Jack Johnson Will He Be Pardoned?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he's probably tried more cases than you or I have. I'm continue to continue staying on this limb and say he probably has a better understanding of both the legal system and this specific law than either of us has.

And I don't know why people get mixed up with whether or not someone should be found legally guilty of something verses whether or not they are nice people.

They're apples and oranges.

The best most well intentioned people in the world are still capable of doing bad things, and the *******s of the world are still entitled to legal process.

 

Oh, wait till I have a few shots of Kentucky's finest in me.

I'll set that guy straight!

 

Mcvey: i hope you enjoy attempting to find tidbits on the internet about my neighborhood to attack me it really shows the weakness and desperation of your argument. And frankly its comical how far from the mark you are considering A. Ive moved from any neighborhood you might know me by and B. Ill put my annual earnings up against yours any day of the week. We can also get into a real **** measuring contest if you want and ill win that as well. Or you can save yourself the embarrassement and just continue getting your ass handed to you in threads about boxers you like but find indefensible. Your choice.

Reznick: same, i will only add that when you actually create something of worth instead of what amounts to the hobby of talentless tweens then maybe we can debate.

Adam: your argument is riddled with inconsistencies necessitated by your obvious bias for your subject. You are willing to believe testimony from this witness as long as it suits your agenda but not other testimony from the same witness when it contradicts your theory. This is a constant vein in your defense of johnson. It weakens your case just as johnsons inconsistency weakened his. Its irrelevent what you or i choose to believe. Those decisions were made by qualified jurists of the day regardless of how you attempt to portray them or the judge. What is relevent, as ive shown and youve admitted, is that johnson did violate the mann act. Case closed. Thats it. Game over. Now, your velvet gloved approach toward johnson and race at the time has already been well illustrated. You mischaracterized the riots either out of ignorance or by design, both unforgiveable, and you are strategically picking and choosing not only what to believe for your own peace of mind but also for the purposes of historical documentation. Its disengenuous to say the least. We can even back the argument up for the purposes of revisionist apologists and pretend johnson was technically wrongly convicted (he wasnt but im willing to entertain morons like reznick who ride the shortbus to kindergarten and are easily swayed). You admit that he violated the mann act. Regardless of whether or not he was "improperly" convicted does he really deserve a pardon? Really? Why? I will ask again for at least the third time: why exactly does johnson deserve a pardon over anyone else convicted of the mann act? Not you, nor anyone else has answered that question ive posed numerous times. He doesnt. The only reason you, or mcvey, or reznick, or ANYONE thinks johnson deserves a pardon above anyone else is A. Because he was a famous boxer (which i submit is meaningless) B. Because of the sadly mistaken idea that Johnson was some kind of hero of civil rights (he wasnt anymore a hero of civil rights than john l sullivan was a hero of womens rights) and C. Because his fame elevates him in visibility above pretty much everyone else ever convicted of that violation and thus combined with the century removed from the events makes it the perfectly harmless and pointless political football for a rich white conservative like mccain who 100 yrs ago would have been at the head of johnsons lynch party to curry favor with the more maleable minorities and ignorant liberals (reznick, was that the horn for the shortbus calling you?). Its a much more extreme example i admit but does hurricane carter deserve a pardon? I find his defense uncompelling in the extreme. Im firmly convinced he is a murderer. He was set free on procedural technicality but never exhonerrated and has miguidedly been set up as a hero of the wrongly convicted. Now, does carter deserve a pardon? If he was a murderer but was "incorrectly" convicted does he deserve a pardon? That is the crux of the op and what i have been arguing. People want to tiptoe around this and hem and haw and say "well, he might have transported and screwed *****s, he might have paid them and or paid for their transportation. BUT, even the he committed the crime, we admit that, he was wrongly convicted on a technicality and deserves a pardon." That make zero sense to me. Its why i ask: even if you are going to fall back on the 21st century morals argument and say "well, the law was wrong" then why him? What makes him so special? Crickets chirping.

 

Well for starters here's the low down on who's been charged and convicted under the Mann Act since 1910. According to Wikipedia, a total of 14 people have been charged under this Act. The famous and infamous, include:

Charles Manson (charges dropped), Jack Johnson (guilty), Chuck Berry (guilty), and Charles Chapin (acquitted).

Of those charged a total of 8 were convicted. Of those 8, 3 were convicted after the turn of THIS century, mostly because they were religious leaders of cult groups and were having *** with minors. Three others, including Johnson, Berry and Rex Ingram, were black celebrities.

One other convicted was also a religious leader, and one guy ( Farley Drew Caminetti, a white guy) who was convicted near the time of Johnson, and was taking his mistress from California to Nevada when his wife informed the police. And that's it.

I think if you're going to pardon anyone, guys who are taking willing adult females across the border would fit the bill, and that comes down to two people, Johnson and Farley Drew Caminetti and perhaps Rex Ingram who was convicted of taking a teenager across state lines, but this article doesn't mention her age.

The point being there's not a lot of people to pardon and this law does appear to be used sparingly and selectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act

 

Wait.....only 8 people have ever been convicted with the Mann Act?

:rofl:rofl

Is this real life

 

Klompton, alert the 5-0!

Statistically speaking, some dangerous person out there is bound to be guilty of the Mann Act in the next 15 years!! Get em!!

:rofl:rofl

 

Since we have 15 years on our hands, let's start learning how to format paragraphs!



I can't guys, I can't.

 

Are you a black heavyweight champion of the world?

No? You're in luck, because your chances of being convicted have been cut by 12.5%

 

When the phrases "Charles Manson (charges dropped)" and "semen viscosity" are being used in a thread, I just know we're starting to do some real good work around here. :good

 

No, you'll be fine. The Mann Act refers to transporting females.

There will be no problem for you and your boyfriend.