I just saw this man on CNN, and he claimed he’s not bitter. I don’t know how he couldn’t be bitter.
A man who has spent nearly 25 years in prison for Cobb County rape was ordered to be released Thursday after DNA tests showed another man committed the crime.
At the end of the 15-minute hearing before Superior Court Judge Dorothy Robinson, Peter Neufeld, an attorney for Robert Clark and co-director of the Innocence Project, patted Clark on the back and said, “You’re free to go, fella.”
A smiling Clark hugged and kissed family members, repeatedly saying, “I told you. I told you.”
And you support the death penalty? What if it was rape+murder and the guy had been executed? I guess he wouldn’t be bitter when he was exonerated. Like Ruben Cantu, he’d be dead.
All of us are here for a reason. Some of us are here as an example to others.
This guy teaches us patience and forgiveness.
Happy holidays (said with the intent to offend those who take offense at my attempts NOT TO OFFEND anybody).
Its funny how DNA has become a double edged sword for effective law enforcement. Puts some in the slammer; gets some out who shouldn’t be there.
Elrod, a decent point but the justice system, anybody’s justice system, will always be imperfect. The system MUST assume that, after due process and a verdict of guilty, a person is in fact guilty. If we did not have the death penalty, we would still have “injustice’ – as in this case – 25 years worth. I.E., the problem is the imperfectability of a justice system – a product of human endeavors. If we start letting the imperfections of that system be a punishment determinant, we are putting the cart before the horse. For instance, why not forbid any sentence longer than 10 years because of the possibility of innocense. That would have saved htis poor guy some misery.
Dugger
Dugger – “If we did not have the death penalty, we would still have injustice – as in this case – 25 years worth.”
True, but the innocent guy wouldn’t be dead.
They always say they’re “not bitter.”
It’s part of the media script for events such as this. A guy who was wrongly convicted and held for 20 years gets out. They hold a press conference and some dumbass reporter yells, “Do you feel bitter?”
What’s he gonna say?
“Bitter? I been locked up for 20 years for no damn reason! You bet I’m bitter!”
They never do, but just once, I wish someone would.
True, but the innocent guy wouldn t be dead … and the justice could be corrected. Try bringing someone back from the dead.
Excuse me, but did anybody see this?
He was basically doing “time served” for the other two rapes. Not to mention that, until the original suspension of capital punishment by the Supreme Court (one of their earlier examples of repealing multiple state laws in one fell swoop – but I digress), rape was a capital crime in many states, so he might have been executed for that.
He’ll probably sue somebody’s ass off, and make a fortune. No wonder he’s not bitter. He got less than 25 years for two rapes, and he’ll probably pick up a hundred grand or more, net, in the “wrongful imprisonment” suit.
pionar,
All I’m really saying is that this will not eliminate imperfections in the justice system. They will still be there, just as plentiful. There is an argument for and against the death penalty (I’m for it, of course) but the imperfectability of the sytem of justice -of anybody’s system of justice- is not a prime determinant IMO.
Dugger (but a good point, I concede)
You haven’t heard?
That’s Bush’s newest economic stimulus package. Since every other major initiative of his administration is pretty much in the crapper, Bush will announce soon that in the name of promoting freedom and justice, we’re going to throw all the might of our nation’s best scientific minds and capitalist enterprise behind a crash program to resurrect the dead.
Think of the benefits:
* Combined with stop-loss, an end to the undermanning of our Iraqi occupation!
* All those liberals can shut up about innocent dead Iraqis! Any Iraqi family with enough money will be able to have their loved one reanimated.
* A system of true justice. If you’re exonerated based on DNA, we can simply bring you back and set you free!
* Finally, proof that Jesus really could have been resurrected.
You think I’m kidding, don’t you? There’s already proof of the prototype technology: Alan Greenspan. Need more proof? Keith Richards! (Okay, he was an early experiment. They’ve already worked past the pasty-skin-and-bleary-eyes problem — the resurrected dead now tend to look only slightly decayed.)
C’mon America…here’s one program we can all get behind. And judging by the steamroller momentum now gathering behind the Mars Expedition (:::snort, hack:::), the dead really will be able to vote in 2008.
He ll probably sue somebody s ass off, and make a fortune. No wonder he s not bitter. He got less than 25 years for two rapes, and he ll probably pick up a hundred grand or more, net, in the wrongful imprisonment suit.
Reading comprehension isn’t just a river in Egypt, Frank D – “Arnold” was Clark’s friend who probably committed the crime for which Clark was sent to jail. Please RTFA and STFU.
