Innocence.

[Joe Wordsworth]

I saw a brief article on the Innocence Project (intended to help those wrongfull convicted). I was moved. An under-represented issue with the law, I think, is the wrongfully accused and convicted. I can't think of much sadder than someone rotting away heart and soul in prison, knowing nobody believes him when he says he didn't do it.

Horrible.

As of January 2, 2007, 188 defendants previously convicted of serious crimes in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing. Almost all of these convictions involved some form of sexual assault and approximately 25% involved murder.

 

[cloudy]

That's the primary reason I'm against capital punishment. In my mind, there's always a chance that an innocent person could be executed, and any chance at all of that happening is too much.

 

[Belegon]

That's the primary reason I'm against capital punishment. In my mind, there's always a chance that an innocent person could be executed, and any chance at all of that happening is too much.

my feelings about capital punishment are situational.


but I agree...this is one great reason that I am against it much more often than for it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I saw a brief article on the Innocence Project (intended to help those wrongfull convicted). I was moved. An under-represented issue with the law, I think, is the wrongfully accused and convicted. I can't think of much sadder than someone rotting away heart and soul in prison, knowing nobody believes him when he says he didn't do it.

Horrible.

As of January 2, 2007, 188 defendants previously convicted of serious crimes in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing. Almost all of these convictions involved some form of sexual assault and approximately 25% involved murder.

What really bugs me is the way some jurisdictions say things like "Oh, it's too expensive to do that testing. We can't afford to do it." How can you put a price tag on an innocent person's freedom? Those same places who can't afford to establish innocence can affort hundreds of tests to try to establish guilt. It's actually all part of police departments and prosecutors hating to admit they sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes it's even authorities out to get some specific person.

I still favor capital punishment, but only when guilt is established beyond any possible doubt. Even then, it should be reserved for the worst of the worst.

 

[cantdog]

What really bugs me is the way some jurisdictions say things like "Oh, it's too expensive to do that testing. We can't afford to do it." How can you put a price tag on an innocent person's freedom? Those same places who can't afford to establish innocence can affort hundreds of tests to try to establish guilt. It's actually all part of police departments and prosecutors hating to admit they sometimes make mistakes.

Twelve jurors is no guarantee. It's an example of the difference between establishing the truth, which DNA procedures can do, and weighing truthfulness, which unfortunately can't be done with the same clarity and rigor.

Sometimes, the jurors don't even want to weigh truthfulness, they just wanna throw the brown guy in the slammer.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

they just wanna throw the brown guy in the slammer.

I think that's a bit presumptuous, though.

 

[cloudy]

I think that's a bit presumptuous, though.

Is it?

Looked at any prison statistics lately?

Compare the percentage of minorities in prison to the percentage of minorities in the nation as a whole. There's a reason that our prison system is called the fastest growing rez in the nation (and that's just the light brown folks).

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Is it?

Looked at any prison statistics lately?

Compare the percentage of minorities in prison to the percentage of minorities in the nation as a whole. There's a reason that our prison system is called the fastest growing rez in the nation (and that's just the light brown folks).

Those statistics are part of a much larger picture of economics, education, and urbanization. I didn't say that "sometimes they just want to throw the brown people in jail" was wrong, I said it was a bit presumptuous--basically, that the story is more intricate than just /that/.

I've seen prison statistics, as much as the next person anyway--the occasional TIME magazne article or feel good piece on the news. None of them--and I really do mean that--are proposing that its merely a matter of darker skinned people are seen as bad. They go for a more in-depth view of the matter that isn't so simplistic.

Surely, you're not saying that I'm essentially wrong in this regard?

 

[cloudy]

Those statistics are part of a much larger picture of economics, education, and urbanization. I didn't say that "sometimes they just want to throw the brown people in jail" was wrong, I said it was a bit presumptuous--basically, that the story is more intricate than just /that/.

I've seen prison statistics, as much as the next person anyway--the occasional TIME magazne article or feel good piece on the news. None of them--and I really do mean that--are proposing that its merely a matter of darker skinned people are seen as bad. They go for a more in-depth view of the matter that isn't so simplistic.

Surely, you're not saying that I'm essentially wrong in this regard?

yes.

Although I agree that there's more to it than just the fact that they're not white.

