I am surprised how during the George Floyd protests, there was no calls for the Henry Wade Center in Dallas to be renamed. Henry Menasco Wade (November 11, 1914 – March 1, 2001) was an American lawyer who served as district attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987. And it wasn’t just his words which will be regarded as hurtful; his decisions range from wrongful convictions to execution of innocent men. Craig Watkins, the first black American DA for Dallas County, described Wade's tenure as having "a cowboy kind of mentality and the reality is that kind of approach is archaic, racist, elitist and arrogant." And yet this building still bears Wade’s name. I am not writing this with the intention of graining traction. Or calls for the name to be removed, just a civil discussion how to go about this stained legacy of the Dallas DA. There is more you can find on Wade’s corruption and actions in books and articles
Anonymous :
12 days ago :
No.5759
>>5892
>>5759
>and said, "You are not looking for a fair juror but rather a strong, biased and sometimes hypocritical individual who believes that defendants are different from them."
The ending clause of that is actually really interesting. I mean, it goes so against the conventional idea of the spirit of American justice that I wonder at the meaning of it. It's almost aristocratic, insofar as it's someone who views the average person incapable of interpreting justice and tries to implement an undemocratic ethos into a system unsuited for it.
> In 1969, Jon Sparling, one of Wade's top assistants, wrote a training manual warning against picking, among others, "free-thinkers" and "extremely overweight people"
heh
You okay, 5759?
>>5759
> In 1969, Jon Sparling, one of Wade's top assistants, wrote a training manual warning against picking, among others, "free-thinkers" and "extremely overweight people"
heh
>and said, "You are not looking for a fair juror but rather a strong, biased and sometimes hypocritical individual who believes that defendants are different from them."
The ending clause of that is actually really interesting. I mean, it goes so against the conventional idea of the spirit of American justice that I wonder at the meaning of it. It's almost aristocratic, insofar as it's someone who views the average person incapable of interpreting justice and tries to implement an undemocratic ethos into a system unsuited for it.