Craine stated that retrying Simpson violated the Fifth Amendment. While the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits twice putting a person "in jeopardy of life and limb," in the second Simpson trial only his wealth was ever, in fact, in jeopardy.

Unlike in criminal cases, in civil courts the presumption of innocence does not apply - "preponderance of evidence" and a two-thirds majority of jurors is sufficient for a verdict.

When she states that the procedures in the second Simpson trial amount to a "dangerous abuse of democratic rights that was carried out," she appears to say that civil suits are inherently more undemocratic that other legal proceedings under capitalism.

Workers and fighters everywhere need to understand the democratic acquisition represented by the presumption of innocence. But does the Militant mean to say that workers' compensation cases, discrimination suits, civil rights cases, among others, should put the same burden of proof on the accuser, (the injured worker for example) as in criminal law?

Craine also refers to the retrial of Lemrick Nelson, whom a state jury acquitted of the stabbing death of Yankel Rosenbaum in 1991, as they did not believe the cops' testimony. Nelson was retried and convicted on federal civil rights charges, which Craine says was a travesty of justice.

However, she refers to the federal prosecution of murderers of civil rights activists on the 1960's as a gain for the working class. Surely the Militant bases this position on more than approval of one or another outcome, but that was not developed.

In his book Live from Death Row, framed political activist Mumia Abu-Jamal opposed the retrial on federal civil rights charges of the Los Angeles cops who beat Rodney King, because he considered this an example of double jeopardy that could be applied to any fighters. I recall that the Militant viewed this case differently. It would be useful to explain how and why.

Keep up the good work.

Kathleen Denny

Oakland, California

Are workers in Albania really `ruined'?
I have a criticism of one sentence in the otherwise terrific article by Argiris Malapanis on the rebellion in Albania that appeared in issue #11.

In the middle of the article the following sentence appears: "These get-rich-quick-capitalist scams then began declaring bankruptcy, ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands."

Is it really true, however, that hundreds of thousands of lives were ruined?

The mass actions occurring in Albania, in large part led by those in the south who lost their savings in these pyramid scams, suggest that hundreds of thousands have begun new lives as fighters, not had their lives ruined. Perhaps it would have been better to say that hundreds of thousands were financially devastated or lost their life's savings. But to say that their lives were ruined, suggests that these fighters have no future. And they seem to be proving the opposite day-by-day.

Robbie Scherr

Seattle, Washington

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of general interest to our readers.

Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home