On Wednesday night, Mitt Romney made a point of taking potshots at John Edwards for Edwards’ “two America’s” campaign theme. “We do not have two Americas,” said Romney with a self-righteous flourish.
Oh, but we do. Twenty-two percent of all American children live below the poverty level. Forty-seven million Americans are without health insurance. But nowhere is the schism more evident than in the U.S. criminal justice system.
For example: a white felony defendant with no criminal record stands a far higher chance of having the charge reduced to a misdemeanor or infraction than a black or Hispanic in similar legal circumstances. If a white, an African American and a Hispanic kid, each with no prior criminal records, are all charged with the same offense, the African American kid is six times more likely to be incarcerated than the white kid; the Hispanic kid three times more likely.
Then there is the case of Gary Tyler. Tyler, 49, has been in prison in the Louisiana state penitentiary at Angola for over 30 years. At age 17 he was convicted of murdering a 13-year-old white boy in the fall of 1974 in Destrehan, Louisiana, during the height of that town’s school integration crisis. Tyler is black.
A federal appeals court ruled that Tyler’s murder trial was “fundamentally unfair,” but Tyler has never been granted a retrial. Three pardon boards have recommended to two Louisiana governors that Gary Tyler’s life sentence be commuted, but neither governor has taken action.
Now Amnesty International is pushing for Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco to pardon Tyler before she leaves office in January.
Yet it’s the details of Tyler’s case—and then of another Louisiana case—which demonstrate the unequal justice that too often still exists in America.
A series of columns written earlier this year by the New York Times’ Bob Herbert tells the story better than I can. Here are some clips:
Mr. Tyler, a sophomore at Destrehan High, was on a bus filled with black students that was attacked on Oct. 7, 1974, by a white mob enraged over school integration. A shot was fired and a 13-year-old white boy standing outside the bus collapsed, mortally wounded. Mr. Tyler was arrested on a charge of disturbing the peace after he talked back to a sheriff’s deputy.
Although the bus and its passengers were searched and no weapon was found, Mr. Tyler was taken into custody, savagely beaten and accused of committing the murder. A gun was “found” during a subsequent search of the bus and witnesses were rounded up to testify against Mr. Tyler. It turned out that the gun (which has since disappeared) had been stolen from a firing range used by officers of the sheriff’s department. All of the witnesses who fingered Mr. Tyler would eventually recant, saying they had been terrorized into testifying falsely by the
authorities.
The efficiency of the process was chilling. Evidence began to miraculously appear. Investigators “found” a .45-caliber pistol. Never mind that there were no fingerprints on it and it turned out to have been stolen from a firing range used by the sheriff’s deputies. (Or that it subsequently disappeared as conveniently as it was found.) The authorities said they found the gun on the bus, despite the fact that the initial search had turned up nothing.
So if the bus and the kids were searched thoroughly —twice—how could the mysteriously appearing gun have been pinned to Taylor?
The authorities found witnesses who said that Mr. Tyler had been the gunman. Never mind that the main witness, a former girlfriend of Mr. Tyler’s, was a troubled youngster who had been under the care of a psychiatrist and had a history of reporting phony crimes to the police, including a false report of a kidnapping. She and every other witness who fingered Mr. Tyler would later recant, charging that they had been terrorized into testifying falsely by the police.
A sworn affidavit from Larry Dabney, who was seated by Mr. Tyler on the bus, was typical. He said his treatment by the police was the “scariest thing” he’d ever experienced. “They didn’t even ask me what I saw,” he said. “They told me flat out that I was going to be their key witness. … They told me I was going to testify that I saw Gary with a gun right after I heard the shot and that a few minutes later I had seen him hide it in a slit in the seat. That was not true. I didn’t see Gary or anybody else in that bus with a gun.”
Tyler was represented at trial by a white lawyer who had handled mostly civil cases, in the past. In the year prior to the trial, he spent a total of an hour with Tyler. He did not interview witnesses, present any expert witnesses or conduct tests on physical evidence offered by the state, and failed to object to gross errors committed by the trial judge.