I've read lots and lots - including court transcripts - and it's a documented fact that when the defendent is non-white (whatever degree of brown), there is a significantly greater chance of that defendent being found guilty. They'll also be given longer prison sentences by judge or jury alike. And these facts are provable.

As an aside, just so you know I'm not pulling the info out of thin air: I do some volunteer stuff for Leonard Peltier, and I've become more familiar than I want to be with our justice system.

Given that all else is equal (type of crime, economic background, etc.), and knowing the facts above, then cant's statement is more right than wrong.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

yes.

So, you essentially disagree that racial bias is a part of a complex socio-economic history.

No, I'm afraid despite your proposed background, that just isn't the consensus in the field as I understand it and would be delighted to know where you get that. Rather, there is more scholarship on the idea that the racial bias that exists has reasons beyond itself. Basically, there aren't any major proponents of the idea that racial bias is the "Unmoved Mover" or prime cause of racial bias.

 

[cloudy]

So, you essentially disagree that racial bias is a part of a complex socio-economic history.

No, I'm afraid despite your proposed background, that just isn't the consensus in the field as I understand it and would be delighted to know where you get that. Rather, there is more scholarship on the idea that the racial bias that exists has reasons beyond itself. Basically, there aren't any major proponents of the idea that racial bias is the "Unmoved Mover" or prime cause of racial bias.

Somehow I'm not surprised that you disagree with me. You seem to disagree with most of us.

Lady Justice isn't blind to skin color, and the fact that you think it is is kind of silly. I would have thought you might actually look it up instead of relying on he said/she said. But then, you are from Mississippi, so your view isn't suprising to me in the least (lived there, hated it, will never go back - gives "backwards" a whole new meaning).

Believe what you like, but I would be more willing to discuss it with you if you'd actully look into it. As it stands, you're relying on "what everyone says."

I'm disappointed in you.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Somehow I'm not surprised that you disagree with me. You seem to disagree with most of us.

I have nothing intelligent to say about what things "seem" like to you. I can say that people agree and disagree with me, routinely--and I agree and disagree with others on the boards, also routinely. Even proposing an "Us" is a bit of a bandwagon fallacy--it is a rather vague alienating term.

Lady Justice isn't blind to skin color, and the fact that you think it is is kind of silly.

That wasn't my position. You are, then, putting down an argument that was never made--effectly straw-manning the issue.

I would have thought you might actually look it up instead of relying on he said/she said.

I /did/ look things up. I could find no evidence of a scholar saying "racial bias is self-evident". You, however, asserting that to be a truth, have produced nothing like evidence to that point. Rather you've resorted to claiming yourself an authority. Your authority being the qualifying factor is an informal fallacy of authority, by itself.

But then, you are from Mississippi, so your view isn't suprising to me in the least (lived there, hated it, will never go back - gives "backwards" a whole new meaning).

I live in Mississippi, I'm from Los Angeles (and have lived, literally, all over the world on three continents, seven countries, and twelve states). Ad Hominem attacks aren't really necessary and don't actually weaken or have bearing on the assertions being proposed.

Believe what you like, but I would be more willing to discuss it with you if you'd actully look into it. As it stands, you're relying on "what everyone says."

I'm relying on what evidence can be found--which is that racial bias is not self-evident (which is to say, it doesn't "exist because it exists", a tautology that no scholar I could find proposes is true), rather that there are more complex reasons for it being so.

And, to be sure, I /did/ ask you who you were referencing when saying that you essentially disagree. You don't seem interested in helping me find /one/ example of a scholar that disagrees with my understanding of the matter--rather choosing to propose fallacious reasons for disagreeing.

One can't be expected to do much better with regard to researching someone's point than trying to find it corroborated by /anyone/ of authority. If you know of someone, out with it... I accept the possiblity that you know more than me on the matter, but seem incapable of showing a reference for it. If you can't show one, how am I expected to /find/ one?

I'm disappointed in you.

That's not really necessary and it is more than a little offensive. You're neither my superior nor confidant, your disappointment or pride in what I think or do is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. If you didn't understand that /going in/, then I'll make it clear for you that your stating disappointment in me is seen as pretentious and uncalled for.

 

[cloudy]

You thinking that I meant that I thought I was superior to you is offensive to me. I said what I did meaning that I had a higher opinion of your willingness to consider that you might possibly be wrong. *gasp*

s'okay, you proved me wrong on that point.

It's late, I'm tired, and I'm more than a little cranky. If I feel like it, I'll go through my stuff tomorrow, and find the references for you.

