Jack Johnson Will He Be Pardoned?

Don't see the point. He is long dead. How about they pardon someone who is among the living.

 

Not that I necessarily agree with them in their entirety, but his arguments are a lot more compelling than the ill informed, emotional drivel you have presented.

Sorry but it's true.

 

He's presented nothing but his opinion.

I'm not making an argument, as much as I'm pointing to common sense, and having a laugh. If you understand law, you'll know this case against Johnson is crooked.


8 people have been convicted of the Mann Act. That's the KO blow to this entire debacle.

 

Yeah. So what?

apollack is arguing the fairness of the trial.

klompton2 is arguing JJ's actual guilt and weighing the merit of the request.

Both arguments have weight when considering the idea of a pardon.

Really? Why? apollack himself admitted Johnson travelled with pr*stitutes before 1910. The law was (on paper) to halt s*x trafficking interstate. That puts JJ at least in frame of the spirit of the law not it's distorted arbitrary application.

apollack produced enough evidence to suggest the accusation failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt during the time frame the law took effect.

That doesn't mean the law didn't exist, regardless of how poorly written or how wrongfully applied it was.

 

If I thought that the trial was unfair, or that Johnson’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, but it was still at the back of my mind that he probably did it…..

Then I would still support a pardon.

 

When 8 people have been charged under one law, which Johnson was convicted of for sending a girl $75, it's plainly obvious that he was targeted. It's common sense.

Law is an imperfect tool used by society to enable justice. It is not the gospel. And we have a responsibility to correct the errors that come out of the system. Jack Johnson was unjustifiably indicted, and wrongfully convicted.

When the US Dist Attorney admits that the defendant was persecuted because of his skin color, and you continue to defend the merits of the trial, then you no longer have credibility on the topic in my eyes.

 

If those 75 bucks were somehow used to pay for Schreiber's train so she could go to JJ and f*ck him for money or because of tha money, that violated the law in it's purpose, not in it's arbitrary wrongful application.

Obviously that wouldn't make him a s*x slavery ring leader, but he would have participated in interstate s*x commerce.

The fact he was convicted for just 75 bucks or if only 8 people were ever convicted, by themselves, don't invalidate the trial or the law. It's written purpose was still legitimate regardless of the intentions behind it.

Truism that doesn't address any point I made. I explicitly referred to the spirit of the law.

Again if those 75 bucks were used so Schreiber could go to JJ so she could have s*x with him for money, that would have violated the law in it's purpose regardless of what the biggots had in mind with it.

He could also have violated the law only in letter or be innocent. We don't know.

She reached out for him, he gave her money, she gone after him, she was a prostitute and he used to travel with them prior 1910.

That's all we know

"Unjustifiably" is a stretch.

That seems to be true. apollack presented a solid case for reasonable doubt.

He could have vomited 30 gallons of kittens and daisies.

It doesn't matter how much of a disgusting biggot the prosecutor might have been.

Even if JJ was indeed persecuted and he might very well have been.

Until we know without a shadow of a doubt what was the purpose of the money we don't know if he was actually innocent or not regardless of the purpose behind the trial. So reasonable doubt.

I never did.

If the charges were solid of JJ violating the law in it's purpose it doesn't matter if the prosecutor went after JJ cause he f*cked his daughter or if he had weird feelings thinking about Jeffries shirtless in front of the boiler. A partial trial invalidates the trial itself not the case.

I'm not shocked. I know exactly what to expect with politically correct little robots. (That's rezzie, just to be clear.)

Given enough room they always come out as fascists. Play ball or shut up.

Your "witch! witch! don't touch the legends!" little oubursts towards klompton2 and Seamus are symptomatic.

Again, North Korea is the place for you.

They play ball for life and sure as hell don't let anybody f*ck with their legends.

C'mon, you seen their vids. The Marshall needs you.

 

That's the only scenario were JJ's legacy would actually benefit from a pardon now that he's gone and long served his time IMO.

Otherwise, like people said before, a pardon acknowledges his guilt and don't adress the misconducts of the court if they occurred.

I don't have a horse in this race since I'm not american, but if it was my money I would support another trial even if I felt he was guilty.

If the trial itself was as partial and racially charged as apollack painted he deserved a fair one no matter how solid the case against him was.

I'm not sure a pardon would even make any difference at least as far as JJ's legacy is concerned.

As is most people who know who JJ was already believe he was persecuted and wrongfully convicted.

I don't like the idea of a bunch of politically correct little robots like rezzie pushing this "symbollic gesture" just to pat themselves in the back, while in reality it wouldn't benefit JJ's standing in any fn way.

I say this as a fan of JJ's. And a bitter, sad, lonely, suicidal, blablablah whatever rezzie thinks of people that don't belong to his Pink Pollyanna Party.

 

"It doesn't matter how much of a disgusting biggot the prosecutor might have been. Even if JJ was indeed persecuted and he might very well have been."

It does matter. The government admitted that he was targeted. If you can't see how wrong that is, I don't know what else to say.

If US federal prosecutors target someone, they will substantiate charges. It doesn't matter how dirty or clean of a life you live. And thats no more apparent than in this case, where Johnson was charged with a law used only 14 times in 100 years.

Putting someone in jail is a serious thing. You need to have a really good reason to do it, or you're not following the spirit of the justice system.

 

The Mann act sounds like a bullsh!t law from the start. What the hell is "immoral purposes" ?

 

Can you prove that? Cause that's the whole point of our discussion.

Can you prove without shadow of a doubt that there was no reason at all to investigate JJ on charges of violating the Act in it's intended purpose?

Cause neither how big a circus the trial itself was or how rarely enforced the law has been are irrefutable proof there was no reason at all to investigate JJ on charges of violating the Act in it's intended purpose.

I'm not even saying there was evidence. But what you called "a KO blow" is indicative. Not a smoking gun.

It's obvious that's wrong. Don't be ridiculous. Shut off the politically correct little firewall of yours. Is this white guilt?

 

It's open to interpretation (which permits abuse) and, considering only 8 people were convicted, might've been ineffective. A bad law all in all.

The problem is JJ is not completely cleared of suspicion of violating the intended purpose of the law.

The fact that Schreiber reached out to him reinforces the idea that, if he violated the act at all, he did it only in letter not in spirit.