Death Penalty and Race

[Dr. Who]

3295 In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. This has been confirmed by the findings of many other studies that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-race

[KC]

3295 In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. This has been confirmed by the findings of many other studies that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-race

I'm not going to deny that race probably plays an role, but we should also consider that the percentage of death penalty sentences in case with white victims is pretty close to the total percentage of white Americans total. Also, keep in mind that the death penalty since 1975 is most prevalent in states like Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia, where the percent of white homicide victims is much different than in cities like Chicago or New York, where the death penalty is no longer legal.

[Ravi]

Wait, I thought black people only killed each other.

[Chris]

Here's something related I've read a couple times and still trying to fully understand:

The Logic of Racial Disparities (http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/19/the_logic_of_racial_disparities__575.html)



http://i.snag.gy/YBN4Z.jpg

On Tuesday, we wrote about our analysis of FBI data that describe the circumstances under which fatal shootings are more likely to be considered justified (http://blog.metrotrends.org/2013/07/american-criminal-justice-color-blind-statistics/). We described the stark disparity between the rates of justifiable rulings in cases with a white shooter and a black victim compared to those in which the races were reversed. This racial disparity, we argued, is greater than any other in the criminal-justice system and threatens the notion that justice in America is colorblind to its core.

On RealClearPolicy, Robert VerBruggen offers a different perspective (http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2013/07/16/is_stand_your_ground_racist_572.html). He argues that the racial discrepancy between the rates of justifiable-homicide rulings should not necessarily be taken as evidence of racial bias within the criminal-justice system. Instead, he suggests that these discrepancies may be explained by the differing rates of violent offending between blacks and whites more generally.

His was a compelling piece, and one worth investigating a little further. We have seen this argument in a variety of forms in response to a chart that has been flying around the Internet this week (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/07/17/chart-of-the-week-2/). It is clear why this line of thinking is tempting, but there is a flaw in the logic. This logical flaw, formally known as an ecological fallacy, is common in discussions about racial disparity and often leads to a conclusion that a racial disparity is reasonable when it actually is not.

VerBruggen states that "in a given year, 3.3 of every 1,000 blacks are victimized by white offenders and 3.4 of every 1,000 whites are victimized by black offenders." He points out that while these victimization rates are nearly identical, actual rates of offending within the population are likely to be very different given that the white population is several times larger than the black population. (In 2010, the population of the United States included 223.5 million white Americans and 38.9 million black Americans.)

Using the victimization rates that VerBruggen provides, we can calculate that there were approximately 737,000 instances of violent victimization of white Americans by black Americans in 2010 and only 128,000 when the races were reversed, a difference of nearly six-fold.

VerBruggen makes an important point about differences in violent offending by race. The conclusion that he draws from this data seems to be that, due to these racially disparate numbers of offenses, you would expect to see higher rates of justifiable rulings in white-on-black crimes compared to black-on-white crimes.

To explore the issue further...

[Chris]

Wait, I thought black people only killed each other.

Why would you ever think something so silly?

[Common]

Dr Who go check this statement out for truth. There have been FAR more whites executed via the death penalty than all other races combined 5 fold or more.

[roadmaster]

Dr Who go check this statement out for truth. There have been FAR more whites executed via the death penalty than all other races combined 5 fold or more. Yes, a lot of states outlawed the death penalty but more whites have been executed and more are on death row. We still have it here and the last ones I went to play jury, not picked, all 4 were white except one. The last one I followed white male in his 30's got the death penalty.

[Peter1469]

This is one reason why I think that states should elect to not use the death penalty.

I use my words deliberately- states have the right to use capital punishment.

[Dr. Who]

Yes, a lot of states outlawed the death penalty but more whites have been executed and more are on death row. We still have it here and the last ones I went to play jury, not picked, all 4 were white except one. The last one I followed white male in his 30's got the death penalty.Whites are in the majority in America, thus would tend to commit the majority of crime in general, however the OP would indicate that the death penalty is requested more often where the victim is white vs where the victim is black. Perhaps this does reflect the distribution pattern of white vs black populations in America and the absence of the death penalty in the northern States. The OP had less to do with the Zimmerman trial than to try to discover if there is systemic bias, whether or not people really recognize it as such. Systemic bias is a funny thing - it may include racial bias, but it also includes economic bias. Let's look at economic bias in the justice system. While poor people commit the majority of certain types of crime and also tend to be the most likely to go to jail for simple possession because they have the least access to decent legal representation. Legal representation for the poor generally promises an overworked public defender who would rather plea bargain than go to trial,, hence most poor people accused of a crime, generally plead out to a lesser offence, and do time, whether or not they even committed the crime. Among the population who would be identified as poor, there is clearly a higher percentage per capita by race, who are not white. Take a middle class white kid who is arrested for possession of a controlled substance. Does he get a public defender - no. His family hires competent counsel. Does he plea bargain his way to a jail sentence. No. Good defense counsel either goes to trial or makes a reasonable deal with the prosecution for say, probation. Kid comes from a good family etc. Take the average poor kid or more notably a poor non-white kid possessing the same controlled substance. He gets a public defender with more cases than he knows what to do with. End result. Plea bargain for X months in jail.
After enough time, poor people and non-white poor people become overly represented in prisons. Public impression - non-whites are more prone to criminal activity. But is it really non-whites or is it just the poor who can't avoid jail time because they can't pay for good defense counsel? Does that over representation in jail subtly influence public opinion? I think it does. People are more likely to think the worst of a non-white accused than a white accused. Just my opinion.