Or I might not.

You seem more interested in being right than anything else right now, and it's just not that important to me. I know what I know.

(I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking Mississippi - it's the armpit of the nation as far as I'm concerned. Why you have to read an attack into everything I say is beyond me. My world doesn't revolve around you, so stop reading yourself into every comment I make - that's you being pretentious. Assuming that I meant that we were buddies is beyond arrogant. Get over yourself.)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You thinking that I meant that I thought I was superior to you is offensive to me. I said what I did meaning that I had a higher opinion of your willingness to consider that you might possibly be wrong. *gasp*

s'okay, you proved me wrong on that point.

The sarcasm isn't really appreciated, either. But, at least now, for future consideration... just don't say things like that. Past that, I have a great appreciation and acceptance of being wrong--but not due to fallacious and bad reasoning.

It's late, I'm tired, and if I feel like it, I'll go through my stuff tomorrow, and find the references to you.

Or I might not.

Essentially, I just want to know who thinks racial bias is its own cause. Either you have that or don't. I suppose you'll deign to find it or won't. I /am/ entirely curious, though--as that is definitely outside the bounds of what I think most people learn.

You seem more interested in being right than anything else right now, and it's just not that important to me. I know what I know.

I'm not as interested in being right than identifying /what/ is accurate. If some scholar/study shows that racial bias is self-evident, that would go a long way to making actual changes in what I (and I imagine a lot of other people) think.

(I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking Mississippi - it's the armpit of the nation as far as I'm concerned. Why you have to read an attack into everything I say is beyond me. My world doesn't revolve around you, so stop reading yourself into every comment I make)

When you make a comment that /I/ am from Mississippi and then follow that up with a comment about how the state gives "backwards a whole new meaning", you are basically making an offensive statement. If it is the case that you didn't see that, then I'll just spell it out for you... referring to someone by a categorization (place they live, color of their skin, sexual preference, demographic, education level, etc., etc., etc.) and then referring to that category in an exclusively negative fashion (it is bad, stupid, dangerous, etc.), then the people in question are likely to be offended by that and take it as an insult. Hopefully, that's a little clearer, now.

 

[cloudy]

You know what, Joe?

Just forget it.

I should have known better. Get off your high horse. It's not always about you, even though you seem to have been successful at convincing yourself that it is.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You know what, Joe?

Just forget it.

I should have known better. Get off your high horse. It's not always about you, even though you seem to have been successful at convincing yourself that it is.

Ad Hominem attacks, again, aren't really relavent.

If you don't want to defend your point--which comes down to a simple, little, tiny reference that should be evident (given that you expected /me/ to be able to casually just "look it up")--then, fine.

But, you, so far, aren't disagreeing with anything I have to say--and appear to have no intention of apologizing for being rude. Or even acknowledging that it is reasonable and understandable how someone would take offense to some of the things you said (assuming you didn't mean to say them in an offensive way).

I'm still curious as to who thinks racial bias is self-evident.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

 

[S-Des]

It's a wonderful group that does great things. There was a special on Discovery (or one of those channels) last night about a case they had here in Southern Illinois trying to clear 3 people of a murder charge. There have been so many examples of shaky cases, that the previous governor pardoned a number of people and suspended the death penalty. Unfortunately, it was overshadowed by his own criminal activities, but I definitely thought it was the right thing to do.

Hopefully this group (and others like them) will continue to fight for the rights of people who have been screwed by the system. The way our system is set up, it's not in the best interest of the police, prosecutors, or judges to admit a mistake. In Durham, a prosecutor got re-elected on the basis of his vigorous prosecution of 3 college students, which now appears to be wholly without merit. He covered up evidence, lied to the media, and disparaged their character (which has might earn him disbarrment). If it wasn't for the fact that the media rallied behind them, we probably would have never seen such intense scrutiny of the evidence, and they might have very well ended up behind bars.

It makes you wonder how many people in prison right now might be there because they were in the wrong place, didn't have enough money to buy a good defense, or were just the victims of mistaken identity. Yet it's hard to make headway in this discussion because so many people have been victims of crime. There is often a knee-jerk reaction of anger towards people who've been accused (or especially once they're convicted) which precludes any rational discussion.

 

[cloudy]

Ad Hominem attacks, again, aren't really relavent.

