Innocence.

[Belegon]

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).

EXCUSE ME?

You're from Los Angeles and you don't think that racial bias in the courts is self-evident?

Speaking as someone who has lived in Southern California for 37 of my forty-one years...

I don't know what fucking "Los Angeles" you lived in but it sure as fuck was not the one I've lived within a hundred miles of for pretty much my entire fucking life...

Just when I thought I couldn't be surprised anymore...

get me some of what's being smoked there because it is obviously some pretty fucking good shit and has a tremendously distorting effect on reality.

wow.

 

[cloudy]

EXCUSE ME?

You're from Los Angeles and you don't think that racial bias in the courts is self-evident?

Speaking as someone who has lived in Southern California for 37 of my forty-one years...

I don't know what fucking "Los Angeles" you lived in but it sure as fuck was not the one I've lived within a hundred miles of for pretty much my entire fucking life...

Just when I thought I couldn't be surprised anymore...

get me some of what's being smoked there because it is obviously some pretty fucking good shit and has a tremendously distorting effect on reality.

wow.

I you.

(and I agree, he didn't live in the same LA I lived in, either)

 

[S-Des]

EXCUSE ME?

You're from Los Angeles and you don't think that racial bias in the courts is self-evident?

Speaking as someone who has lived in Southern California for 37 of my forty-one years...

I don't know what fucking "Los Angeles" you lived in but it sure as fuck was not the one I've lived within a hundred miles of for pretty much my entire fucking life...

Just when I thought I couldn't be surprised anymore...

get me some of what's being smoked there because it is obviously some pretty fucking good shit and has a tremendously distorting effect on reality.

wow.

So you're saying it is? You are saying that there are specific prosecutors and judges who only put people in jail because they're of a different race? Could you list them. Could you cite some surveys that prove two people who commit the same crime are likely to be treated differently (not just occasionally, but on a regular basis). Then again, you almost had me with the passion of your argument (if only you had said "fuck" one more time ).

 

[Guest]

So you're saying it is? You are saying that there are specific prosecutors and judges who only put people in jail because they're of a different race? Could you list them. Could you cite some surveys that prove two people who commit the same crime are likely to be treated differently (not just occasionally, but on a regular basis). Then again, you almost had me with the passion of your argument (if only you had said "fuck" one more time ).

Fuck.

 

[S-Des]

Fuck.

It does sound so sweet coming from you. Now I'll need to rethink this. You're such a troublemaker.

 

[Belegon]

So you're saying it is? You are saying that there are specific prosecutors and judges who only put people in jail because they're of a different race? Could you list them. Could you cite some surveys that prove two people who commit the same crime are likely to be treated differently (not just occasionally, but on a regular basis). Then again, you almost had me with the passion of your argument (if only you had said "fuck" one more time ).

I can't show you love but I know it exists.

the same with hate.

I don't have the stats. I don't need them. You need them, because you haven't lived it. I know this the same way I know the wind. I can't see the wind but I can show you the tree it knocked down. I can feel the breeze on my face. And I'm even white...

But I've been called a nigger-lover by a cop. I've had a friend and co-worker marched out of his place of employment in handcuffs because he forgot to update his address with his probation officer. I've had a black friend need a ride to work for six months for too many points on his DMV while white DUI's get wrist-slapped. And I've had black people assume I'm prejudiced because I'm white, too....

It's there and it exists. It's pervasive and I'm sure it's measurable if you measure the right things.

...and I'm normally arguing te other side of this, by the way. Talking about how we need to recognize and celebrate the progress we have made. But to deny this bias exists in the court system is folly and will not help us change it.

edit: Ya know what? I don't know what S-Des has or has not lived...so please excuse the "you need them because you haven't lived it" crack...but I stand by the rest of this. It exists...big time

 

[cloudy]

Des has me on ignore, I'm sure (like I care), but he obviously didn't see the stats I posted.

Either that, or he's just as willfully ignorant as Joe.

 

[S-Des]

I can't show you love but I know it exists.

the same with hate.

I don't have the stats. I don't need them. You need them, because you haven't lived it. I know this the same way I know the wind. I can't see the wind but I can show you the tree it knocked down. I can feel the breeze on my face. And I'm even white...

But I've been called a nigger-lover by a cop. I've had a friend and co-worker marched out of his place of employment in handcuffs because he forgot to update his address with his probation officer. I've had a black friend need a ride to work for six months for too many points on his DMV while white DUI's get wrist-slapped. And I've had black people assume I'm prejudiced because I'm white, too....

