McCain to seek pardon for Jack Johnson!!!

[KOJOE90]

I found this, thought it was worth sharing with you.

McCain to seek pardon for boxer Johnson

Washington, DC, Jul. 8

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is leading an effort to win a posthumous presidential pardon for Jack Johnson, the first black U.S. heavyweight champion.

McCain and documentary filmmaker Ken Burns are two of the more notable members of a committee of elected officials, authors, legal experts, celebrities and boxing experts who have announced plans to file a petition with the U.S. Department of Justice seeking a a pardon for Johnson, who was convicted in 1913 of violating the federal Mann Act, which involves transporting an individual over state lines for prostitution.

The petition, which will be filed Tuesday, is based on information to be unveiled in Burns's upcoming film on Johnson's life that suggests his conviction was based on his race and was discriminatory in intent and conclusion.

Other members of the committee include boxers Sugar Ray Leonard, Bernard Hopkins and John Ruiz, authors Bert Sugar and Pete Hamill and and ESPN and CBS sports analyst and former NBA player Len Elmore.

If granted, the committee said, it would be only the second posthumous presidential pardon in U.S. history.

[Eric the Viking]

Was the conviction basically a racist vendetta against Johnson for dating white women?

[Broncano]

Was the conviction basically a racist vendetta against Johnson for dating white women?

Actually vike, it wasn't just the "dating", it was the....you know what I mean

[dempseyfire]

I found this, thought it was worth sharing with you.

McCain to seek pardon for boxer Johnson

Washington, DC, Jul. 8

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is leading an effort to win a posthumous presidential pardon for Jack Johnson, the first black U.S. heavyweight champion.

McCain and documentary filmmaker Ken Burns are two of the more notable members of a committee of elected officials, authors, legal experts, celebrities and boxing experts who have announced plans to file a petition with the U.S. Department of Justice seeking a a pardon for Johnson, who was convicted in 1913 of violating the federal Mann Act, which involves transporting an individual over state lines for prostitution.

The petition, which will be filed Tuesday, is based on information to be unveiled in Burns's upcoming film on Johnson's life that suggests his conviction was based on his race and was discriminatory in intent and conclusion.

Other members of the committee include boxers Sugar Ray Leonard, Bernard Hopkins and John Ruiz, authors Bert Sugar and Pete Hamill and and ESPN and CBS sports analyst and former NBA player Len Elmore.

If granted, the committee said, it would be only the second posthumous presidential pardon in U.S. history.

You know, that's all fine and dandy, but doesn't McCain have better things to do? you know health care, social security, global warming etc.
I think Johnson has let bygones be bygones . . . :P

[klompton]

Good lord. First off Johnson was an asshole. Period. He was a great fighter but as a person he was a piece of shit. Even his friends agreed on this. Second, while it may not have been "fair" he was guilty of the crime he was charged with and fled the United States while awaiting trial. So you mean to tell me with the economy in tatters, the United States foreign relations in the toilet, an ongoing war on terror, a crumbling health care system and crumbling social security system, John McCain has nothing better to do than try to pardon a nearly 100 year old crime that resulted in a relatively short jail sentence??? Forget the fact that Johnson wasnt even convicted in the state in which McCain is supposed to represent. talk about complete and utter ignorance and a stereotypical republican ploy to detract attention from real issues during a campaign year. As stupid as this is even Johnsons golden smile must be the size of Texas right now.

[Eric the Viking]

Was the conviction basically a racist vendetta against Johnson for dating white women?

Actually vike, it wasn't just the "dating", it was the....you know what I mean

I was trying to use polite language, this being a family forum and all, señor pottymind Broncano.

And Klompton, last time I checked, being an asshole was not a crime.

[crooked nose]

Johnson mistreated a lot of people in his life. That just made it easier for "decent" society to condemn him. But, as has been mentioned, assholes are still street-legal in all 50.
Maybe McCain is bringing this up to hassle his old pal George. Young Mr. Bush sure won't sign that pardon when he won't even accept an invite from the NAACP!

[klompton]

Yeah last time I checked assholes were legal but the last time I checked violating the Mann act in the early 1900s wasnt. Johnson did and thus he was guilty. Its as simple as that. The fact that he was guilt AND an asshole simply adds to the ridiculousness of the pardon.

[RowanSmith]

Do you really think Johnson was guilty? I mean the letter of that law called for the crime of transporting women across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. In essence, pimping women. Johnson surely brought women across state lines, some prostitutes, but he wasn't pimping them out. The US government wanted to nail Johnson for something and this was the only thing they could come up with. To think Johnson was actually guilty of any actual crime is incorrect in my opinion. The government, like most of white america, did not like the fact that Johnson was sleeping and cavorting about the country, openly, with white women. It is as simple as that. What was done to him was a travesty.