If you don't want to defend your point--which comes down to a simple, little, tiny reference that should be evident (given that you expected /me/ to be able to casually just "look it up")--then, fine.

But, you, so far, aren't disagreeing with anything I have to say--and appear to have no intention of apologizing for being rude. Or even acknowledging that it is reasonable and understandable how someone would take offense to some of the things you said (assuming you didn't mean to say them in an offensive way).

I'm still curious as to who thinks racial bias is self-evident.

Tell you what: I'll apologize for being rude when you apologize for being patronizing.

As far as references go:

A study by the California Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts found that the justice system gives little attention or resources to investigating crimes against minorities and that minority defendants receive harsh treatment compared to white defendants in similar circumstances. The study also found that black-on-black crime or Latino-on-Latino crime is not taken as seriously as crimes against whites. Minority and female attorneys believe they are viewed and/or treated less credibly than white counterparts. Judges seem to believe that violence is more "acceptable" to black women because they are viewed as coming from violent communities. Minorities were judged by white, middle-class values in family law matters, and were the victims of racial and cultural stereotypes, affecting the courts' decisions.

According to a 1994 report from the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice section, minorities who are arrested are imprisoned more than non-minority arrestees, and make up more than half of the state prison population.

The most recent statistics show that blacks are arrested and incarcerated for drug use at a much higher rate than can be accounted for by their rate of drug use. Blacks, who comprise only 12% of the population and 13% of drug users, constitute some 35% of those arrested for drug possession, 55% of those convicted of possession, and 74% of those sentenced to prison for possession.

In 1991 the San Jose Mercury News reviewed almost 700,000 California criminal cases between 1981 and 1990 and uncovered statistically significant disparities at several different stages of the criminal justice process. The study found, for example, that 20 percent of white defendants charged with crimes providing for the option of pretrial diversion received that benefit, while only 14 percent of similarly situated blacks and 11 percent of similarly situated Hispanics were placed in such programs. The same study revealed consistent discrepancies in the treatment of white and non-white defendants at the pretrial negotiation stage of the criminal process. During 1989-1990, a white felony defendant with no criminal record stood a 33 percent chance of having the charge reduced to a misdemeanor or infraction, compared to 25 percent for a similarly situated black or Hispanic. (Civil Rights)

Discrimination can occur at the sentencing stage as well. One of the most thorough studies of sentencing disparities was undertaken by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, which studied felony sentencing outcomes in New York courts between 1990 and 1992. The State concluded that one-third of minorities sentenced to prison would have received a shorter or non-incarcerative sentence if they had been treated like similarly situated white defendants. If probation-eligible blacks had been treated like their white counterparts, more than 8000 fewer black defendants would have received prison in that two-year period. In short, the study found that blacks are sentenced to prison more frequently than whites for the same conduct. (same reference)

Looking at Department of Justice figures, the Native American population of the states is right around 1%, yet we are overrepresented in the prison population (like other minorities), with a percentage around 5%.

**************
I could go on, but I don't see that it's all that necessary since all the studies say basically the same thing.

Now, you were telling me that there wasn't any racial bias in our justice system, right?

 

[Liar]

I think that's a bit presumptuous, though.

Hence the qualifier; "sometimes".

 

[Liar]

But anyways, I've heard about the Innocense Project before, and thought it sounds like a good idea. Wrongfully convicted are crime victims. Secondary of the crime that the real perp committed, and primary victims of a malfunctioning jucidiary system.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Twelve jurors is no guarantee. It's an example of the difference between establishing the truth, which DNA procedures can do, and weighing truthfulness, which unfortunately can't be done with the same clarity and rigor.

Sometimes, the jurors don't even want to weigh truthfulness, they just wanna throw the brown guy in the slammer.

And sometimes they just want to throw "the man" in the slammer, regardless of race. If you look at statistics, they will show far more men being in prison than women, and they are doing more time and doing it in harsher environments.

 

[only_more_so]

I could go on, but I don't see that it's all that necessary since all the studies say basically the same thing.

Now, you were telling me that there wasn't any racial bias in our justice system, right?

I think you, and those studies, might be missing the point that Joe was trying to make.

Assume for a moment that there was no racial bias when all other factors are equal. So a white man and a black man from the same exact social background and economic background have the exact same chances of getting convicted/sentenced. Now consider the case where there is a significant inequality based on wealth/neighborhood:

In City A: 10% of people get sent to jail and 25% get rehab instead (the rest innocent)
In City B: 40% get sent to jail, 5% get rehab.

