are the only ones who are concerned with what's wrong in our cities. Before the advent of "social services" our churches were and still remain in the forfront of helping families. They, like other caregivers, are a very special group of people who do a very difficult job because they truly care about others, not because they lean to the left or the right. Without many faith-based organizations, the DFCS would have floundered long ago.

   Posted by ACook at 03/29/2007 @ 8:18pm

3. ACook-If you read rios post and my response you'll see that I was responding to Rios claim that left wingers do nothing to help crime victims.It's nice you go to church.Many on the left go to church,too.Some of you folks on the right really need to get out more.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/29/2007 @ 8:28pm

4. IM, I understand what Rio was trying to say..(although he should have elaborated a little more) but he's trying to make a point about those extremist left wing groups who may not devote time or energy in trying to make a serious difference outside of protesting our prison system, like mentoring to troubled and homeless youth or addressing gang violence in the inner cities before that very system touches them permenately.

   As for this Gary Tylor person, I find it very unusal that the Innocence Project or the Southern Poverty Law Center hasn't taken this case. If this is the real McCoy, then they are the best suited to get the ball rolling. Afterall these two groups have the best success rate of helping wrongfully convicted people get out of prison.

   Posted by ACook at 03/29/2007 @ 10:09pm

5. ACook-Rio was incorrect as always.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/30/2007 @ 08:55am

6. No,

   ACook-Rio was incorrect as always.

   Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/30/2007 @ 08:55am

   IM,

   No one is incorrect..always...it is impossible to always be wrong...this is the bitch I have here with most posters I have a battle of some sort...because one disagrees with me doesn't me I am wrong nor is the reverse true and I feel most here have the idea that disagreement is equal to being wrong......that is always wrong...

   Posted by john maasch at 03/30/2007 @ 10:32am

7. maasch-what has rio ever been correct about?

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/30/2007 @ 11:45am

8. COOK -- With all due respect you gotta do your homework before casting doubt on a well-researched post about an innocent guy who has had his life taken away. If you're gonna spout off about it, at least follow a few links. The Innocence Project only deals with cases in which DNA testing is an issue--largely rape cases. DNA testing isn't an issue in Tyler's case so it's out of the IP's purview. Ans the SPLC also does not deal with these sorts of case. It spends virtually all of its energy fighting rightwing hate groups. Here's how they describe themselves from their website:

   "Today, the Center is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups."

   Also, I'm no Clintonista but crime in the US did, in fact, decrease during his two terms (though I personally wdn't give him the credit.) Pls let us know what source you're relying on that indicates otehrwise.

   Posted by Peter Rothberg at 03/30/2007 @ 11:56am

9. maasch-When a person reaches rios age and is still saying things like demoncrat then they can't expect to be taken seriously particularly when they claim to be an independent,but only put down one side.I view him as nothing more than a cheap source of entertainment.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/30/2007 @ 12:15pm

10. Thank you Peter for setting me straight. As you can tell I'm not your typical blogger.. :) As for my casting doubt on this or any other "free the wrongly convicted" cases, please give us lay people the benefit of doubt, we're always leary of someone claiming their innocence, only to discover they truly are killers. I speak from experience on the release issue though, an older brother and my family's closest neighbors were murdered by a convicted felon who was pardoned for "good behavior" in the state of Michigan. (ever consider going to Detroit anytime soon?)

    As for me, I was mugged twice in Atlanta while Clinton was in office. So no passes from me.

    Posted by ACook at 03/30/2007 @ 2:58pm

11. Rio Bravo-Right wingers typically do nothing more than talk about crime victims,but it is primarily left wingers who counsel them and see to their needs.You use demoncrat because you're immature and the story about the 13 year old was nothing,but pure desperation on your part to post something irrelevant as is your custom.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/31/2007 @ 08:57am

12. Rio-Here are some questions you'll cut and run from.Since most child rapists are straights should we stop straights from having rights?What Judeo-Christian morality are you referring to when you say it's appropriate to call Democrats demoncrats?Jews have no belief in demons or the devil.Demons came from Persian mythology and the devil came from Greek mythology and these were adapted into Christianity to explain seizure disorders and mental illness and to scare people into submission.I noticed you said left wing extremists PROBABLY don't do anything to support crime victims.You have obviously lived a very sheltered life and need to get out more.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/31/2007 @ 10:17am

13. COOK -- I'm terribly sorry about your loss. That's horrible.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 03/31/2007 @ 2:00pm