I do agree however, that a pardon is damn near silly at this point. What does it really accomplish?

[klompton]

Actually the letter of the law stated that it was illegal to transport women across state lines for IMMORAL purposes. Johnson surely fit the bill. It can also be argued that he was guilty of the prostitution claims considering that at his restaraunt/bar he was rumoured to be pandering. If this is the case then the man was guilty both by the admittedly stringent letter of the law and the more down to earth purposes which enacted it.

I have nothing against Johnson as a fighter and I agree that he was unfairly treated. That being said he brought a hell of a lot of this on himself and this is illustrated by his behavior in more racially tolerant countries such as France, Britain, Spain, and Mexico. My point isnt to rehash the Jack Johnson "persecuted/deservedly reviled" debate. Simply to illustrate that there are a lot more worthy causes out there even within the boxing community, much less the scope of national and international politics.

[crooked nose]

You're very right, Klompton. There's been a tendency to equate Johnson's troubles with those of Ali or Rubin Carter, both of whom can truly claim to be victims of persecution. Johnson wasn't the leader of any cause except having himself a good time, but his story is a lesson in how a society can come down very hard on someone who breaks the rules.
I had not heard that Ken Burns is doing documentary on Johnson. That ought to be very informative. Johnson is one of the most interesting figures in boxing or all sports for that matter.

[ThirdPartyView]

You're very right, Klompton. There's been a tendency to equate Johnson's troubles with those of Ali or Rubin Carter, both of whom can truly claim to be victims of persecution. Johnson wasn't the leader of any cause except having himself a good time, but his story is a lesson in how a society can come down very hard on someone who breaks the rules.
I had not heard that Ken Burns is doing documentary on Johnson. That ought to be very informative. Johnson is one of the most interesting figures in boxing or all sports for that matter.

The below site actually offers a different viewpoint about the Carter case, explaining how it wasn't because of racism:

http://www.crimemagazine.com/hurricane.htm

Not sure if I really agree, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[klompton]

Carter is a guilty, lying bastard who deserves to be rotting in jail right now. Hes a prick who has been living in turns off of his modest boxing resume and his ability to slip through the cracks of the judicial system. About 85 percent of everything he says or writes is pure hogwash. The man is a lifetime criminal and all of the bleeding heart belly aching about an unjust system wont change what he did that night to those innocent people.

[crooked nose]

Jeez, klompton, I don't even want to ask what you think of Ali. Just the thought of Johnson and Carter has you spittin' fire. If there's a common theme in these cases, it's that when emotions are running high, justice can suffer and covictions may be based on the reputation of the accused rather than objective fact (are you listening, G. W. Bush?). Yes, Johnson was a woman-beating pimp. Carter could be a lying braggart. Nevertheless, it's clear that in both cases the system wanted to make an example in a high-profile case.

[Eric the Viking]

CNN online has a story about this on today's front page:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/13/jack. ... index.html

Full article text, in case the above link goes poof (color emphasis mine):

Pardon sought for 1st black heavyweight champ

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Researching a documentary on Jack Johnson, filmmaker Ken Burns decided that racism, not justice, sent the first black heavyweight boxing champion to jail nearly a century ago.

Burns decided to seek a presidential pardon to right the wrong. On Tuesday, civil rights leaders and Sens. John McCain and Orrin Hatch joined Burns to announce the filing of legal papers with the Justice Department seeking the pardon.

The petition argues that Johnson's 1913 conviction under the Mann Act, a law passed three years earlier than bans the interstate transport of women for immoral purposes, unfairly punished him for a consensual relationship with a white woman.

"A gross and grave injustice was done to Jack Johnson where a law was perverted to send this decent American to jail," said McCain, R-Arizona.

"Pardoning Jack Johnson will serve as a historic testament of America's resolve to live up to its noble ideals of justice and equality," he said.

Hatch, R-Utah, said: "This man was flamboyant. But there was a reason for the flamboyancy: he was taking on the world and fighting to give African-Americans a chance."

Johnson died in a traffic accident in 1946 at age 68.

If granted, the pardon would be only the second awarded posthumously. The first was President Clinton's 1999 pardon of Henry O. Flipper, a former slave who became the first black army officer.

Johnson became the first black champion when he stopped Tommy Burns in Australia in 1908.

Two years later, he defeated challenger Jim Jeffries, who had come out of retirement as the "Great White Hope" to beat the black man.

Johnson's victory, in an era when Jim Crow laws and segregation ruled, sparked race riots in parts of the country. But it was not just the championship that made many white Americans hate him.