Frank – get it straight. The “Arnold” whose DNA matches the two rapes referred to in your quote is NOT Mr. Clark who was cleared. Mr. Arnold was the guy whose DNA matched the donor in the crime Mr. Clark was wrongly convicted of committing.
Aw, they all look alike. Right, Frank?
but the imperfectability of the sytem of justice -of anybody s system of justice- is not a prime determinant IMO
I might give you the point, if it weren’t for the fact that the imperfectibility of the system is entirely the point, where you’re talking about very terminal justice.
Five bucks and a raspberry-filled donut says Frank doesn’t have any smart comeback for that…
Why can’t you cons read?
Dugger,
The reason death is different is that even after decades in prison, you can continue to live if you are exonerated. I’d say the very real possibilty that n innocent person could get executed a huge reason why the harshest available penalty should be life in prison without parole. The average death row inmate sits on the Row for 12 years. He’d have been dead twice already. Of course, once somebody is executed lawyers stop bothering to research the case, which is why it’s so rare to find actual cases of innocent people getting executed.
I oppose the death penalty even for the guilty, however. It’s arbitrary, discriminatory and fundamentally hypocritical – killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong? Telling somebody the exact date and time they will be killed and holding out the slightest possibility that they may be spared is the ultimate premeditated murder. Oh, and because the justice system is imperfect, we have an appeals process that costs each case considerably more to the public than putting the person in prison for life.
One thing people don’t realize is that the death penalty has been a hotly debated topic since the early 19th century. In my dissertation on Kentucky and Missouri I found newspaper editorialists hotly debated abolition of capital punishment in both Missouri and Kentucky in the 1860s – Missouri today is one of the big users of the death penalty. Some states banned the death penalty in the 19th century. Michigan has never had a death penalty going back to 1836, Wisconsin banned it in 1898, North Dakota and Iowa abolished the death penalty a long time ago as well.
Concord and Elrod,
I know the argument you are making and think its actually the best one to be made against the death penalty (the irrevocability of a justice system mistake). But, OTOH, any punishment, once received, is irrevocable – as in Clark’s 25 years. If you believe, as I and many others do, that the death penalty is sometimes a fair and just punishment for horrible crimes, then one must be prepared to accept that once in a blue moon, it might be used on an inncent person. That is a horrible tragedy I admit, but a possibility (I believe) we have minimized by making it a very difficult proces (to get a death penalty and then to get it administered).
Dugger
Quaker — Go f*ck yourself. So I misread the friggin’ article — In your and Oliver’s view, that makes me a racist. What does a stupid ass remark like that make you?
I thought you were one of the one or two people who weren’t such dumbasses that they would whip out a race card when a) They’re not black, and b) They know I’m not a racist.
I guess I was mistaken.
Concordian: Send the 5$ to Quaker — I’ll take the doughnut
So now he’ll sue for more money!
Concordian: Got a smart assed comeback for that?
Frank:
That’s not smartass, that’s just profane and argumentative. Sorry, no doughnut. Besides, I already ate it for dessert.
Dugger:
I understand your point of view, even if I still think you’re wrong. Call it a draw, then.
Concordian: Figures you’d welch on the bet — even a cyber – bet.
We have a winner.
I say this fully expecting tons and tons of flaming.
Vengeance is a component of capital punishment. It may not be a feeling I’m comfortable with, but it is a part of America’s psyche. There is a feeling that a person who takes a life must forfeit his or her life.
Personally, I’m more pragmatic: I believe in the potential of life. If society has lost the potential of one life, why take another? The person who was killed may have accomplished their purpose in their short life; the killer may not have. Think of Robert Stroud.
But, to return to my point, my view is not “America’s view”. If America is prepared for 1 or 2 innocent people to die so that hundreds of guilty killers may be executed, then the majority rules. Some people, and I once was one of them, take the view that some potential killer may change his mind about killing someone when he is reminded of the death penalty, and at least, once executed, he won’t be killing anyone else.
But I don’t run things — I just live here.
Frank:
My bet, I get to set the criteria. Something Dennis-Miller-eque might qualify as “smartass.” Something in the vein of David Cross would probably work. A Dennis-Leary-style riff? Right on.
But “Go fuck yourself”? Dude, riffing on Dick Cheney — and badly, at that — is not going to earn you any smartass cred.
We could have avoided all this if Quaker hadn’t — for no reason whatever — accused me of being a racist.