The outcome was predictable . Mr. Tyler was convicted and sentenced to die in the electric chair by an all-white jury. At 17, he was the youngest prisoner on death row in the country. He almost certainly would have been executed if the U.S. Supreme Court had not ruled the Louisiana death penalty unconstitutional.
The Fifth Circuit ruling in 1981 said that an improper charge to the jury had denied Mr. Tyler the presumption of innocence at his trial. “It is folly,” the court said, “to argue that the erroneous charge did not affect the central determination of guilt or innocence.”
Yet, Tyler was denied the new trial on a technicality. After that, on three separate occasions the Louisiana Board of Pardons recommended that Gary Tylers sentence should be reduced, on one occasion, making him immediately eligible for parole, but these recommendations were rejected.
Contrast those actions, or lack of action, with another story Herbert tells, of another Louisiana shooting—but this one has a very different outcome.
Now consider this, because it will tell you all you need to know about racial justice in the South. A 19-year-old black man named Richard Dunn was shotgunned to death as he was heading home from a benefit dance in support of Mr. Tyler at Southern University in New Orleans in 1976. A white man, Anthony Mart, was arrested and convicted of shooting Mr. Dunn from a passing car.
Gary Tyler’s current attorney, Mary Howell, ruefully explained what happened to Mr. Mart for the cold-blooded killing of a black stranger: He was sent to prison for life but was pardoned and freed after serving about 10 years.
Do you know what I find from studying these stories about double standards? Ultimately, we find out that there are other circumstances and facts conveniently left out by the journalists with causes.
Celeste, are you drinking the Kool-Aid again? You liberals are always trying to stir up trouble by criticizing our government. I remember another case about a black man supposedly being beaten by some of LAPD’s finest. There was no high definition video tape evidence; there was only some very fuzzy, cheap, low resolution VHS indiscernible tape. The LAPD cops could have been swinging at a birthday Piñata for all you know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROn_9302UHg
Celeste, you need to listen to the Republicans presidential candidates and learn something about our country. Listen to Duncan Hunter and learn that mostly conservatives Christians serve in the military, and not any poor Black or Latino liberals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU-AFU_OiFo
e.g.?
Randy, I’m not going to get into that stupid game that you play of always asking for examples and always disputing those given. You’ve never seen a story from the press that presents one thing but additional information actually shows it to be something else? Reasonable people understand, so just assume that I wasn’t addressing the comment to you.
Just to explain any further rebuttals from the left….
LINK: Republicans Report Much Better Mental Health Than Others
Woody,
Suffice it to say this: “he who asserts must prove”.
It’s not stupid and it’s not a game. It’s a reasonable response to a claim.
It kills discussion. This is an exchange of ideas–not a reference service.
That’s not true. If someone makes an assertion, then they should be able to back it up with facts. If someone wants to merely make claims, then anyone can state anything. That’s not an exchange of ideas: that’s groundless bloviating.
As for your comment number 4, I’ll offer this suggestion:
Regards,
Randy
Where are your sources to claim that “If someone makes an assertion that they (sic) should be able to back it up with facts?” Keep in mind that, if you find any, they won’t be good enough, so I’ll keep you looking–just as you do.
Now, can we talk about two Americas and degrees of justice? Rodney King got hit with some bird shot yesterday. Dick Cheney was reportedly not in his neighborhood.
It’s weird to read a post about some injustice in our system and know, before checking comments, that Woody will suggest that it’s not true. It is such an odd and combative habit.
He’s got no evidence supporting his suspicions, except, perhaps, the knowledge that Celeste is a progressive and a journalist and therefore, in his world, inclined to make up facts. As Randy’s questioning established, he’s not fighting with much, but what is he fighting for? Celeste’s post isn’t attacking one of his sacred cows; he’s probably doesn’t support false imprisonment, racist police, or even Destrehan High. The only thing I can really see Woody defending here is the establishment – the belief that government can’t be wrong and shouldn’t be questioned(unless we can be sure a liberal is at the helm). I suppose that isn’t evidence of mental instability, but it is the intellectual foundation of facism.