It's there and it exists. It's pervasive and I'm sure it's measurable if you measure the right things.

...and I'm normally arguing te other side of this, by the way. Talking about how we need to recognize and celebrate the progress we have made. But to deny this bias exists in the court system is folly and will not help us change it.

I was with you on most of this. You're only mistake...assuming I haven't lived it. What exactly do you know about me, or my life? My guess would be I've lived it a lot more than you have (but that's just a guess, since I don't know you either). Maybe we'd (all of us) get further in these discussions if we'd stop assuming we are superior to each other.

I never denied that racism exists, it is everywhere in every aspect of our lives (I've seen it first hand from pretty much every race against someone who is different). Joe's point was why do people believe different races are punished for being different? I know white people who've been screwed by the courts. That is not proof of anything, it just happens to be a few people I know. If you are going to make the claim that as a general rule, (everywhere in the US) people are intentionally singled out and punished, just for being of a different race (ignoring the fact that police, lawyers and judges are made up of all races at this point), you need a little more proof than you've offered if you're going to sway my opinion. I believe you've had the experiences you mentioned and could see how they'd shape your opinion. I've had different experiences, so it would be impossible for yours to shape mine. That's why it's so important to discuss facts. Absent that, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Belegon]

I was with you on most of this. You're only mistake...assuming I haven't lived it. What exactly do you know about me, or my life? My guess would be I've lived it a lot more than you have (but that's just a guess, since I don't know you either). Maybe we'd (all of us) get further in these discussions if we'd stop assuming we are superior to each other.

I never denied that racism exists, it is everywhere in every aspect of our lives (I've seen it first hand from pretty much every race against someone who is different). Joe's point was why do people believe different races are punished for being different? I know white people who've been screwed by the courts. That is not proof of anything, it just happens to be a few people I know. If you are going to make the claim that as a general rule, (everywhere in the US) people are intentionally singled out and punished, just for being of a different race (ignoring the fact that police, lawyers and judges are made up of all races at this point), you need a little more proof than you've offered if you're going to sway my opinion. I believe you've had the experiences you mentioned and could see how they'd shape your opinion. I've had different experiences, so it would be impossible for yours to shape mine. That's why it's so important to discuss facts. Absent that, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd like to note that I posted my edit before you posted this....

 

[English Lady]

Des has me on ignore, I'm sure (like I care), but he obviously didn't see the stats I posted.

Either that, or he's just as willfully ignorant as Joe.

*shakes head* Joe's said lots that he wanted to see some figures -you've got him some, I'm sure he'll have soemthing to say about that when he gets back.

He's not been patronising, it's how he posts. He's not been ignorant, he's asked several times for exactly what he wants and he's not bloked out the possibility that you might be right. It's the way he works -evidence and all that jazz.

I know emotions run high, I know people feel passionate on such topics, but is that an excuse to throw insults at people who aren't agreeing with you? he's not patronising, he wants stuff clarified. He's not on a high horse, he's sying what he knows and he's been awful nice about the fact that you completely insulted the place he lives and tarred the whole population with the same brush, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is what you're supposed to be dead against?

As I've said a million times before, if you don't want to debate the way Joe wants to debate don't debate with him. He's quite consistant, it's not like you don't know what to expect.


And sorry Joe -I'm aware you can fight your own battles but I'm sick of seeing all this nastiness aimed at a good friend.

 

[cloudy]

*shakes head* Joe's said lots that he wanted to see some figures -you've got him some, I'm sure he'll have soemthing to say about that when he gets back.

He's not been patronising, it's how he posts. He's not been ignorant, he's asked several times for exactly what he wants and he's not bloked out the possibility that you might be right. It's the way he works -evidence and all that jazz.

I know emotions run high, I know people feel passionate on such topics, but is that an excuse to throw insults at people who aren't agreeing with you? he's not patronising, he wants stuff clarified. He's not on a high horse, he's sying what he knows and he's been awful nice about the fact that you completely insulted the place he lives and tarred the whole population with the same brush, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is what you're supposed to be dead against?

As I've said a million times before, if you don't want to debate the way Joe wants to debate don't debate with him. He's quite consistant, it's not like you don't know what to expect.


And sorry Joe -I'm aware you can fight your own battles but I'm sick of seeing all this nastiness aimed at a good friend.

Sorry, EL, but in the nicest way possible...none of your business.

He may do it unintentionally, but just the same, his posts are patronizing and reek of perceived intellectual superiority.