Well done, gentlemen. Stupid, juvenile and undeserved, but typical for “Oliver’s Army”
So I misread the friggin article – 9:19 PM
Talk to your sycophants.
Frank, you would avoid all this if you just said “I screwed up”. But you’ve chosen the Bush path of refusing all mistakes.
*cough*
Moi?
When? Where?
I only pointed out that you had mistaken one Negro for another. Nothing racist about that, is there Frank?
What a cop out, Quaker…
The usual Liberal bullshit. You say something deliberately offensive to impress your fellow left wing bigots (after all, it was you that had the thought, not me), and now you want to back off by pretending you meant something else?
You know, Quaker, for a short while — what, a few days — I thought you were at least a gentleman. Apparently, you’re just another intolerant, arrogant jerk, like nearly all of the left wing vermin that infest this blog.
And, by the way, everybody, don’t bother inviting me to leave. When one you cowards can step up to the plate and debate an issue without tossing around gratuitous insults, then you can go back to pretending that I’m the troll.
heh – So I am the troll for sure – but I can’t help laughing at Frank when he calls everyone vermin and jerks. When all folks are doing is dishing what he serves…
But in a group dynamic someone has to be the crier, someone has to be the smartass, someone has to be the smart one, the needy one etc…
Frank just has the cry baby stuff down pat…
Nut up dude! Buck up camper! It will only get worse for your administration – deal.
You convicted him faster than an all-white jury, Frank.
“When one you cowards can step up to the plate and debate an issue without tossing around gratuitous insults, then you can go back to pretending that I m the troll.”
Frank, when you can step up to the plate and debate an issue without repeatedly getting your facts wrong then we can go back to pretending you have a brain.
Most of “those people”? You mean people who have done time for a crime they didn’t commit? I didn’t think there were statistics on their economic status. Although I would imagine that serving a long prison term would leave most people financially strapped.
Most of those people are, you know, underprivileged, so this works out pretty well for him.
Stop trying to make me the villain. I misread the article, and Quaker accused me of racism. I guess in the liberal hierarchy of guilt, a conservative’s making a mistake is a greater crime than a liberal’s false accusation.
Hey Frank, here’s a little tip from Judith Martin, okay?
“You know, you’re right. I misread that and made a wrong assertion. My bad.” That is an apology and retraction.
“So I misread the friggin’ article” is more of the juvenile blowhard stuff you sling around so much, and reeks of “I wasn’t wrong, and how dare you point out that I was.” Don’t play the wounded soul…anyone who’s spent five minutes at OW.com knows your style, and you’re just as snarky and offensive as anyone else around here.
Not to throw old chestnuts around, but don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.
Not for long.
I have it on good authority that this fellow “will probably sue somebody’s ass off and make a fortune.” He’ll probably clear a hundred grand or more, my sources tell me.
You know, you re right, Quaker. I misread that and made a wrong assertion. My bad.
Quaker, it wasn’t really nice of you to accuse me of racism because of the mistake, so I’m sure you’ll soon offer me an apology and a retraction.
Concordian, you’re a f*c*i*g a*s*o*e.
Frank, coming from you, I take “fucking asshole” as high praise. Since you asserted further up the blog that most comedians now swear like 14-year olds in their parents’ basements, and did so in a most disapproving tone, I assume I must have really gotten under your skin to make you swear like a 14 year old in your Mom’s basement. For the second time in the same thread, no less.
Thanks for making my evening on an otherwise so-so day.
And I’ll be happy to send you the donut, if it’ll make you feel that much better.
:::strolls off sniggering to himself about easy-to-push-buttons:::
PS: I’m actually impressed, in a moderate kind of way, that you bothered to apologize. And for what it’s worth, I think Quaker was being a dick about it, especially since the way he made the accusation made no sense, there being only one picture there. He was also pretty obviously taking advantage of what I figured was an honest mistake to bait you about it.
Personally, I blame the liberal media for making the article so tricky to read.
Actually, the swearing wasn’t gratuitous or casual. And, as you have just affirmed, you supported Quaker even though you thought he was wrong. Further, if I didn’t do anyone any harm, why would I be apologizing? That “apology” was to show up Quaker — which his cowardly silence has done, and show you for the jerk you are.
Merry Christmas, bozo!
Not to throw old chestnuts around, but you should have left well enough alone.
Oh dear.
Well, I had started to type a much longer response to this, but to hell with it.
1. I think Quaker was being a dick about the way he made his assertion, not neccesarily about the meaning behind it. All he was doing was baiting you, Frank, and all I was doing was teasing. Congratulations. You rose to the bait faster that a trout on a mayfly.
