When I first saw the headline, "Activists Seek Action in 58-Year Old Lynching Case in Georgia", my first idea was that they wanted some sort of memorial for someone who had been murdered...I forgot that its 2005, race relations and the status of minorities have been improving for decades and thus the race-baiters need to reach back quite a ways to find things to keep hate alive.
...dozens of politicians, activists and relatives of the victims are pressing a local prosecutor to use the FBI's original investigation to seek indictments against the few surviving suspects in the deaths of Roger and Dorothy Malcom and George and Mae Murray Dorsey.
Leaving aside the difficulty in actually finding genuine evidence from a 58 year old murder (a murder done back in the day when even a good murder investigation would have missed all sorts of evidence we take for granted today); leave aside the fact that you can't really execute justice upon someone 58 years after their crime (they've already lived their lives, there is no punishment you can really do, no restitution you can make to people dead more than half a century); leave aside the fact that only two of the original 55 suspects are still alive...leave all that aside, and try to consider what use such a prosecution would have in the year 2005.
The only use it would have would be to give a political platform for those who must convince the American people that race relations are as bad as ever; the race-baiters must do this in order to keep themselves on the guilt-tripped gravy train.
Honor the dead with a memorial; teach the story as a lesson in what happens when racism is allowed free reign...but don't dig up the graveyard looking for an old, bloody shirt for demagogues to wave.
Great post, Mark!
Posted by: Jason Smith at March 31, 2005 05:46 PM
Gotta differ with you, friend.
We are talking murder here.
If your parents were murdered, would you not want eventual justice for their killers, no matter how much time passed? Would the passage of decades lessen the importance of the case?
I hate giving the race baiters a platform to bash America, but the mere fact that they will abuse the ocassion of justice being served doesn't mean that justice shoul not be done. Rather, it proves the error of their argument.
We still prosecute Concentration camp guards after 60 years -- why not their ideological cousins?
Posted by: The Precinct Chair at March 31, 2005 11:03 PM
Precinct Chair,
I wouldn't advocate putting a camp guard on trial at this point, either. No such person is likely to be less than 80, hardly any of them can possibly be alive...and are we really to put an 80 year old man on trial on the testimony of other 80 year olds who are now 60 years removed from the events?
And, keep in mind, that the 80 year old camp guard was 20...back in 1945, we didn't consider 20 year olds to be full adults (21 was the general age of legal adulthood at the time)...at 20, he had spent more than half his life in a system which drilled into him the monstrosity which made the camps possible...not only are all of his officers dead, so are all of his senior enlisted commanders; "just following orders" isn't a defense, of course...but it seems a bit absurd at this late a date to put such a minor player on trial.
We can't obtain justice for the crime of 58 years ago; we can, at this late a date, only learn from the event.
Posted by: Mark Noonan
at March 31, 2005 11:37 PM




