Jack Johnson Will He Be Pardoned?

By the way, this is what the judge said when sentencing him, specifically referencing his race and status among his people, something which today would be grounds for reversal and re-sentencing:


It has been hard to determine what punishment should be meted out in this case. We have had many cases where violations of the Mann act have been punished with a fine only. We have had other cases where defendants have been sentenced to one or two years in the penitentiary. The circumstances in this case have been aggravating. The life of the defendant, by his own admissions, has not been at all a moral one. The defendant is one of the best known men of his race, and his example has been far reaching. The court is bound to take these facts into consideration in determining the sentence to be imposed. In this case the defendant shall be confined one year and one day in the Leavenworth penitentiary and that he shall pay a fine of $1,000.


Well known for his racial bigotry, U.S. Attorney General James C. McReynolds, whom U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had appointed earlier that year, had sent a telegram to James Wilkerson informing him that the Leavenworth penitentiary was designated as the place of confinement for Johnson. “This is special designation in this case only and does not affect generally existing designation Joliet institution for United States prisoners convicted [in] your district. Please have order court entered accordingly. McReynolds.” Judge Carpenter had honored the request and ordered Johnson confined in Leavenworth instead of the usual Joliet penitentiary. The following year, McReynolds would be appointed to and confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.


In January 1921, the Leavenworth Prison’s Parole Board (which included former Nevada Governor Denver ****erson, who had hosted Jeffries-Johnson), held a parole hearing and unanimously recommended that Johnson be paroled. However, on January 21, 1921, the Justice Department denied parole, and Johnson was required to serve his full one-year term, less any required credits for time previously served.

 

^ Unbelievable

 

I don't agree with your conclusions.
A federal pardon does not reverse a conviction, rather it validates it.
It does not vindicate the pardoned person.
It says in effect 'you are guilty but the president forgives your transgression and restores your civil rights'.
A president cannot reverse a conviction. That is a function of the courts and does not fall under his pardoning powers.

I don't think that is what Johnson's defenders want.

It reiterates Johnson's legacy as a convicted felon and restores civil rights that a deceased person does not have and cannot utilize, anyway.

If this were my cause, I would look at the possibility of congress ordering the Supreme Court to hear arguments to posthumously reverse Johnson's conviction. Congress has this power under Article III.

 

See this is what im talking about, how you twist and manipulate the facts to suit your agenda. First of all the judge made clear in his instructions that race was not to be a factor in determining guilt. You say that he then, contradicting himself, chose a harsher sentence for johnson because of his race. Bull****. Either you have comprehension problems or more likely hope rubes like reznick do (and he does) so you can pander to them. He clearly states that his sentence was chosen because of the influence johnson wielded within the african american community. This is whats called a mitigating/aggravating factor in sentencing and is used on a regular basis. Race was incidental to the sentence. You, as an attorney should know this. Now, even if an appeals court found fault with that ONE SENTENCE from the judge that you incorrectly comprehend, they would only likely send it back for resentencing, not overturn the entire conviction. The bedt Johnson could hope for would a retrial. But we both know that either scenario would be unlikely either then or now.

Reznick, as to your butthurt comment about me attempting to tear down legends i call bull**** and particularly in regard to johnson. Ive argued as passionately in his favor as an all time great boxer as anyone on this forum. I spent months assembling and preserving the most complete copies of several of his fight films that exist anywhere in the world. Ive done as much credit to the man as anyone on this forum AS A FIGHTER (You know, what his legend was actually built on). Im not going to sit here and let some deluded hobbyist pretend that because i dont agree that johnson deserves a pardon and that i do in fact think he was guilty that im tearing down his legend. Bull****. Im not the one trying to rewrite history, lie, and mischaracterize these events to suit an agenda. You can point that finger elsewhere.

 

And for the record, days and pages of drivel from apologists later and still nobody can answer me why, beyond the fact that he happens to be a prominant participant in your favorite sport, he deserves a pardon ahead of anyone else convicted of the act? Still nothing? Didnt think so. So, despite all of the misrepresentations of facts in the case we are left with the fact that johnson was guilty of violating the mann act. Period. Johnson is no better or worse than anyone else convicted of it but some boxing fans who clearly arent well versed in the history of the act think he deserves a pardon above all others convicted of the act... But im the bad guy and tearing down legends for injecting a little common sense into the argument instead of being a sycophantic lapdog.


One last thing before i sit back and watch unforgiven, mcvey, and reznick rub their three brain cells together and try to comprehend the above: Adam, you said something that caught my eye and Id like to have you go on record with it: you stated or hinted at the belief that men were only prosecuted under the mann act for relations with white women and that the big bad racist government wouldnt care at all if a woman of color were involved. Can i get you to affirm this belief for the record? Are you saying categorically that no case utilizing the mann act EVER involved a woman of anything but caucasian origin? Because thats the impression you are STRONGLY giving and youve clearly done a lot of homework on the mann act.