Now - again, in the nicest way possible - back off. If he feels it's necessary, I'm sure he's quite capable of defending himself. If you have nothing else constructive to add other than running in here to "protect" him, then please find something else to do.

 

[only_more_so]

*shakes head* Joe's said lots that he wanted to see some figures -you've got him some, I'm sure he'll have soemthing to say about that when he gets back.

He's not been patronising, it's how he posts. He's not been ignorant, he's asked several times for exactly what he wants and he's not bloked out the possibility that you might be right. It's the way he works -evidence and all that jazz.

I know emotions run high, I know people feel passionate on such topics, but is that an excuse to throw insults at people who aren't agreeing with you? he's not patronising, he wants stuff clarified. He's not on a high horse, he's sying what he knows and he's been awful nice about the fact that you completely insulted the place he lives and tarred the whole population with the same brush, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is what you're supposed to be dead against?

As I've said a million times before, if you don't want to debate the way Joe wants to debate don't debate with him. He's quite consistant, it's not like you don't know what to expect.


And sorry Joe -I'm aware you can fight your own battles but I'm sick of seeing all this nastiness aimed at a good friend.

I would also like to add, that at no time did Joe accept or deny that there is racial bias in the judiciary. Everyone has been assuming he said that since he objected to cantdog saying, "they [jurors] just wanna throw the brown guy in the slammer."

Re-read his postings and give them an objective view.

 

[S-Des]

I'd like to note that I posted my edit before you posted this....

It's cool Bel, I know you're passionate about this. It's good that you are. Although a lot of progress has been made, there's still a long way to go. I don't take it personally (and hope you don't either). Although I might disagree with you about motives and some of the claims, I am in complete agreement about the harshness and fallibility of our system.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

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

I am sorry 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....with a percentage around 5%.

Not one of those studies is asserting the point that racial bias is a self-evident occurance, rather they are suggesting that racial bias exists (which I have not contested at all from the beginning) as a function of other factors. Not once have any of them proposed that "racial bias exists because racial bias exists"--to put it simply. So, my understanding that "racial bias is a part of a more complex series of reasons" is not at all inaccurate--based on either what I generally looked at OR the references you're providing; meaning that the idea that its a patter of "just want to jail brown people" is a bit presumptuous, as it presumes a simplicity not backed by the literature.

I have absolutely no idea, if this is your reference, why you've been at odds with that which I've /clearly/ laid out as my point from the beginning--except as a knee-jerk reaction to what you /thought/ was being said, rather than what was /actually/ said.

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, at no point, said that there wasn't racial bias in our justice system. That is a straw-man fallacy (you make a /lot/ of logical fallacies of basic reasoning), as that wasn't at all my point either at the beginning or since. Please at least /read/ my posts, if you're going to "rolleyes", be sarcastic, and insult me.

Either that, or he's just as willfully ignorant as Joe.

Yet again, I really prefer you didn't come out with the insults. I'm not "willfully ignorant". At worst I disagree with you for clearly laid out reasons and I'm wrong--at best, you're ignoring the point I've been repeatedly making, and you're wrong. Neither of those is a willful attempt at being ignorant. Please stop with remarks like this one. I don't know that I can be yet more polite about that request, my first and second were fairly neutrally worded.

EXCUSE ME?

You're from Los Angeles and you don't think that racial bias in the courts is self-evident?

"Self-evident', in the context I've been using it, means "is its own reason". Examples would be like saying "God exists", but then questioning where God came from, and then the response being "God caused himself"--God would be "self-evident" (I even clarify the term in previous posts). My assertion from the beginning (if you'll please read) was that the racial bias that exists (I didn't say it didn't) is not as simple as "just don't like brown people"--that all relevant literature on the existence of racial bias lends itself towards the idea that there are more factors that go into that bias than simply an aversion to darker skin.

Speaking as someone who has lived in Southern California for 37 of my forty-one years...

I don't know what fucking "Los Angeles" you lived in but it sure as fuck was not the one I've lived within a hundred miles of for pretty much my entire fucking life...

I "fucking" lived on Hubbard St. (near Beverly Blvd) in "fucking" Los Angeles. A little "fucking" house with a lot of my family--we're "fucking" Hispanic, a lot of the stereotypes of a dozen living in a house are true enough.

However, living there... not living there... none of that has anything to do with my assertion. I pointed that out earlier, and its still true.

Just when I thought I couldn't be surprised anymore...

get me some of what's being smoked there because it is obviously some pretty fucking good shit and has a tremendously distorting effect on reality.

wow.

