Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Subtopic 1

I wasn't quite sure what to pick for my first subtopic, but after perusing my notes, I realized that I had the perfect argument. Joe Jackson was in fact acquitted from any charges that he faced, after authorities alleged that he and his fellow players had thrown the game. He played on the Chicago White Sox, who made it all the way to the World Series. Jackson and his eight other teammates were approached by a gambler offering them $20,000 if they would "throw" the game. After being asked three times Jackson supposedly gave in and agreed to lose the game. Once authorities heard this the players were investigated and put on trial, losing a game intentionally is a felony. In Jackson's defense he had questionable legal counsel, however he was still acquitted along with all of his teammates. To the player's dismay, commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis banned all of the nine players from baseball for life. The commissioner did not have the authority to overrule a trial presided over by a judge and jury. Landis argued that he was trying to set a precedent for any future players involved in gambling, and he did. He managed to ban several more players form baseball while he was commissioner. Compared to punishment meted out today for serious crimes committed by major league ball players, this was excessive.

2 comments:

Stef said...

This is interesting what you have found. But, just to be clear you are arguing that they were given a too harsh punishment?

It is true that the commissioner was trying to set a precedent for future players, and it worked. For the most part no one since then I believe has been caught for intentionally losing a game. This brings up an interesting point for my topic. If it worked so well for throwing a game...should Bob Selig impose a harsh punishment such as banning their records and admittance into the Hall of Fame? Would it be just as effective?

I do see your first point that the commissioner had no right to overrule a court. But, he didn't really go against what the court said in my opinion. I think he just made his own decision on his morals. It is a similar situation to the one today with morals of steroid use, and the congress hearings.

The topic is very interesting and I can't wait to read your paper.

Sara said...

I really like your topic so far and I think it will make an interesting paper. I am definately not very knowledgeable in this area and i can't wait to read your final draft to find out more about it. I wish I had more to say about your topic, but I don't really know a lot about it so I don't have any advice I could give you or anything (not that you need it as you are doing an excellent job on your own). I'll let you know if I think of something =)