I’ll Take “The Deck is Stacked” for $400, Alex


by Thomas Knapp

Note: A 98 per cent conviction rate? Bearing mind the nature of many “crimes” nowadays, and the quality of the evidence gathered by the pigs, that sounds far worse than over here, where the rate is about two thirds – less in ethnic areas, where juries often acquit in the face of the “evidence.” However, it may be that more cases over there aren’t pushed into court. SIG

http://c4ss.org/?p=10585

Various statistics get thrown around and it’s hard to tell which are the most accurate, but roughly 98% of criminal prosecutions in the United States end in either convictions (6%) or guilty pleas pursuant to prosecutorial “bargains” (92%).

Now, if you really believe that only one in 50 Americans accused of a crime is innocent, there’s something wrong with you, but that’s not really the point of this column. The point is that America’s prosecutors are apparently so frustrated by the 2% that “get away” that they recently went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States for more power, and got it … not just contrary to common sense, but in direct violation of the US Constitution’s prohibition of “double jeopardy.”

Here’s the relevant constitutional language: “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

It’s a pretty simple concept. If you’re charged with a crime, and you get a fair trial, and if you’re acquitted by a jury of your peers, it’s over. You’re done. You’re free. The prosecutor can’t keep charging you and trying you over and over again until it gets the verdict he wants.

Alex Blueford was arrested in Arkansas and charged with a panoply of offenses relating to the death of his girlfriend’s infant daughter — murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. The purpose of the multiple charges for the same act was to give the jury options. If they didn’t think it was murder, they could convict on manslaughter. If they didn’t think it rose to the level of manslaughter, they could convict on negligent homicide. And so on, and so forth.

The jury found Blueford not guilty of murder, but deadlocked on the next step down (manslaughter). At that point, per the US Constitution, Blueford was free and clear of the murder charge, although he could be re-tried on the charges which the jury had “hung” on.

But the Constitution doesn’t matter — when the issue reached the Supreme Court, a majority ruled that, on technical detail (the “not guilty” verdict on murder was not read in court; the judge just declared a mistrial), Blueford could once again be put in jeopardy of life and limb for murder.

It seems like such a small thing, doesn’t it? After all, Blueford’s just one in 50 who doesn’t take a plea bargain, get convicted, or find himself charged with something different (a favorite government trick since the Rodney King case has been to charge those acquitted of a crime in state courts with “violating the civil rights” of their alleged victim in federal courts; same offense, just a different angle). Surely the prosecutor could have written off that murder charge and moved on to other things.

But no — the United States has long since passed beyond the point in its political evolution where the government will ever allow itself to be denied what it seeks. And if the rules threaten to so deprive it on any point, however minor or inconsequential, politicians in suits or politicians in black dresses will step in to correct the matter.

This latest outrage is not an anomaly. It’s an inevitable outcome of placing rulemaking authority in the hands of political government. The possible outcomes of state rule are total power or extinction. One of those is better for the state. The other is better for the rest of us.

About these ads

10 responses to “I’ll Take “The Deck is Stacked” for $400, Alex

  1. john warren

    Then the capitalist parasites have taken over in the States too. The ground-work for total control of a trusting, apathetic work-force continues to be put into place.

    Everyone talks about the similar social and financial problems that currently beset our two nations but no-ne actually does anything. Well then, what about a symbolic English republican army established in place of pushing for outright violence? Politicians do always listen when guns are being discharged don’t they? Naturally enough they hate the thought of losing the cash they’ve printed for themselves and the carefully selected property gained by lying and cheating over the last 15 years or so.

    Come in the RH Baroness Warsi.

  2. I don’t wish to be a wet blanket, but talking about armed resistance is pushing towards the sort of thing that might get me and the Blogmaster into trouble. Best avoided, I suggest.

  3. john warren

    Of course I know what you mean and sympathise with your position. Being relatively young, you believe that you’ll make a difference to the status quo – given a fair opportunity of course. I think a lot a lot of people think that way.

    Well, Enoch Powell was a fierce intellectual of an older order. A courageous man with great vision (something totally lacking in today’s politicians I fear). Nevertheless, even those great and fascinating qualities of his couldn’t save his life and reputation from being destroyed (reputation only temporarily – he’s on his way back) by the vicious attacks of hordes of sight-less people snapping at his heels from what seemed like every quarter. He seemed not to have many friends at the time so I wrote to him expressing my juvenile views.

    When you decide to caution me Sean, for simply writing about ‘symbolic’ token armed resistance (no resistance intended actually) against those who are bent on destroying the England that I love, then I do seriously think that you are missing the point of all this jaw-jawing. Please allow me, and others too, to speak our minds on this site, at least, and if the fascists should come calling, then let them come. With luck, and if they really are that stupid, you’ll finally get the chance to say all that you obviously want and need to.

    Otherwise, as I said; fair comment.

    PS.

    Resistance is useless. An all out attack is what is needed right now. Victoria did not hold her jubilee using un-supported promissory notes. Her armed forces were in a position to resist a foreign army. Time moves swiftly – no time for writing novels. We’re going down old boy – trust me on this.