14. RIO -- I know it's a mistake to take you seriously but I have a second so let me try to put your inflammatory example in context. I wrote this post b/c I believe that there's an injustice occuring w/Tyler's continued incarceration and that this injustice can be partially undone with a pardon or a re-trial. Of course a horrible crime was commited with Timothy Weber's shooting but I think they scapegoated the wrong guy. In your example aren't the presumed rapists convicted and facing life, if not death, sentences? Of course the crime there is vicious but there's no injustice currently occuring that can be undone. I don't even know what you mean by supporting the (dead) victim in that case.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 03/31/2007 @ 2:08pm

15. "Rio Bravo-Right wingers typically do nothing more than talk about crime victims,but it is primarily left wingers who counsel them and see to their needs."

    Actually, it seems the libs are more concerned about counciling the criminals so we all understand their poor up bring in order to excuse their crime.....while the repubs send the crimals to jail...only to have the libs judeges let them out..sometimes early....so it seems..only to re commit crimes...a lib cycle..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/31/2007 @ 2:48pm

16. JM-As I stated,I was in the social work/counseling business for over twenty years and most in the business are liberals. We are the ones who typically counsel the victims,families and even the criminals in order to help them not commit more crimes. The repubs send them to jail thing is quite naive.I know you righties are told to believe that the left coddles criminals and the right protects and takes care of the victims and families, but that is not reality.It is your kind who doesn't want to pay the taxes necessary to keep them in jail so they get released due to overcrowding.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/31/2007 @ 3:00pm

17. So, basically, there've been a lot of interesting claims flying around by both sides, and I want to deal with a couple of them really quickly.

    Also, I'm no Clintonista but crime in the US did, in fact, decrease during his two terms (though I personally wdn't give him the credit.) Pls let us know what source you're relying on that indicates otehrwise.

    Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 03/30/2007 @ 11:56am

    I mean, if Clinton's policies don't deserve credit for the decrease, it's not clear why the decrease is really all that meaningful in evaluating particular policies, though it could be a more long-term effect of policies prior to him...

    Admittedly, that's pure speculation.

    Since most child rapists are straights should we stop straights from having rights?What Judeo-Christian morality are you referring to when you say it's appropriate to call Democrats demoncrats?Jews have no belief in demons or the devil.Demons came from Persian mythology and the devil came from Greek mythology and these were adapted into Christianity to explain seizure disorders and mental illness and to scare people into submission.I noticed you said left wing extremists PROBABLY don't do anything to support crime victims.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/31/2007 @ 10:17am

    Your point about rights is exactly on target.

    You're factually incorrect about demons/the devil, however, for a couple of reasons. First, a conception of Satan/the devil actually exists in many ancient Jewish writings, even if it's not manifest in Jewish practice today. I think it's pretty clear, for example, that even if the serpent in the Garden of Eden story wasn't called "the devil," he's embodying what Christianity describes the devil is being. Second, unclean spirits are referenced in numerous Old Testament texts, most written, I'm pretty sure, before there was substantial interaction with Greek culture.

    One last thing I want to touch on is an issue that ACook alludes to, where she talks about a convicted murderer who got off on good behavior. I'm actually not sure our system should have this, for three primary reasons. First, there are obviously questions of justice, to all of those involved in the crime in question. Second, there are obvious efficacy questions. For example, when the standard for rehabilitation is "you've been good in prison," we have no reliable basis for believing that the people we let out aren't a danger to society. Since they probably have every reason to want to get out of jail, when all they have to do is restrain themselves while they're in prison, they have no incentive not to fake rehabilitation. This is obviously bad, because we're letting people out who are still likely to be a danger to society. Until we have a measure of rehabilitation that isn't "they didn't kill anyone behind bars," it's unclear why we shouldn't abolish parole.

    Posted by Thrawn at 03/31/2007 @ 11:26pm

18. Thrawn-The devil/satan does not exist in any Jewish writings.Satan is a Hebrew word that means adversary and that word was even applied to the god of the old testament.In the Christian version of the old testament your god is identified as being Satan,but that problem doesn't exist in the Hebrew version because it says adversary and not the proper name Satan.Compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1. You are viewing this from the point of view of a Christian and not a Jew.One of the things that surprised me when I was studying to convert to Judaism is how Christianity and Judaism are so different in their views.These are two entirely different belief systems.The first mention of demons was found in Persian mythology and not the old testament.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/01/2007 @ 10:33am