Hey, if everybody gets bored with arguing, we can always return to the discussion of Spanish hams, tapas and excellent Spanish reds.
Mavis, I have covered my concern about some stories in the media not being reported accurately, often due to an agenda, and expressed that concern a long time ago with specific examples, which I’m not inclined to go through again. But, think about “global warming” if you want something simple. Further, if you need any concrete proof, look in the papers under “Corrections and Retractions.”
But, look above at what Celeste wrote in bold: “Tyler was represented at trial by a white lawyer.” So, is the lawyer’s race important? It seems on one hand that the race of the defendent should not be an issue, but those on that side want to make an issue over the race of the attorney, who probably does more than for what he is paid.
On the statistics that Celeste throws out, it’s funny that you don’t question them but you question my view that the press makes mistakes or leaves out information that changes the story. I absolutely guarantee that they are flawed.
For instance, consider the people with no health insurance that she mentions and for which are intent is clear. I know a lot of young people who have no medical problems and choose to save that money for a house. Just because someone is uninsured doesn’t make them a casualty.
The numbers living in the poverty level is a complete joke when you see how the definition of “poverty level” has moved and ignores all the government programs and food stamps that make up for lower income.
On crime statistics, I’ve seen studies, which I’m not going to research, that black criminals get more serious sentences because the crimes “that are no different” do have significant differences, often involve bodily injuries, and may be committed by repeat offenders.
Celeste claims that race is THE factor in tougher sentences. I say that it can be and has been, based upon perceptions only, but I also believe that there are many more reasons, legtimate reasons for the different sentences, and that yelling “racist” for every problem with blacks is injustice is itself and solves nothing.
Just remember, though, if it comes from The New York Times, don’t trust it.
On the food discussion, I like Sneaky Pete’s hot dogs in Birmingham. Downtown Birmingham has a number of hot dog stands squeezed in spaces about eight feet wide between office buildings and that were stated by immigrants long ago. Their recipes would make Coney Island dogs look like Spam.
Why bother? The world according to Woody brooks no dissent.
It also brooks no support for its claims.
It’s basic argumentation to ask for support for a claim.
With all the recent comments about Spain and my Che Guevara tee-shirts, I have to share this.
I have been dancing all around the living room to my newest favorite Reggaeton music video, “Por Que No te Callasâ€Â. Hugo Chavez is a good rapero (rapper).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9M0GeZqWU
My compadre Hugo Chavez is also commenting on his new music video, my compadre has a sense of humor and dances Reggaeton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIGGBAo97-s
“It’s basic argumentation to ask for support for a claim.”
Isn’t a shrill assertion enough for you liberal nitpickers ? IMHO that’s proof of your mental illness.
Um, Celeste, no fair taking the high road.
Double post!
No problem. Got rid of it.
Commie Pinkos.
I give a substantive reply, and the lefties try to change the focus from the argument to the person. It sure shows when they have run out of arguments. I guess the Daily Kos didn’t address this subject for them to know how to debate it.
All I asked for was an example. rather than cite one, you attempted to move the discussion to me. If you can’t provide an example, don’t make the claim. It’s as simple as that.
He who asserts must prove.
Evasion of discussion – pure & simple. I noticed that you didn’t question Celeste’s undocumented statistics.
But, I did later give an example. You ignored that.
Want another? What about the terrible murders and rapes reported at the Louisiana Super Dome reported by the press during Katrina. Oh, they didn’t happen after all. I guess it was nice to report unsubstantiated attrocities if it makes Bush look bad.
It would be better that you discuss issues rather than look for reasons to avoid that.
Actually, you provided a lot of generalizations without much substance. The allegations of rapes in the Superdome were not really germane to what you mentioned in one above. Nor were they necessary to make Bush look bad re: Katrina.
The race is won by those with the facts on their side, not the ones who make the most noise. it all comes down to credibility and frankly, I find Celeste to be far more credible than you.
Would someone please send over a commentor from the left who has some brains?
Would someone please send a commenter from the right with 23 pairs of chromosomes?