  4. It may be that a revolutionary overthrow of the existing order is required. However, the Blogmaster and I get sniffy for personal reasons when people appear to advocate violence without all the usual reservations. We don’t live in a free country. The Blogmaster and I have children.

    Please try to respect that position.

  5. Sadly, the days when Karl Marx could call for revolution from his Islington bedsit are long gone. Discretion is often the better part of valour. It only makes sense to suffer for your beliefs if that suffering is likely to have some constructive outcome- mobilising the proletariat to storm the Bastille or something. Unfortunately as we’ve recently discovered, the only thing anyone wants to storm these days is JD Sports for some new sneakers.

    I suspect that the way forward is by none of the traditional methods. What it is, I do not know. But I do not believe that it is anything anyone has tried so far.

  6. The best I can think of is to wait until the system collapses under the weight of its own malign absurdity. The obvious problems here are:

    1. The system is remarkably stable. The Austrian predictions of total monetary collapse may come true, but will be attended by a return to sanity just sufficient to keep things going – just as after 1979.

    2. If the system does collapse, whatever replaces it will probably be even worse. The essay I wrote last year on Emma West was reposted to the Stormfront site. The most intelligent comment was from someone who looked forward to the day when he could kick the crowns out of middle class mouths.

    How about promoting an Islamic takeover of the UK? The few Islamic societies I’ve experienced have been rather jolly places in their detail, and have shown less willingness than our own to tolerate the close regulation of family life.

    I am, by the way, only asking!

  7. I think you’re right about hoping for systemic collapse. I would add that should said collapse occur, the ruling class will be the last thing to fall. They have already displayed their clear intention and ability to sustain themselves at the expense of the rest of us, as with the recent financial crisis. They will continue to prey until there is nothing left to expropriate; what will arise out of the scorched earth remnant after the collapse would be unlikely to be libertarian, or anarchist as idealists see it. The normal case is a reversion to simple tribal thuggery.

    One little hope I have (like that one little fluttery thing that emerges last from Pandora’s Box) is that they will simply be overwhelmed by progress, technologically and thus socially. We already see them struggling to cope with the internet on a level they’ve never had to struggle with before; earlier communications media, with their centralised controls, were much easier to control and stifle. Maybe the internet is enough to overwhelm the Theodosian Walls of the State. Or maybe not. But it’s a little hope and it cheers me a tad at times.

    I even felt a small flicker of that hope regarding the recent Facebook debacle. Nobody else seems to have thought what I thought when it occurred; that maybe the lack of control of communications channels broke the “pump and dump”. In the olden days, potential investors could only get information from market insiders and via a narrow, controlled, financial press. Thus, a “hype” was easy to build up. With the internet, they could see so many ordinary people saying, “it’s not worth that, don’t be fooled” on comment sections, blogs, and so on, even though every financial journalist was saying “BUY! Chance of a lifetime!”. So maybe the many voices the internet provides is having some effect.

    In terms of libertarianism, there is no doubt that the internet has had an enormous impact. I never would have even haerd of it if the internet hadn’t arrived. Libertarianism is surely at least more well known than it was 15 years ago, and is surely having more effect. A long way to go, but maybe we are at the start of something special. Maybe.

  8. john warren

    You are both right of course. Let’s pretend that we live in a civilsed world.

    Maybe we are at the start of something new and more promising. Just don’t count on it. As a nation, from a purely financial point of view, I seriously believe that famine is now far more likely to bring about the required change than any amount of reasonable/peaceful argument. I wish that it wasn’t so. Two to three weeks supply of food is all that there is at anyone time in the UK. A terrifying statistic if true. A frightening one if it’s that many months.

    With regard to children Sean, I too worry. Not because I might be thrown in gaol leaving them without emotional and financial support. In that regard they’d be no worse off than I during the second world war. I worry that they might have to fight a civil war that my generation (the Rolex one) brewed. I’m awake at night worrying about it.

    All my life I’ve believed in the notion of free speech. I was taught, not by a man but by my grandmother, that there can be no lasting freedom without it. She would be appalled at what has happened in England during our watch. She would demand a fight to settle so many current unsavoury matters in the time-proven way. The gentlest lady who ever lived but when aroused and in talkative mood she spat bullets.

    Talk all you want – just don’t think that by being the reasonable men you both clearly are when expressing the reasonable things you do, that you wont both be carted off to gaol one day. At least if you’re jugged together the talk might be allowed to continue. You see, I don’t think that this matter is a game that will end in smiles and handshakes. I have many sons.

    My respectful regards to you both…

  9. I agree the future may not be pleasant. But, if the worst things so far have happened on our watch, they were set in motion by men now dead, and those of us here have at least tried to put a case against them.The most we can do is continue arguing, in the probably vain hope that the final crash can be avoided.

  10. Well, we all face the same handicap, everyone on the planet. THe future is radically unpredictable. Most human action in the political sphere seems to be motivated by fear of what the future holds. But none of us can know.