2. You were awfully quick to play judge, jury and executioner. So quick, in fact, that once you noticed that last paragraph, you apparently couldn’t even be bothered to reread the article. I’m not sure Quaker was wholly wrong, even if the way he pointed it out to you wasn’t accurate.
3. Go (and I say this with all sincerity and great consideration) fuck yourself. And while you’re at it, fuck the horse you rode in on, Frank. Fuck your mother, fuck your dog, and fuck anyone who looks like you. You’ve been a jerk since the very beginning of this thread, in a way that’s unusual even for you. You know what? You made an bad assertion that I will guaran-damn-tee you was based partially on the race of the people involved. I don’t believe for one red-hot minute that you would have been so quick to post that ignorant tripe if the guy had been white. You refused to apologize in anything but the most sarcastic manner. And simply saying “Well, Quaker didn’t apologize either” is a piss-poor excuse. I’ll bet your mother’s proud, Frank.
4. Bugger off.
5. No, really. Bugger off.
6. And finally, just because you strike me as someone who identifies with Bill O’Reilly, Happy Holidays, Frank. Merry Christmas, Joyous Kwanzaa, Happy Hannukah, Blessed Solstice, etc. etc. etc. May the new year bring you the humility you seem so desperately in need of.
Struck a nerve, eh. buffo?
I don’t own a horse or a dog. My mother is dead. And no one, thankfully, looks like me.
Now that you’ve been shown up, suddenly I’ve magically turned into a racist. What a joke. You are pathetic.
You’ve been on this thread, what, three days, and you think you know all about me?
What did you think? “Just another troll — I can treat him like shit, because all my left wing Oliver – syncophants are backing me up.” Now that you find out that you’ve been outsmarted you want to get all nasty and shit.
:::strolls off sniggering to himself about easy-to-push-buttons:::
Not to throw old chestnuts around, but don t dish it out if you can t take it.
Unlike the other halfwits who inhabit this wimpy assed thread, I never invite people to leave. I want you to stay. I want you to think about how clever you thought you were.
And don’t ever forget that if you had minded your own business, none of this would happened. But, no, you had to “poke the troll.”
And, BTW, for the record, if you had been reading this blog for more than 72 hours, you would have read mu numerous posts where I indicated that I do not read or watch or listen to Bill O’Reilly, Hannity, or Limbaugh.
Not really, Frank. I think you’re a run-of-the-mill ignoramus who never backs down when he’s wrong. And “for the record,” I’ve been reading Oliver’s blog for something like 2 years now.
“Outsmarted?” By a guy who can’t keep two names in a news article straight, and then proceeds with racist assumptions on that basis?
Hardly.
Happy holidays, Frank. Just because you don’t watch O’Reilly doesn’t mean you’re not another cookie-cutter clone of him.
No, you weren’t outsmarted by me. You were outsmarted by you. By your “pile on” mentality. Wrap your noggin around this: If I thought the two people in the article were one and the same, then where’s the “racist assumption”?
Like I said, you went from here:
to here:
in 2 hours and 27 minutes!
And you’re blaming me for it
Draw your own conclusion.
Next time, leave me alone.
No, really. Leave me the fuck alone.
Cowardly silence?
No, Frank. Just waiting to find out if was an apology or an “apology.”
When one misreads, you find what you expect to find. Otherwise, you’d ask yourself “WTF?” and go back and re-read.
OW posted about a man held for 25 years for a crime he didn’t commit. You “misread” the article as saying the man was guilty anyway. That didn’t set off any “WTF?” bells for you. You quickly concluded that all us silly liberals were up in arms about a guy who “got less than 25 years for two rapes” and now was going to “sue somebody’s ass off and make a fortune.”
Tell you what: you want an apology and retraction? Tell us your thought process in deciding to put your assumptions about Mr. Clark in writing. Explain why you didn’t find it extraordinary that the man being released would be freed on evidence that implicated him in two other crimes. Tell us why you assumed he would quickly “sue somebody’s ass off.”
If you can explain how you arrived at these conclusions without making race-based assumptions about Mr. Clark, I’ll retract and apologize.
Or we can just sit here and listen to the silence.
The “WTF” I missed was how his DNA Matched 2003 crimes, while he was in prison.
Obviously, to me, not you, I didn’t think “they all look alike.” I thought the story was about one guy, so who did I confuse him with?
I assumed he would sue somebody’s ass off, because I’ve seen similar stories on television, where the report of his intention to sue accompanies the report of his family reunion. That’s cynicism, not racism.
