I don't find these examples particularly compelling. Likes to cite examples of overreach but never describe the counter arguments.
i.e. peremptory strikes. Jury selection was clearly, with many many examples, used in the past to create a group not that was not the defendant's 'peers'. Even with the '86 court ruling that nominally ended peremptory strikes on the basis of race, most lawyers recognize (as do Gerrymanderers) you can find related reasons to strike them within the realm of plausible deniability (i.e bias against police).
The author presents no reasoning from those in favor, only disgruntled and largely anonymous counterpoints.
Furthermore, the praise of S African policy is a cherry picked example and clearly far outside the mainstream. One American official praising an approach is hardly a bellwether.
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, citing one example as a potentially adverse ruling ("liberals would hate to convict this black man!") is hardly a good counterargument towards vigilantism.
Just this week, a Florida 70 year old was acquitted after shooting dead a man who threw popcorn in his face. Even if we had to admit there is no perfect middle ground (may or may not be true), I think over-convinction of vigilantes is clearly preferable to allowing greater death and destruction through the furtherance of stupid legal theories like Stand Your Ground.
> I think over-conviction of vigilantes is clearly preferable
You are kinda making the author's point. The notion that we should over convict for the greater good is NOT what the American justice system should aim for. It is better for some guilty to go free rather than some innocent to get punished. While I agree Stand Your Ground laws are not good and suffers from the same problem: this notion of presuming guilt until proven otherwise.
Agreed. These are important issues, so discussion would be enriched by robustness and completeness. Critical Race Theory is mostly about the problem and might be addressed by any number of actions. In this piece only one possible reaction is examined. It is also very important to look at the full range social variation within what we call race. Currently Nigerian immigrants are one of the top earning groups and while the Black middle and upper class may be small they do not necessarily share the same issues as people who are stuck in ghettos or living on the street.
Indeed, and in another example he complains of someone getting “only” a 10 year sentence, instead of the maximum 20. If anything, that’s a counter-argument, proving that the changes happening are not of great significance.
i.e. peremptory strikes. Jury selection was clearly, with many many examples, used in the past to create a group not that was not the defendant's 'peers'. Even with the '86 court ruling that nominally ended peremptory strikes on the basis of race, most lawyers recognize (as do Gerrymanderers) you can find related reasons to strike them within the realm of plausible deniability (i.e bias against police).
The author presents no reasoning from those in favor, only disgruntled and largely anonymous counterpoints.
Furthermore, the praise of S African policy is a cherry picked example and clearly far outside the mainstream. One American official praising an approach is hardly a bellwether.
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, citing one example as a potentially adverse ruling ("liberals would hate to convict this black man!") is hardly a good counterargument towards vigilantism. Just this week, a Florida 70 year old was acquitted after shooting dead a man who threw popcorn in his face. Even if we had to admit there is no perfect middle ground (may or may not be true), I think over-convinction of vigilantes is clearly preferable to allowing greater death and destruction through the furtherance of stupid legal theories like Stand Your Ground.