19. It seems like the reason that you reject the notion of any kind of demons/devil in the Old Testament is because the particular name "Satan" isn't used to refer specifically to one. However, I think it's important to note that a devil-figure is mentioned from the very beginning of the Old Testament, in the creation accounts, as I mentioned. Many of the basic attributes ascribed to the devil are bestowed on the snake that tempts Adam and Eve, so it seems like there's a reference to a kind of devil from the very beginning of the Old Testament. That, coupled with numerous references to "evil spirits" throughout the Old Testament, seems to suggest that the Israelites had their own early conception of a kind of demonic being. Has it ever occured to you that people can change? I'm sure I'll be accused of advocating child murder by the high minded intellect of Rio and pals. As if the two guys being queer had anything to do with their being psychotic enough to rape and murder a young boy. As if "straight" folks weren't involved in such crap all the time.

    Posted by MADLIB 04/01/2007 @ 11:52am

    I'm not sure if this is aimed at least partially at my recent post, but if it is, I think you're absolutely right. Crime is committed by people of many different backgrounds, and the people who commit crimes can often change. However, part of the question about parole is whether parole boards are actually capable of evaluating whether someone has in fact changed, particularly since the standard seems to be "good behavior in prison." Since that standard is deeply flawed by virtue of its inefficacy and the perverse incentives it gives to prisoners, it calls into question whether parole is actually justified.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/01/2007 @ 1:01pm

20. OK, that got botched pretty severely, my apologies. Let me try that again.

    Thrawn-The devil/satan does not exist in any Jewish writings.Satan is a Hebrew word that means adversary and that word was even applied to the god of the old testament.In the Christian version of the old testament your god is identified as being Satan,but that problem doesn't exist in the Hebrew version because it says adversary and not the proper name Satan.Compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1. You are viewing this from the point of view of a Christian and not a Jew.One of the things that surprised me when I was studying to convert to Judaism is how Christianity and Judaism are so different in their views.These are two entirely different belief systems.The first mention of demons was found in Persian mythology and not the old testament.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/01/2007 @ 10:33am

    It seems like the reason that you reject the notion of any kind of demons/devil in the Old Testament is because the particular name "Satan" isn't used to refer specifically to one. However, I think it's important to note that a devil-figure is mentioned from the very beginning of the Old Testament, in the creation accounts, as I mentioned. Many of the basic attributes ascribed to the devil are bestowed on the snake that tempts Adam and Eve, so it seems like there's a reference to a kind of devil from the very beginning of the Old Testament. That, coupled with numerous references to "evil spirits" throughout the Old Testament, seems to suggest that the Israelites had their own early conception of a kind of demonic being.

    Has it ever occured to you that people can change? I'm sure I'll be accused of advocating child murder by the high minded intellect of Rio and pals. As if the two guys being queer had anything to do with their being psychotic enough to rape and murder a young boy. As if "straight" folks weren't involved in such crap all the time.

    Posted by MADLIB 04/01/2007 @ 11:52am

    I'm not sure if this is aimed at least partially at my recent post, but if it is, I think you're absolutely right. Crime is committed by people of many different backgrounds, and the people who commit crimes can often change. However, part of the question about parole is whether parole boards are actually capable of evaluating whether someone has in fact changed, particularly since the standard seems to be "good behavior in prison." Since that standard is deeply flawed by virtue of its inefficacy and the perverse incentives it gives to prisoners, it calls into question whether parole is actually justified.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/01/2007 @ 1:03pm

21. Thrawn-Please show where this devil figure exists in the old testament and evidence that the early Israelis had a belief in a demonic being.Jews have been unaware that they had that belief for several thousand years now.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/01/2007 @ 2:35pm

22. Thrawn-It was Christians who decided that the serpent was the demonic being after they had changed the Greek god Hades name to Satan and invented the god of evil.Jews did not view the serpent as some evil being,but simply as some type of adversary to God.There is no belief in heaven or hell in Judaism and so no god of the underworld named Satan.The people who originally interpreted the Old Testament have no belief in the devil or demons and never did.Most modern Christians don't believe in the devil or demons let alone Jews.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/01/2007 @ 2:47pm

23. Chritianity made this line both possible and an all time classic

    "Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!"

