The answer to yesterday's Who Am I was Sara Breedlove, aka Madam C.J. Walker.
Some days my links come from several sources, Yesterday they were from the Washington Post and Parentdish.com. A couple of days ago they were from The Huffington Post and AOL news. Sometimes Wallet Pop. A lot of times they are from Yahoo news or The Oregonian. Today there are two links and they are from the same source. Today we are all about one of my favorite newspapers, The USA Today. Their front page today had two really interesting articles.
The first article doesn't surprise me. A lot in the book I am attempting to write is about the justice system not being about justice. It isn't about right or wrong or what's best. Nope. It is about winning and losing. It is about who can make the best deal. Yes rules are in place but they are often not followed. Who cares if the man is innocent as long as the DA can put a notch in his belt and send someone to prison. Who cares if the man is guilty and shouldn't be on the street as long as the defense attorney can win and enhance his or her reputation. Read the following article and weep. Weep because our justice system is dead and if not dead certainly on its last legs.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-09-22-federal-prosecutors-reform_N.htm
A couple of days ago Pat, DR, and I were discussing women in politics. I agreed with DR that it is about time that women ruled the world. Men have had the chance for years and look where that got us. I did say that we shouldn't expect perfection in women politicians because they will make mistakes too. Maybe a different type of mistakes then men but still mistakes. Pat chimed in with what a friend of hers had said "She said we should supposedly be proud that so many women are running now, but when you look at a lot of them -- Sarah Palin, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in CA, that super-weird O'Donnell person in Delaware (who I remember quite well from her former appearances on "Politically Incorrect"), it's hard to summon up pride in women's achievements." It made we wonder why the really solid women had a hard time getting elected. Yes we have had Susan Collins and the Hillary Clintons but they seem to be the exception to the rule. It made me wonder why the cream of the women candidates don't rise to the top more often. It may be that they are responding to the wrong attacks. I found the following article pretty interesting:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-09-22-sexist-insults-female-politicians_N.htm
I'm of the school that sexist comments should always be responded to and never ignored. In elections. In real life. I also think we need to work hard to change voter attitudes.
Your comments about either article in today's post are appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The first article is downright frightening. There should be extremely heavy penalties for any attorney who deliberately withholds evidence (on either side), and I do mean extremely heavy. And obviously there should be more oversight.
But I often wonder about the justice system in general. I watched a new "lawyer show" last night. The defendant was pronounced guilty. I had thought as I watched that as a juror, I'd probably have had reasonable doubt. The show ended with a tacked-on scene letting us know that yes, he was actually guilty. A cheap TV trick, but interesting to a potential juror who might have voted the other way. Our system is far from infallible, and maybe far from just.
As to cheap trick sexist comments in politics, the problem with fighting back is that a lot of people probably never heard the original comment and this just gives it "legs". What to do? Beats me, but anyone making such comments should be ashamed.
I've felt, for some time, the justice system provides justice for those who can pay the big bucks to make it work in their favor. While I can appreciate the fact public defenders/prosecutors may be overworked, there's no excuse for the issues brought out in the article. I have an acquaintance who's currently battling a "guilty" verdict because biased information was presented to a jury, while positive information was withheld. It's also true this affects more than the accused - it extends to the family, the wife's reputation and career and the children. Even if the case is reversed, the "taint" is still there and too many people figure "where there's smoke, there's fire." Depends on who's making/blowing the smoke. The fact there's no real penalty for withholding information or skewing evidence is particularly disturbing. One man can destroy a man's life and get a day's suspension and continue on to make big bucks, either within or without the federal system. How does one establish "reasonable doubt," if one doesn't have all the facts?
As to the sexual slurs on female candidates, I find it disgusting, both that such attacks are made and that people put credence in them, particularly without investigating the reason/source for the comments. I think it goes back to "see/read it often enough and it seems to become fact" and such slurs are immediately picked up by and promoted by the media. It's back to the old saw, it's much easier to prove the vase was on the piano, because it's still there, than that it was never on the piano, but no one saw it disappear. It reminds me of the old THP dictum - if you can't sell your product without denigrating another, then your product isn't one you should sell.