Are you saying that my understanding of racial bias--namely that it has socioeconomic and historical precursors and variable that it co-exists with /and/ is not as simple as "it just exists"--is essentially incorrect?

 

[Belegon]

I would also like to add, that at no time did Joe accept or deny that there is racial bias in the judiciary. Everyone has been assuming he said that since he objected to cantdog saying, "they [jurors] just wanna throw the brown guy in the slammer."

Re-read his postings and give them an objective view.

Mr. Wordsworth has created some strong feelings in his audience through a persistant pattern of behavior.

Many, including myself, tend to read his comments with a good deal of "reading between the lines" added in.

Joe always has a fall back position of "I didn't say that".

I admit that I am not as objective about a comment that comes from him based on the source of the comment. For whatever reason, and I am certainly NOT excusing my own bias from the discussion, he has a talent for pissing me off.


EDIT: ...and I wrote this above BEFORE his last post...

yeah, I kinda went off...but hey. I'm not gonna back off from the fact that I responded emotionally.

Joe, sometimes I agree with you....usually I do not. In this case, re-reading things...I reacted with an assumption of what you were trying to say and fitting the words you actually used into that assumption.

So I'm guilty of reacting emotionally...imagine that.

 

[cloudy]

I am sorry for being patronizing.

Fair enough. I'm sorry I was rude.

Not one of those studies is asserting the point that racial bias is a self-evident occurance, rather they are suggesting that racial bias exists (which I have not contested at all from the beginning) as a function of other factors. Not once have any of them proposed that "racial bias exists because racial bias exists"--to put it simply. So, my understanding that "racial bias is a part of a more complex series of reasons" is not at all inaccurate--based on either what I generally looked at OR the references you're providing; meaning that the idea that its a patter of "just want to jail brown people" is a bit presumptuous, as it presumes a simplicity not backed by the literature.

Certainly other factors exist, but at the root of it all, doesn't it come down to someone being "different"?

I have absolutely no idea, if this is your reference, why you've been at odds with that which I've /clearly/ laid out as my point from the beginning--except as a knee-jerk reaction to what you /thought/ was being said, rather than what was /actually/ said.

Possibly.

I, at no point, said that there wasn't racial bias in our justice system. That is a straw-man fallacy (you make a /lot/ of logical fallacies of basic reasoning), as that wasn't at all my point either at the beginning or since. Please at least /read/ my posts, if you're going to "rolleyes", be sarcastic, and insult me.

Okay, you're being patronizing again.

Honestly, Joe, whether it's intentional or not, you do that quite often. Please don't assume that others aren't as intelligent as you are, or that my/our/whoever's education isn't as extensive as yours. If you indeed assume that (and I'm not sure yet that you do), I'm sure you'd be quite surprised to find out that your assumptions are off.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Fair enough. I'm sorry I was rude.

Certainly other factors exist, but at the root of it all, doesn't it come down to someone being "different"?

Essentially, I don't think it comes to that. If pressed for /my/ opinion, I'd say it sooner has to do with behavioral condition and relational frames--mostly because that's my strongest suit in psychology. But, there is no consensus on what the prime reason for racism /is/, lending itself to a wide variety of theories about where it comes from--none of which are limited to "it is its own reason".

Possibly.

Okay, you're being patronizing again.

You know, I've /clearly/ laid out what I found offensive and why. You /could/ do the same with regards to calling me "patronizing". It isn't my intention to be so, but you're not very helpful in explaining /how/.

Honestly, Joe, whether it's intentional or not, you do that quite often. Please don't assume that others aren't as intelligent as you are, or that my/our/whoever's education isn't as extensive as yours. If you indeed assume that (and I'm not sure yet that you do), I'm sure you'd be quite surprised to find out that your assumptions are off.

At no point did I assume myself more intelligent than anyone else here--and between the two of us, I'm the only one who has admitted that there's a chance of error on my part (you, conversely, haven't had anything to say about your own fallibility). I have said /nothing/ about my education, either. Neither my intellect nor education have anything to do with the point.

 

[Belegon]

Are you saying that my understanding of racial bias--namely that it has socioeconomic and historical precursors and variable that it co-exists with /and/ is not as simple as "it just exists"--is essentially incorrect?

no...I'm gonna have to say that you took the discussion on a broader scale then I did...and I reacted to statements by you of "racial bias is not self-evident" as though you said "racial bias in the courts is not really there". (edit: I know that you didn't actually say that...I said I reacted emotionally)

Dude, you should have been a lawyer...me, I'm not that dispassionate. Never will be. Don't want to be. Sometimes I still react like I did when I was growing up...so, there it is.