In a 1983 biography of Johnson, Randy Roberts wrote that the boxer was proud of his conquests among white women.

Prosecutors moved against him in 1912 by arresting Johnson on the charge of abducting Lucille Cameron.

Johnson was indicted, but the government lost Cameron as a witness when she became the second white woman to marry Johnson; a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband. The prosecution came up with a witness, Belle Schreiber, also white and a former mistress. Her testimony led to Johnson's conviction, and he served a 10-month sentence.

The petition filed Tuesday contends the conviction was legally unfounded, the first trial in which the Mann Act was invoked to invade the privacy of consenting adults.

The district attorney at the time, Harry Parkin, called the conviction "the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks," which Burns' petition said revealed the extreme prejudice at the time.

McCain and Hatch said they plan to ask other senators to join in a resolution urging that Johnson be pardoned. Other supporters include Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts; Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Illinois; boxers Sugar Ray Leonard and Vernon Forrest; and actor Samuel L. Jackson.

[Sweet Scientist]

Yes, we have more important issues to deal with in Washington...but...this is the kind of thing the politicians do all the time...worry about trivial bull shit and neglect the serious problems...What else is new? Maybe, while they're at it. they can pardon George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson for being slave owners....seems a bit more evil than crossing a state line with a girl that wants to consentually shack up...O.K....back to boxing...

[klompton]

"Maybe, while they're at it. they can pardon George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson for being slave owners"

To my knowledge Jefferson, Jackson, and Washington were never convicted of being slave owners as it wasnt a federal offense at the time. Johnson on the other hand was convicted of a federal offense. You can look through the past with rose tinted goggles all you want but that wont change it and hopefully neither will McCain and Ken Burns. The past should be studdied and interpretted, not rewritten.

[Sweet Scientist]

"Rose colored glasses???"

Let me ask you this , there, klompton....
What do YOU personally feel is the worse activity of the two...

1.) Being a black man in 1912 transporting a consentual white women across state lines for consentual sex....

or...

2.) Owning other human beings as SLAVES....

(Be advised that if Jack Johnson was white, he certainly wouldn't have been charged...the government WANTED to nail something on him, and this was the BEST they could come up with...)

now...between #1.) and #2.)...which is worse...regardless of whether one was legal or not...which is worse??? If it takes you longer than a split second to decide...then maybe YOU have a problem....

[crooked nose]

Way to go, Sweet Scientist! You hit the heart of the issue: The Letter of the Law can be used to convict whoever makes the status quo nervous, and prizefighters make "decent" folks a little nervous. If charged with violent crime, they're presumed guilty. If they step outside the lines of propriety, by say crossing sexual/racial bounds or protesting a war, society will bring down the hammer really hard.
Remarkable how Jack Johnson still stirs up such controversy. I'm amazed he lived to an old age. But he didn't die with his boots off, but with pedal to the metal.

[klompton]

The question isnt what crime is worse. Your viewing these things through your own upbringing in a time period far removed from the events that your discussing. Ill reverse the question. Since you think Jack Johnson should be pardoned by todays standards do you think we should add a posthumous conviction to the records of men like Washington and Jefferson who following the letter of the law by the standards of their day.

[crooked nose]

I'm not sure who your question is addressed to, but I'll take a shot at it anyway. I'll say "yes". Johnson's violation of the Mann Act is less a crime than Jefferson's statutory legal violation of Sally Hemings. Written law is not always just. It works to protect the status quo. Did Aaron Burr do time for trading pistol shots with Alexander Hamilton? No. A gentleman's duel was marginally legal. But Bob Fitzsimmons battling Jim Corbett with gloved fists ninety-five years later was a borderline (literally) clandestine affair. The Law can look away when "decent" folks behave questionably, but when others (including prizefighters) touch the edge, it's a different story.
Klompton, we've yet to hear your take on Ali. Do you think he should have done time, or was he persecuted for taking an unpopular stand?

[crooked nose]

The alarm has just sounded on my Shithead-O-Meter. I'm through with this thread. Bye.

[Broncano]

I've been following this interesting discussion and couldnt help but wonder what old Terap's stance might have been on the subject.

Crooked nose is absolutely right in that written law is not always just. Therefore Johnson's actions while possibly illegal at the time, were not necessarily immoral (not then and certainly not now).

[Eric the Viking]

Crooked nose is absolutely right in that written law is not always just. Therefore Johnson's actions while possibly illegal at the time, were not necessarily immoral (not then and certainly not now).

The fact that Johnson was the first person *ever* prosecuted for such an "offense" makes it crystal-clear that it was racially motivated.