    Posted by Will C. at 04/01/2007 @ 2:59pm

24. thank you jesus

    Posted by Will C. at 04/01/2007 @ 2:59pm

25. Thrawn-Please show where this devil figure exists in the old testament and evidence that the early Israelis had a belief in a demonic being.Jews have been unaware that they had that belief for several thousand years now.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/01/2007 @ 2:35pm

    I don't think Judaism specifically has a belief in "the devil" per se, in the way Christianity does; you're right about that. However, I feel like many of the stories in the Old Testament contain references to beings that are demonic in some sense, even if they don't have the kind of "underworld-power" that is ascribed to Satan. The figure in the creation stories, even if not "the devil," is certainly characterized as a kind of demonic figure, or at the very least an evil one. In addition, there are references to demons or evil spirits all throughout the Old Testament; recall, for example, the evil spirit sent (yes, I know, by God) to antagonize Saul.

    So...I think, at the close of this discussion, Christianity has two things going for it. One, we have real demons, not merely somewhat demonic animals or spirit. Two...we get to line up behind Samuel L. Jackson.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/01/2007 @ 7:22pm

26. "But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the Lord troubled him" (1 Samuel 16:14);

    "And it happened on the next day that the distressing spirit from God came upon Saul" (1 Samuel 18:10)

    so god sends out a spirit to give saul a little shit, you know break some balls and you hamsters consider that evil.

    you should stop by philly some time

    Posted by Will C. at 04/01/2007 @ 9:19pm

27. This is a little bit of a misrepresentation because it only mentions part of the story. Consider that this same spirit was responsible for, among other things, compelling Saul to try and kill David. I think there may be something to be said, though, for the notion that something sent directly from God and which does what God tells us can definitionally not be understood as demonic. If that's the case, examples besides the snake may be a little more tenuous, though I think the snake example is still sufficient.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/01/2007 @ 11:34pm

28. So then why did you bring up saul's ball busting spirit as an example of demons..,

    In addition, there are references to demons or evil spirits all throughout the Old Testament; recall, for example, the evil spirit sent (yes, I know, by God) to antagonize Saul.

    Just so you could then turn around and say that something sent directly from God and which does what God tells us can definitionally not be understood as demonic.

    by chance are you on a motherfucking plane and are you battling motherfucking snakes

    Posted by Will C. at 04/02/2007 @ 12:34am

29. yup... a classic

    Posted by Will C. at 04/02/2007 @ 12:34am

30. Well, in all honesty, after I thought about the example of Saul, I started to get less and less convinced that it actually represented a demon as a demon would be understood in Christianity. In other words, I think some of my analysis might have been wrong.

    However, I don't think that necessarily negates the significance of the snake in the creation story. Granted, the snake is just another animal in the creation. I think, though, that a couple of really important factors suggest a demonic underpinning to the snake character. First of all, the snake is acting directly against God. It's telling Eve to do exactly the opposite of what God had commanded, and thus attempting to subvert the created order that God laid out. I think this is really important because this suggests that the snake isn't really "just another animal"; it's not out for its own narrow interests per se, but a broader goal that suggests a deeper opposition to God's order. Second, and I thought this was particularly interesting, the snake's appeal to Eve is based on knowledge of God Himself, knowledge that even human beings, supposedly the highest form of creature, simply don't have access to. Regardless of whether that knowledge is accurate, the claim is still made. This is important not only because this suggests a being that isn't just another creature, but also because this being doesn't see itself as just another creature. In that sense, it assumes the exact persona that is attributed to Satan: it assumes for itself the right to make claim not only to knowledge of God, but also to reverse God's ordering of creation itself. That seems to me like the perfect depiction of a demonic being, even if it hasn't been understood that way historically.

    Finally...there's no world in which I wouldn't be battling said snakes...or in which Samuel L. Jackson isn't awesome.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/02/2007 @ 01:04am

31. the snake isn't acting against god. The snake was never told not to recommend fruit to passers by.

    You're blaming the snake for eve's action. What happened to personal accoutablity?

    Posted by Will C. at 04/02/2007 @ 02:52am

32. Second, and I thought this was particularly interesting, the snake's appeal to Eve is based on knowledge of God Himself, knowledge that even human beings, supposedly the highest form of creature, simply don't have access to.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/02/2007 @ 01:04am

    ok, i gotta ask you this one. How could the snakes appeal to eve be based on the knowledge of god himself when to seconds later you say that Eve (being a human) doesn't have access to that knowledge.

    This totally blows away the presumtion that God ever told Eve not to eat the fruit. She kinda have to be aware of what was talking to her, it's position in the universe, whether it was joshing her or not.

