That does not answer either the facts nor the statement to which you are responding. He never said that a black man was less likely to be executed, but that they had more avenues open to challenge their convictions. For instance, the linked article cites the NAACP's support. How many white men get their aid? If there were an equivalent group geared to securing justice or assisting white people, their support would do more harm than good, because being officially pro-white is all but illegal in this country.

Your blather about the percentage of death row inmates & executions being black does not prove the prior poster's ignorance, only your possession of the facts. As those facts do not refute his arguments, you have no way of proving that he did not know them. And while you may not be ignorant on this single issue, you are certainly not making a logical or rational point. What proportion of murders are committed by blacks? What proportion of black murderers are executed and how does that compare to the proportion of white murderers executed? All you do is give injustices. For the proportion of blacks on death row to match the proportion of blacks in the population, all other circumstances would have to be equal before you assume racism. As a counter example, blacks consist of a great deal more than 12% of NFL & NBA players. Are those organizations racist against whites? People were calling the NFL teams racist at a time when of 32 teams, 6 (18.8% ) had black head coaches. That is half again greater than the total population percentage, so why were people complaining?

In fact, given you liberals' propensity for asserting absent any proof both that crime is caused by poverty, and that blacks lack equal economic opportunities in this country, the percentage of convicts who are black SHOULD be higher than the proportion in the population! If only 12% of death row inmates were black and only 12% of convicted offenders were black, your argument about poverty causing crime (and justification for affirmative action and any number of War on Poverty and Equal Opportunity programs and funding) goes right out the window.

What do you think we used to convict murderers before we hand forensic laboratories? The jurors, when they had no media exposure or badgering from anti-death penalty groups or pro-black groups, and were presented only with the evidence allowable in court, found him guilty, despite rules that are stacked overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant. They were found guilty in court, and multiple courts found the proceedings to have been properly conducted and lawful, and the standards of guilt and so forth properly met. Any number of things can account for jurors and witnesses changing their testimony after the fact and their memories changing decades later. In a court of law, with the rules of procedure stacked in his favor, the defense failed to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case. THAT is the important thing, not unsupported anecdotes and assertions by the defense lawyers.