Again, we're back to ethics and integrity and greed, whether in the justice system, where lawyers depend upon "wins" to guarantee their position or income or to the political system, where the credo seems to be "win at all costs, leave no prisoners standing" and such.
I also think we're back to media responsibility, where some real journalistic investigation could negate a lot of false information.
Posted a response an hour or more ago, which said it was accepted and showed it in the comments section. Will check again to see if it posts in another hour or so.
DR
I get an email every time you post and I got an email but your post still doesn't show up on the blog.
Here is DR's Post Everyone:
I've felt, for some time, the justice system provides justice for those who can pay the big bucks to make it work in their favor. While I can appreciate the fact public defenders/prosecutors may be overworked, there's no excuse for the issues brought out in the article. I have an acquaintance who's currently battling a "guilty" verdict because biased information was presented to a jury, while positive information was withheld. It's also true this affects more than the accused - it extends to the family, the wife's reputation and career and the children. Even if the case is reversed, the "taint" is still there and too many people figure "where there's smoke, there's fire." Depends on who's making/blowing the smoke. The fact there's no real penalty for withholding information or skewing evidence is particularly disturbing. One man can destroy a man's life and get a day's suspension and continue on to make big bucks, either within or without the federal system. How does one establish "reasonable doubt," if one doesn't have all the facts?
As to the sexual slurs on female candidates, I find it disgusting, both that such attacks are made and that people put credence in them, particularly without investigating the reason/source for the comments. I think it goes back to "see/read it often enough and it seems to become fact" and such slurs are immediately picked up by and promoted by the media. It's back to the old saw, it's much easier to prove the vase was on the piano, because it's still there, than that it was never on the piano, but no one saw it disappear. It reminds me of the old THP dictum - if you can't sell your product without denigrating another, then your product isn't one you should sell.
Again, we're back to ethics and integrity and greed, whether in the justice system, where lawyers depend upon "wins" to guarantee their position or income or to the political system, where the credo seems to be "win at all costs, leave no prisoners standing" and such.
I also think we're back to media responsibility, where some real journalistic investigation could negate a lot of false information.
Hi Pat
I think if a DA hides information that could free a man he or she should lose their license and never be allowed to practice law again. Anywhere.
I watched The Defenders with Jim Belushi, was that the one? There were a lot of things that weren't accurate in that show. Defense attorneys usually can't afford to be fined a thousand dollars by a judge. Rich defense attorneys exist but they are few and far between. There is also reasonable doubt in almost every case. Juries often know there is reasonable doubt but the other evidence becomes more important to them.
I agree with you re the sexist comments, they are cheap tricks. But I think you have to respond to them rather than let them fester. Maybe respond to them with humor. Like I would like to welcome by opponent to the 15th century.
Bill
Hi DR
In doing research for my book for I came to the conclusion it really isn't money that rules the judical system it is ethics and the need to win. Sure rich people can afford to hire the best and high profile attorneys but usually the jury is made up of people like you and I. Honest people that take their duties seriously. But juries can only make their determinations based on the information that they are allowed to see. That is where a judge that has a bias against maybe women or a minority group can determine the outcome of a trial but what he allows in as evidence. Combine that with an unethical DA that hides information like the ones mentioned in the article and innocent people do end up in jail
So I think it is the prejudices of the justices and the ethics of the attorneys more than what money can buy is what rules the justice system and often makes the goal the win not justice.
The story of your friend is a perfect example and you are right one that it extends t the family, children, friends, and spouse. I will also add the community to the list. Like I said to Pat the penalty should be a lifelong ban from practicing law.
I also think the sexist comments if repeated often enough become the "truth". I love your comparison between the two articles. Greed does rule both.
And the lost of journalistic integrity doesn't help. It is one of the many things that makes me come to the conclusion that the worst thing that has happened to America is political talk shows on both TV and Radio and the merging of entertainment and news.
Bill
Post a Comment