Now if City A and City B have the same total population but greatly different racial makeup... Say City A is 90% white and 10% black, City B is 90% black and 10% white:

This means the incarceration rate for blacks is 36.4% (.1*.1+.9*.4) and for whites the rate is 13% (.9*.1+.1*.4). For rehab the numbers would be 23% for whites and 7% for blacks. The chance of innocence would be 64% for white and 56% for blacks.

Those were merely numbers I made up out of my head. If I had wanted to, I could have fit the percentages in the two cities to correspond exactly to the statistics you presented, which would definitively indicate that there is no racial bias. There seems to be a racial bias in justice because there is a racial bias in socio-economic background.

I am not saying that racial bias is a non-issue, but I am saying that there are many other issues that need to be factored out first.

 

[cloudy]

I think you, and those studies, might be missing the point that Joe was trying to make.

Assume for a moment that there was no racial bias when all other factors are equal. So a white man and a black man from the same exact social background and economic background have the exact same chances of getting convicted/sentenced. Now consider the case where there is a significant inequality based on wealth/neighborhood:

In City A: 10% of people get sent to jail and 25% get rehab instead (the rest innocent)
In City B: 40% get sent to jail, 5% get rehab.

Now if City A and City B have the same total population but greatly different racial makeup... Say City A is 90% white and 10% black, City B is 90% black and 10% white:

This means the incarceration rate for blacks is 36.4% (.1*.1+.9*.4) and for whites the rate is 13% (.9*.1+.1*.4). For rehab the numbers would be 23% for whites and 7% for blacks. The chance of innocence would be 64% for white and 56% for blacks.

Those were merely numbers I made up out of my head. If I had wanted to, I could have fit the percentages in the two cities to correspond exactly to the statistics you presented, which would definitively indicate that there is no racial bias. There seems to be a racial bias in justice because there is a racial bias in socio-economic background.

I am not saying that racial bias is a non-issue, but I am saying that there are many other issues that need to be factored out first.

If you'll reread one of my posts, I conceded that socio-economic factors certainly come into play.

That said, you'd have to either be blind, or extremely out of touch to think that racial bias is a thing of the past. We've come a long way, sure, but there's still a helluva long way to go. I've seen it...I've been there. Just wait until you hear a prosecutor describe someone as "just another drunk indian" to you because you don't "look" indian (btw: "drunk" had nothing to do with the case at hand, the defendent was indian, however).

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think you, and those studies, might be missing the point that Joe was trying to make.

Assume for a moment that there was no racial bias when all other factors are equal. So a white man and a black man from the same exact social background and economic background have the exact same chances of getting convicted/sentenced. Now consider the case where there is a significant inequality based on wealth/neighborhood:

In City A: 10% of people get sent to jail and 25% get rehab instead (the rest innocent)
In City B: 40% get sent to jail, 5% get rehab.

Now if City A and City B have the same total population but greatly different racial makeup... Say City A is 90% white and 10% black, City B is 90% black and 10% white:

This means the incarceration rate for blacks is 36.4% (.1*.1+.9*.4) and for whites the rate is 13% (.9*.1+.1*.4). For rehab the numbers would be 23% for whites and 7% for blacks. The chance of innocence would be 64% for white and 56% for blacks.

Those were merely numbers I made up out of my head. If I had wanted to, I could have fit the percentages in the two cities to correspond exactly to the statistics you presented, which would definitively indicate that there is no racial bias. There seems to be a racial bias in justice because there is a racial bias in socio-economic background.

I am not saying that racial bias is a non-issue, but I am saying that there are many other issues that need to be factored out first.

OMS does have a xcertain point there. Other factors should be considered and may be more important than race. For instance, Cloudy mentioned drug use, broken down by race. It should be broken down further than that. For instance, assume two people of different races are arrested for having small amounts of marijuana, apparently for personal use. If the two persons have very similar socio-economic backgrounds and personal histories, would they be treated the same? If they are, and that is what usually happens, it would mean no racial bias. On the other hand, dealing or even possessing a highly addictive drug like heroin or crack is much more serious than dealing or possessing marijuana or powder cocaine, which are much less addictive. Those with heroin or crack would be treated much more harshly than those with powder of MJ. Is this so regardless of race or gender?