Hubbard & Beverly? West Hollywood isn't it? Or were you closer to the Magic Johnson Theatres?

All I'm doing here is pissing myself off...we're not on the same page and never will be in this way.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

no...I'm gonna have to say that you took the discussion on a broader scale then I did...and I reacted to statements by you of "racial bias is not self-evident" as though you said "racial bias in the courts is not really there". (edit: I know that you didn't actually say that...I said I reacted emotionally)

I'm not entirely un-used to this kind of thing happening--not with you specifically, but in general.

Dude, you should have been a lawyer...me, I'm not that dispassionate. Never will be. Don't want to be. Sometimes I still react like I did when I was growing up...so, there it is.

I'm not studious enough or respectful of authority enough for Law.

 

[Belegon]

or respectful of authority enough for Law.

don't apologize about THAT...

I like that about you. I grew up where authority was more likely to be my opponent than my ally.

 

[S-Des]

don't apologize about THAT...

I like that about you. I grew up where authority was more likely to be my opponent than my ally.

See, now that's beautiful...two fierce opponents finding commen ground...hating lawyers (or is it just The Man?).

Lit is a wonderful place.

 

[kiten69]

I've had a black friend need a ride to work for six months for too many points on his DMV while white DUI's get wrist-slapped.

Funny thing this same thing happened to a friend of mine and he is white . So no, Not all "white" DUIs get "wrist-slapped"...it all depends on what cop pulls you over **shrug**.

<end threadjack...sorry joe >

 

[Lisa Denton]

Are you saying that my understanding of racial bias--namely that it has socioeconomic and historical precursors and variable that it co-exists with /and/ is not as simple as "it just exists"--is essentially incorrect?

Hmmmmm, a trick question, me thinks.

Moot point, no purpose, impossible to prove.

In layman's terminolgy:

Does a pile of crap exist just because it exists? Is it self evident? Without the socioeconomic aversions (poor peoples who can't afford toilet paper) and the historical precursors (stay away from that nasty shit) and the stink and smell and germs would it just cease to exists? Without those things would anyone be willing to stick thier face in a pile of crap?

More importantly, if it could be proven, one way or the other, whats the point?

You have not suggested, that without the socioeconomic and historical precursors and other variables that racial bias co-exists with, that it would not exist.

Or are you?

And if so, how would you prove it? And to what purpose?

In other words, WTF are you saying, and why?

 

[S-Des]

Funny thing this same thing happened to a friend of mine and he is white . So no, Not all "white" DUIs get "wrist-slapped"...it all depends on what cop pulls you over **shrug**.

I remember a story about one of my high school friends who got busted for having a case of expensive beer. Instead of arresting him, the cop made him pour it out in the parking lot next to the street (which made everyone laugh at him). Great punishment without having to arrest anyone). Then again, we had police who would hassle you for anything (they arrested a father for supposedly murdering his child, even questioning him for days without a lawyer until he implicated himself, but DNA eventually cleared him). Unfortunately humanity is not something that can be screened for in the job.

 

[Pure]

joe said,
there aren't any major proponents of the idea that racial bias is the "Unmoved Mover" or prime cause of racial bias.

P; you offered several formulations that you try to saddle your opponents with: that the bias is its own cause, etc.

here's another related effort of yours
JAre you saying that my understanding of racial bias--namely that it has socioeconomic and historical precursors and variable that it co-exists with /and/ is not as simple as "it just exists"--is essentially incorrect?

P: it's hard to imagine, with your training, that you think this is the argument: they say racial bias has no causes or precursors, it 'causes' itself, and you say, 'no, it has causes and precurcsors.'

lisa and cloudy both answered this point.

again, you say,
JBut, there is no consensus on what the prime reason for racism /is/, lending itself to a wide variety of theories about where it comes from--none of which are limited to "it is its own reason"

P: your position, again, is that racism has causes and reasons, the 'other side' claims it is 'its own reason.'

it is a principle of charity to construe your opponents and discussants as having reasonable positions, and not make yourself out to be the only one who's reasonable, and who looks at history.

the issue at hand was racism as evidenced in the outcomes of criminal trials and in executions. several courts have concluded there is some, and that it may be a reason for change, including suspending executions. the 'reasons for racism', its history, etc. is a whole other, and i would say, largely unrelated issue.