    You know she'd have to have some knowlege about god to make any of this story relevent. Which means she would have access to that knowledge

    Posted by Will C. at 04/02/2007 @ 03:00am

33. the snake isn't acting against god. The snake was never told not to recommend fruit to passers by.

    You're blaming the snake for eve's action. What happened to personal accoutablity?

    Posted by WILL C. 04/02/2007 @ 02:52am

    First of all, the argument that "the snake isn't acting against God" is a little silly. Let's say God also said "don't murder people." If I go up to someone and say "go ahead and kill that guy over there, it's cool," it seems pretty clear that I'm acting against God. Trying to persuade people to disobey a rule is still an act of rebellion against God's creation.

    Second, you're strawmanning my argument. I didn't say that the snake was totally to blame for Eve's action, anymore than someone who advised murder would be totally responsible for what happened. What I am saying is that they bear some responsibility, just as inciting a crime gives you some responsibility over the outcome.

    How could the snakes appeal to eve be based on the knowledge of god himself when to seconds later you say that Eve (being a human) doesn't have access to that knowledge.

    This totally blows away the presumtion that God ever told Eve not to eat the fruit. She kinda have to be aware of what was talking to her, it's position in the universe, whether it was joshing her or not.

    You know she'd have to have some knowlege about god to make any of this story relevent. Which means she would have access to that knowledge

    Posted by WILL C. 04/02/2007 @ 03:00am

    In the story, both Adam and Eve had heard God's voice telling them not to eat of the forbidden fruit. They had an idea of God as a superior being to whom they owed obedience, and whose word should probably be taken seriously (since there was no clear reason to do otherwise).

    The snake's claimed knowledge of God is of another kind entirely. What he's claiming is that he (though in the apparent form of an inferior animal) knows God more closely than either Adam or Eve do. He claims that he can predict God's future behavior and, perhaps even more importantly, decide which of God's commands actually should be followed. That seems pretty significant, and suggests pretty clearly that this is not just another animal wandering around.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/02/2007 @ 12:29pm

34. Thrawn-You are aware,I hope,that the snake story was meant as a moral tale aimed at children and not something meant to be taken literally?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/02/2007 @ 1:20pm

35. The ignorance, intolerance of the right is no better demonstrated than on this thread. The issue is about justice, about a young man convicted on the flimsiest of evidence--that's the issue! What kind of America do we all live in if this kind of malfeasance it tolerated?

    And notice the posters that apparently support/tolerate this travesty. It is the same posters that support economic policies which ultimately require extremely repressive government actions. Most crime is nothing more than a sympton, and not "the problem". The US is dysfunctional, and the high rate of crime, incarceration is nothing more than a result of this disfunctional environment.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/02/2007 @ 3:49pm

36. Thrawn-You are aware,I hope,that the snake story was meant as a moral tale aimed at children and not something meant to be taken literally?

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/02/2007 @ 1:20pm

    I think this is partially right. Just to get this out of the way, I absolutely don't take the story literally. I don't accept the idea of a 6-day creation, or any of its functional equivalents. Rather, I tend to see the creation story as more of the "artist's signature," a declaration that the world owes its being to God.

    However, I also don't think that it was originally understood or construed as merely a moral tale; otherwise, it's somewhat dubious that such a belief would be strong today. That means that even if we ourselves don't interpret the story literally, we should take into consideration the fact that others did if we want to understand the particular beliefs that they held. This is why I actually analyze the story as a literal account even though I don't accept it as such.

    Also, I understand that the theological decision has shifted the discussion a little bit, so I feel it's only fair to mention a recent contribution to the original line of discussion:

    The ignorance, intolerance of the right is no better demonstrated than on this thread. The issue is about justice, about a young man convicted on the flimsiest of evidence--that's the issue! What kind of America do we all live in if this kind of malfeasance it tolerated?

    And notice the posters that apparently support/tolerate this travesty. It is the same posters that support economic policies which ultimately require extremely repressive government actions. Most crime is nothing more than a sympton, and not "the problem". The US is dysfunctional, and the high rate of crime, incarceration is nothing more than a result of this disfunctional environment.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/02/2007 @ 3:49pm

    I think there's a couple of problems with this analysis. First of all, I'm pretty sure that you don't believe this line of analysis. If you're correct, and an overwhelming number of people are somehow compelled into crime by their circumstances, it's questionable to what extent they could ever be culpable for their actions. We tend not to punish people who act with a gun to their heads, so it's unclear how we would be justified in punishing others whose coercion was just as real.

