Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–206 of 206 posts

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#201

Post by beerandt »

dragonwriter wrote: post #198
beerandt wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that most of the states against slavery, were also against those slaves being present in the country at all . It wasn't until war was pretty much inevitable that many, including Lincoln, started to realize that moving towards freedom/equality was the winning move, strategically, practically, and politically. Even after admitting equality was the answer, he still wrote plenty of extremely racist rants abo…

> It often gets framed that the slave states valued slaves lives as less (3/5) than free persons, but remember that the northern states that were against slavery were also against counting slaves as constitutional persons at all: they wanted 0/5s. This actually gets the 3/5 compromise wrong worse than the view it (correctly) points to as being wrong. The 3/5 compromise isn’t about “constitutional personhood” of slave…

I'm not saying the south had the moral high-ground, just that this is proof that the north didn't hold it either.

Yes- they (the south) wanted slaves to be counted 5/5 for apportionment for the purposes of representation. I'm not sure how that's getting it backwards. Women and children at the time had a similar "be counted, but don't get to vote" status.

My point is that the north wasn't being altruistic with a lot of slavery/ equality issues, but ruthlessly political. And that being anti-slavery at the time definitely didn't (necessarily) mean being pro-abolition (even if they labeled themselves abolitionists), or even anti-racist (not by the standards of the time and definitely not by the standards of today), which is how it's now often framed. And what the comment I was replying to implied.

Northern states being "anti-slavery" was not the evidence of moral high-ground that people give them credit for.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#202

Post by beerandt »

perl4ever wrote: post #197
beerandt wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that most of the states against slavery, were also against those slaves being present in the country at all . It wasn't until war was pretty much inevitable that many, including Lincoln, started to realize that moving towards freedom/equality was the winning move, strategically, practically, and politically. Even after admitting equality was the answer, he still wrote plenty of extremely racist rants abo…

>the northern states that were against slavery were also against counting slaves as constitutional persons at all: they wanted 0/5s You're saying that 0/5ths was more racist than 3/5ths? That makes no sense, because the benefit of being counted was being given to the slave owners. I don't see any ambiguity or subjectivity here.

Because at the time, basically only white land owners were voting. They were definitely the only ones putting the choices on the ballot.

There wasn't any concern from the north over women, children, or (tax-paying) indians being denied voting rights, yet still being counted for apportionment. No, slaves didn't enjoy the same level of rights as those groups, but this also wasn't about voting power being synonymous with apportionment numbers.

It was a politically convenient power grab, not an altruistic hill-to-die-on.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#203

Post by dragonwriter »

beerandt wrote: post #201
dragonwriter wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It often gets framed that the slave states valued slaves lives as less (3/5) than free persons, but remember that the northern states that were against slavery were also against counting slaves as constitutional persons at all: they wanted 0/5s. This actually gets the 3/5 compromise wrong worse than the view it (correctly) points to as being wrong. The 3/5 compromise isn’t about “constitutional personhood” of slave…

I'm not saying the south had the moral high-ground, just that this is proof that the north didn't hold it either. Yes- they (the south) wanted slaves to be counted 5/5 for apportionment for the purposes of representation. I'm not sure how that's getting it backwards. Women and children at the time had a similar "be counted, but don't get to vote" status. My point is that the north wasn't being altruistic with a lot o…

> I’m not saying the south had the moral high-ground, just that this is proof that the north didn’t hold it either.

How is insisting that slave owners don’t also get bonus votes for holding slaves prove that? There are certainly arguments that the North was far from perfect on race issues (though I don’t think any of them come anywhere close to an argument that they didn’t have the moral high ground on racial issues compared to the South), but “didn’t give in to a demand that the South made specifically to secure the long-term future of slavery” is…not one of them.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#204

Post by perl4ever »

beerandt wrote: post #202
perl4ever wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the northern states that were against slavery were also against counting slaves as constitutional persons at all: they wanted 0/5s You're saying that 0/5ths was more racist than 3/5ths? That makes no sense, because the benefit of being counted was being given to the slave owners. I don't see any ambiguity or subjectivity here.

Because at the time, basically only white land owners were voting. They were definitely the only ones putting the choices on the ballot. There wasn't any concern from the north over women, children, or (tax-paying) indians being denied voting rights, yet still being counted for apportionment. No, slaves didn't enjoy the same level of rights as those groups, but this also wasn't about voting power being synonymous wit…

There's nothing anti-racist about 0/5ths vs. 3/5ths, that's true.

But I never heard anyone claim that so I don't know why it's worth refuting.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#205

Post by rhino369 »

hwillis wrote: post #200
rhino369 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) That really isn't true. Studies indicated anywhere from 40-75% of the time you can't find "touch" DNA on objects that were handled by someone. That's not even considering whether he could have been wearing gloves or wiped the object after. 2) Since the testing was conducted by defense counsel, we don't really know what an objective test would even show. His lawyers statements are a bit weasel worded--"did not show…

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not probable. So that's the correct way to describe the evidence.

Not really. Reasonable doubt refers to the totality of the evidence.

A piece of evidence that probably supports a guilty verdict does not undue other evidence just because it doesn't rise the level of reasonable doubt by itself.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#206

Post by bryanrasmussen »

beerandt wrote: post #201
dragonwriter wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It often gets framed that the slave states valued slaves lives as less (3/5) than free persons, but remember that the northern states that were against slavery were also against counting slaves as constitutional persons at all: they wanted 0/5s. This actually gets the 3/5 compromise wrong worse than the view it (correctly) points to as being wrong. The 3/5 compromise isn’t about “constitutional personhood” of slave…

I'm not saying the south had the moral high-ground, just that this is proof that the north didn't hold it either. Yes- they (the south) wanted slaves to be counted 5/5 for apportionment for the purposes of representation. I'm not sure how that's getting it backwards. Women and children at the time had a similar "be counted, but don't get to vote" status. My point is that the north wasn't being altruistic with a lot o…

I'm pretty sure that anti-slavery was always taken to mean we don't want people to have slaves, not that we want you to have slaves but not get extra votes because of it.
Post reply on HN