Why Jack Johnson’s Family Should Refuse Any Exoneration

The history of boxing is unimportant in the big picture. It's important to us fringe few here, but that's it. It has no other overriding merit. Certainly nothing any tax dollars should go toward.

As to the social importance of it.........that sounds like something a boxing fan might say to bolster his argument for exoneration. In reality, the man's been dead for ages and precious few outside the boxing realm know who the hell he is anyway. There are tons and tons of far more pertinent and meaningful things to be done to address social agenda.

 

The law has some backbone, but was written intentionally vague so it could be used to take down people like Jack Johnson for interracial relationships.

The law was amended in 1986:
The Mann act was further amended to replace the ambiguous "debauchery" and "any other immoral purpose" with the more specific "any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense" as well as to make it gender-neutral.

It was a purposely vaguely written law, so that it could be a stronger weapon for overzealous prosecutors.

 

What are you talking about?

To save money from wrongful indictments, don't indict. It's simple.

 

I bet there are waaay more than 20,000 innocent people in prison right now. Way more.
And this act towards pardoning Johnson gives exposure to the inadequacies of our justice system.

Going after justice system reform is a much more politicized endeavor than pardoning Johnson.
If you're passionate about reform, you should see this pardon as a small step towards that direction.

This pardon could symbolize one of the fastest areas of improvement of our government and country; race relations. Jack Johnson went to jail because our government used to be racist. It would an amazing symbol of how far our government has come, by being the ones to exonerate him 100 years later.

 

Jack Johnsons pardon doesn't keep voters up at night.
It's a tiny issue brought up from time to time.

No, the social importance is overwhelming.
Jackie Robinson and Jesse Owens are household names. We celebrate them as symbols for equality and civil rights.

Jack Johnson should be celebrated alongside with them. Not tarnished to the obscurity of history because some morons had vendettas against people with a certain skin color.

 

You posed the question about exonerating him officially. In order to do that, congress must assemble and discuss, etc.......are you following me? No, it doesn't take anything not to indict, but it does cost money to exonerate. That was the question you brought up.

 

Nah. No social importance whatsoever. There are lots more pressing things on the stove right now regarding social justice.

It's kind of inaccurate too, to link Robinson and Owens, two very good men by all accounts, with a woman-beater like Johnson. Two different kinds of people there, I'm afraid.

 

We were talking about the cost of pursuing a conviction for Al Capone.

 

Many disagree, hence the movement. But to each his own!

 

Okay, but the phrase "why would tax dollars be used to exonerate him" is specifically what I was writing about. My point was if one WAS to go about introducing legislation to exonerate (Capone or Johnson or whomever) then it would cost the taxpayer. Small point anyway, not worth pursuing I suppose.

 

lol I know what you're saying but you're not getting my point.

If you don't wrongfully target and indict someone, there is no wasted cost to begin with. But if you do, the burden on the financial penalty for exoneration shouldn't fall on the wrongfully accused subject.

Saying we shouldn't waste money on Johnson is just another kick in his face. We were okay with spending whatever money it took to put him in prison. Now it's too expensive to clear his name? That would be barbaric.

 

I can certainly agree with you about improper witch hunts (as opposed to the proper kind).

 

It matters. It's a symbolic step. The attention it will get in news and creative media can spur inspiration. It's our government acknowledging and admitting to the imperfect nature of our justice system.
It is not effective as re-writing the justice system, but Jack Johnson is not stopping us from doing that.
What you are saying is the product of crazy thinking. As soon as someone expresses intention to do good, they are chastised for not doing better? Justice system reform might not be something that Mccain, or his voters, believes in. To let that stop us from encouraging him success on this ethical and just act, exposes a lack of perspective imo.

On top of that, justice system reform is no straightforward project. The complexity pales in comparison to pardoning Johnson. You won't find much controversy over pardoning Jack Johnson from republicans to dems. Ironically, the most opposition I've seen over this movement has been on this forum.

This issue doesn't conflict with, or prevent progress in justice reform. In fact, it can only help shed light into the imperfect nature of our system. It's a net positive gain to pardon Johnson.

Why do you echo the plight of the wrongfully imprisoned, and yet find it inconvenient to correct the record of one of it's victims? Is one individual too small to matter?