    Second, I do agree with you that our justice system certainly has its problems, as any system will, and everything possible should be done to correct such problems. The unnecessary suffering of innocent people is absolutely unacceptable. I think it's a mistake, though, to suggest that any egregious case is automatically reflective of the entire justice system.

    Third, I think you're being a little unfair to conservatives. Although there are no doubt some extremists, just as there are on the left, many people have honest disagreement about what kinds of policies are actually best to reduce crime and provide for the interests of the least well-off in society. I think it's a real mistake to simply dismiss them as evil, greedy, or callous, rather than being willing to engage their viewpoints and perhaps come to a kind of consensus or at least appreciate the validity of each other's positions.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/02/2007 @ 5:12pm

37. I guess the fact that the whole story of the Garden of Eden and fall from innocence comes from an old Sumerian creation myth means nothing to you guys... or the fact that the snake was put into the story by ancient Jewish scribes as an allegory regarding another religion, animist in essence, whose primary symbol was the serpent.

    Like my religion profs always told me in college. You know one, you know none.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/02/2007 @ 8:42pm

38. *allegorical device

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/02/2007 @ 8:43pm

39. That's an interesting position, but what's your justification for it? In order for your claim to make sense, the Garden of Eden story would not only have to resemble that old Sumerian creation myth; you would also have to demonstrate some kind of causal link between them. The same applies for the strange claim about the snake. I would agree, though, that different authors contributed to Genesis, as is reasonably clear given the different accounts both of the order of creation and of the number of animals said to have gone on the ark.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/02/2007 @ 8:47pm

40. THRAWN:

    My point is simply that we have allowed a couple of books penned by the hand of man to determine entirely too much of human destiny. It needs to stop. And this conversation is simply feeding into that precise misstep even more.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/02/2007 @ 8:52pm

41. As far as justification, it's a pretty widely known fact among biblical scholars of all stripes that this was the case, that our creation myths were borrowed and stolen from previous cultures. Even the story of Jesus, being of immaculate conception and the son of God were borrowed from much older mythological traditions.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/02/2007 @ 8:54pm

42. A lot of your analysis is deeply question-begging. Your complaint, for example, depends not on you initial assertion that everything in the Bible was penned by the hand of man, but also on the far more controversial claim that man created religion entirely. That's a huge assertion, and one that you have yet to justify.

    Your claims about Biblical stories are equally problematic. One, I know of no other mythological figure who was claimed to be of immaculate conception. Two, more importantly, I know of no figure prior to Jesus who was said to both be an actual person in history, be the Son of God (an idea that was actually unthinkable in Judaism at the time), and to have historicall risen from the dead with verification from closely contemporary sources. If you're going to make these kinds of claims, you have a pretty steep burden to back them up.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/02/2007 @ 11:43pm

43. Posted by THRAWN

    Then how do you account for the crime rate in the US? The number of citizens in our jails, prisons, on some form of probation?

    One mistake? You've obviously never been locked up. The fact that it would demand so much to correct such a blatant instance of injustice only serves to instruct those willing to connect the dots.

    Greedy? Callous? Evil? Yes. But more than anything else, I would say ignorant. Willfully ignorant or just ignorant, it doesn't matter. If you do not educate children and ensure they have meaningful, fulfilling employment when they grow up, then you are gonna have to incarcerate them on average. Where is all that "common sense" the right is always invoking?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/03/2007 @ 10:13am

44. One, I know of no other... Posted by THRAWN

    That must be a long list.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/03/2007 @ 10:14am

45. I'm not sure I follow most of your responses. One of them just seems to be "but those one or two mistakes...they're really bad!" The problem with this is that it really isn't responsive. Yes, there probably Are convictions that are Really Bad. My point is that those convictions aren't necessarily reflective of the justice system as a whole, i.e., it's unfair to suggest that all convictions are racist.

    Also, as I pointed out before, I'm pretty sure you don't actually believe that our system compels people to commit crimes. If you did believe that, you would also have to believe that those people are never culpable for them and certainly shouldn't be punished, but I have a hunch you don't actually believe that.

    Finally, I still think you're being a little unfair. Your only response seems to be "but aren't conservatives just evil?" Well...no! The fact that conservatives have different ideas than you do about what kinds of particular policies lead to the best society doesn't automatically make them evil; that kind of advocacy presumes that you're so obviously right that your opponents must be downright demonic. I think that's a little absurd.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/03/2007 @ 7:58pm