 

Talking of being able to comprehend, if you actually read my posts on this thread you might see that I'm in no way for the pardon and slightly baffled why Johnson fans (reznick etc.) think it matters to get his reputation "cleaned up" by official government sanction.
I'm not particularly interested in the case or the Mann act.
You'd know that if you actually had a brain cell and could comprehend and bothered to read people's posts being attributing viewpoints to them. Which, of course, you rarely do. :good

 

Didn't Johnson's night club double as a ***** house? All it would take is one woman to be transported across the state line from WI, IA, or IN to be in violation of the Mann Act, which is still on the books today.

 

I enjoy civil debates. There is no need to get personal. Ad hominem attacks are fallacies of logic. Also, a debate should cite facts, not simply opinion. Or at least opinion backed by facts. I try to cite the facts and let them speak for themselves as much as possible.

IF a pardon means that a person has to accept responsibility for their actions, how then can a dead person be pardoned? They aren't around to accept or deny responsibility. Yet, dead people have been pardoned.

A pardon CAN be for the innocent, although Bill you are correct that unless it is expressly stated in the pardon that it is due to innocence, the pardon does not imply innocence. It is merely a forgiveness of the offense. That said, a pardon strikes the conviction from the books as if it had never occurred, and legally the convicted person is treated as innocent. They have the same legal rights as before they were convicted. If he so desires, a President can explain in his pardon that it is being granted due to innocence.

Also, some folks have been pardoned before they were convicted. Hence, you don't have an acceptance of responsibility because they never were tried and convicted. Cf. President Richard Nixon, who was pardoned before trial (hence we don't know whether or not he would have been convicted).

In 1868, all former Confederate soldiers received a presidential pardon (I highly doubt they would admit to any guilt), but it took another 18 years before the Union's U.S. General Fitz John Porter was exonerated for his role in the Civil War. A career soldier, Porter was disgraced by his loss at 1862’s Second Battle of Bull Run. During the engagement, he was slow to react to contradictory orders from Major General John Pope, and was then forced into an ill-planned attack that resulted in devastating losses to his corps. Blamed for the Union defeat, Porter was court-martialed and then summarily dismissed from the army after a controversial public trial.

Porter believed he had been made into a scapegoat, and he spent most of the next two decades fighting to clear his name. Vindication finally came in 1879, when an official review concluded that Porter was not only innocent of any wrongdoing at Second Bull Run, but had likely prevented the defeat from being even more severe. In 1882, President Chester A. Arthur commuted his sentence and restored him to the military, and President Grover Cleveland later followed up with a full pardon.

Some who have been found to be innocent and executed were granted pardons by governors after their deaths or executions. In one instance, a man was executed for murder, but then the alleged victim turned up alive several years later. I'd say that posthumous pardon was a determination of innocence, all right.

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-pardoned-after-their-executions-2014-5

 

I also enjoy these civil debates, as you can learn something.

I also want to apologize to Apollack if he took anything I said about his legal actives personal. For the record, I think he's one of the best posters here, but I also think he doesn't give even ink to the other side of the coin on Johnson's dark side out of the ring.

Now that I have his attention I'd also like to read his reply to Klompton's post #247 on this page

 

To the best of my knowledge, no white man was ever prosecuted for transporting a black woman across state lines. After all, the lawmakers' true intent was to prevent traffic in white slaves - the law is entitled "White Slave Traffic Act."

Can anyone produce an instance wherein a white man was prosecuted under the Mann Act when the woman was black?

When Johnson was indicted, a government lawyer said the case against him would not be open to dispute. “There could not be a plainer case of white slavery in violation of the Mann act.”

The Freeman noted the inconsistency of Mann Act prosecutions, which were based solely on race. White men lusted after colored women in every city, in both the North and South. "Yet in all this the government has never yet invoked the white slave law."

The Broad Ax criticized that the law and law enforcement only sought to protect white women, but never black women.

The black-owned Seattle Republican opined,

"If Jack Johnson has broken the law he deserves the punishment of the law and we hope he gets it, but it looks to us as if all this publicity is given to it because Jack is a Negro and the women are Caucasians. Had Johnson mistreated girls of his own race in a similar manner the federal authorities would have considered it beneath their dignity to give it a moment’s consideration."

 

No need to extensively respond to post #247 because the judge's words at sentencing speak for themselves. The judge considered Johnson's race and his status among blacks in the sentencing, something which any legal scholar today will tell you is grounds for a reversal of the sentence. Race is an improper sentencing consideration. This would be a slam dunk appellate point today.

 

Okay, that I respect.

But I think it's possible that you let your great contributions effect your ego and good judgement.

For instance, you are calling Adam contradictory? No man, the judge was the one making contradictions. Adam is simply citing the transcripts. That kind of misunderstanding severely hurts your credibility.

What the judge said is grounds for a mistrial. It's an open and shut case. You want people to respect you for the research you've done, but you're reluctant to acknowledge Adam's legal experience, and its relevance on the topic.


Sometimes it's good to have a beginners mind, because it restores common sense. I think you desperately need that.

 

And people keep asking why a pardon is so important.

It's important because Jack Johnson wasn't a person of ordinary status. For years, he was the most notorious black person on earth. He was known as the strongest man on Earth when America called his race inferior. He had a fairly big impact on society. And a pardon signals pride of equality and achievement, as opposed to chastisement and punishment.


Are there other people who deserve justice? Absolutely. But Johnson is a great place to start.