Since I know I’m not a racist, and you have your own evidence of my tolerance, I fully expect you to take the cowardly, liberal way out, and tell me that I didn’t mean that, or that I should have said that before.
So, now that I’ve done what you wanted, and I don’t expect you do what you promised, we can end this BS. You will go to your grave believing conservatives are racists, as Oliver does.
This incident will not change your mind about me, as it has changed my mind about you.
Further explanation to satisfy his Lordship Justice Quaker:
My first post {1:53 PM}:
No mention of race
Dave M’s correction {2:59 pm}:
No mention of race
Quaker in a Basement’s comment {3:17 pm – 18 minutes later}
The Defense rests
Watch out, JD, Concordian will come after you.
BTW, do they live under the Napoleonic Code — the defendant proves their innocence — where you come from?
We’[ve been listening to your silence for about 90 minutes now, Quaker.
Forget it, Quaker. You and I both know that being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry. Really.
I answered you in 27 minutes.
And who’s “us”? The editorial ‘us’ or the imperial ‘us’?
Summary:
And all that’s just from this thread. If I cared to find more examples, they wouldn’t be hard to find. So you’ll excuse me if I take your “I’m mortally offended” act as no more than that.
All that, arising out of this:
The article Oliver posted was about a black man, convicted in Georgia of rape and held for 25 years. The evidence now shows he was innocent.
You read the article, which was about two men, and assumed that everything written desribed just this one guy. Your mistake revealed that when you read the article, you weren’t at all surprised when you concluded that the innocent man must be guilty of something. You added more evidence of the ugliness of your assumptions when you speculated that he would try to turn this injustice into a financial windfall.
Is that racism? It’s my belief that every white person in this country, myself included, bears the stain of racism. It’s part of our national culture, it’s pervasive, and it can’t ever be entirely erased. All one can do is try your best to act right and think right when it comes to race. Making the assumption that an innocent black man must be guilty of something was the error made by the jury that robbed Mr. Clark of 25 years of his life. You made precisely the same error in your comment.
As for your charge that I have accused you of being a racist, you have once again misread, finding only what you expect to find. There’s a difference between characterizing what you wrote and characterizing your beliefs. I don’t expect you to grasp this rather plain distinction, but there you have it.
I’m tired of spanking you over this one, Frank. You can’t defend what you wrote initially, so you’re reduced to profanity, denial, and begging for an apology (even as you admit that you offered one yourself only to show me up).
Very well.
I retract my statement, “Aw, they all look alike. Right, Frank?” It does not accurately characterize what’s wrong with what you wrote and has been taken as a slam against your character. I apologize for that.
I still find your initial erroneous comment careless and offensive.
I didn’t misread anything. How in the world could you characterize my beliefs, unless you talk about what I wrote. You don’t know me, except from what I write. You include a gratuitous insult, while not even saying “I don’t believe you’re a racist” or “If I implied you were a racist, I apologize.”
In other words, you apologized for nothing.
And here’s my favorite line: You can t defend what you wrote initially
Did I have to?
Did you defend what you wrote?
I had nothing to defend — I certainly didn’t offend you. If anything, I offended the man described in the article. And I didn’t even do that.
You just don’t get it, do you, Quaker? The only thing I was wrong about was how you would wimp out of the apology you owed me.
I find you’re so – called apology to be worthless, and unworthy of a man. You claim I “begged for an apology”, when you wrote:
I did — but you didn’t.
So I repeat:
You see, JD, scratch a liberal, and you’ll find a heart of darkness within. There is an elitist, arrogant creature inside every one of them. Self – possessed, convinced of their own righteousness, desregarding the feelings of others — ideology trumps all: “It s my belief that every white person in this country, myself included, bears the stain of racism.” Well, I say, “Speak for yourself.”
To the extent that Quaker didn’t fully do his job right, he takes responsibility.
factcheck, to the extent that you contributed absolutely nothing to this dialogue, I thank you for your contribution.
Frank, to the extent that my “nothing” is approximately double your lifetime contribution to humanity, I appreciate your comments.
Shorter Frank_D: I don’t give a flying fuck if I was wrong, and how dare you point it out in public.
That’s pretty much all you need to know.
factcheck, I’m wounded. And all this time, I thought you were my pal.
Hehe
Concordian, are you back?
And that’s all you need to know.
Just think, folks, one more of Oliver’s posts, and this will be on the “previous” page.
Quelle dommage.