[Mister D]

Whites don't commit the majority of crime in general. At least not of the anti-social variety.

[Dr. Who]

Whites don't commit the majority of crime in general. At least not of the anti-social variety.All crime is anti-social.

[Mister D]

All crime is anti-social.

Smoking marijuana is not anti-social. Drug use in general isn't.

[jillian]

Yes, a lot of states outlawed the death penalty but more whites have been executed and more are on death row. We still have it here and the last ones I went to play jury, not picked, all 4 were white except one. The last one I followed white male in his 30's got the death penalty.

blacks are more likely to be misidentified.
blacks are more likely to be convicted based on incorrect id's.
blacks are more likely to be given the death penalty than white criminals are for the same crimes
blacks are more likely to be wrongfully convicted because the inter racial recognition rate is about 15%

the real number is 35% of people executed are black (461 executed). that is far greater than the percentage they are of the population whites were only 56% (751) though they are a far greater percentage of the population.

the number of victims were as follows:

black: 302 (15%)

and here's the real kicker:

death penalty for inter-racial murders:

white defendant// black victim (20)
black defendant// white victim (261)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976 1495 (77%)

[Dr. Who]

Smoking marijuana is not anti-social. Drug use in general isn't.Tell that to the police. Possession of controlled substances is the leading cause of incarceration. I personally don't think it should be indictable, but there it is. If it was made legal, we could release most of the short timers in prison. That would be a lot of people and most of them wouldn't be whites. The fact is, most whites don't do time for possession. Whites have to be major repeat offenders like Robert Downey Jr to do time for possession. (His fame probably worked against him).

[Mister D]

Tell that to the police. Possession of controlled substances is the leading cause of incarceration. I personally don't think it should be indictable, but there it is. If it was made legal, we could release most of the short timers in prison. That would be a lot of people and most of them wouldn't be whites. The fact is, most whites don't do time for possession. Whites have to be major repeat offenders like Robert Downey Jr to do time for possession. (His fame probably worked against him).

Anti-social refers to social conduct (i.e. your interaction with your fellow man). Yeah, their breath stinks and pot smokers are annoying but they don't harm me.

[roadmaster]

We should stop putting pot smokers in jail. The bad drugs that people will steal for like crack ect, they are a danger to others not pot.

[jillian]

We should stop putting pot smokers in jail. The bad drugs that people will steal for like crack ect, they are a danger to others not pot.

I agree that we should stop criminalizing drugs. But there were other reasons for differentiating between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine.

[Ravi]

We should stop putting pot smokers in jail. The bad drugs that people will steal for like crack ect, they are a danger to others not pot.

We should stop putting any drug user in jail. Saying we are locking up crack heads because they MIGHT commit a crime is akin so unconservative that it is laughable.

[Common]

Yes, a lot of states outlawed the death penalty but more whites have been executed and more are on death row. We still have it here and the last ones I went to play jury, not picked, all 4 were white except one. The last one I followed white male in his 30's got the death penalty.

Why is that the lionshare of executed americans are white and thats going back to the first formal record keeping and it still applies today.

[sotmfs]

Smoking marijuana is not anti-social. Drug use in general isn't.

Unfortunately it is illegal in most States and Federal Law.

[sotmfs]

I agree that we should stop criminalizing drugs. But there were other reasons for differentiating between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine.

What other reasons?

[Kabuki Joe]

Unfortunately it is illegal in most States and Federal Law.


...but it's not anti-societal...people smoking pot are good for the quicky mart business...

[sotmfs]

...but it's not anti-societal...people smoking pot are good for the quicky mart business...

Yes,very true!

[roadmaster]

I agree that we should stop criminalizing drugs. But there were other reasons for differentiating between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine. The only difference to tell the truth because it wasn't a problem back then when the white population was doing this is that they targeted black communities. Crack gets 10 times more time in jail than powdered cocaine. Every president dem or rep has targeted a certain group. This one was Clintons. Opium they went after Asians under Nixon. Even Reagan went after a certain group.

[Peter1469]

The only difference to tell the truth because it wasn't a problem back then when the white population was doing this is that they targeted black communities. Crack gets 10 times more time in jail than powdered cocaine. Every president dem or rep has targeted a certain group. This one was Clintons. Opium they went after Asians under Nixon. Even Reagan went after a certain group.

The expanded sentences for crack were demanded by the black community to try to control the extreme violence associated with the drug.

[jillian]

The expanded sentences for crack were demanded by the black community to try to control the extreme violence associated with the drug.

i don't believe that's correct. but i'm happy to see something substantiating it. my understanding has always been they felt the harsher sentences attaching to crack were racist and unequal application of laws.

[jillian]

The only difference to tell the truth because it wasn't a problem back then when the white population was doing this is that they targeted black communities. Crack gets 10 times more time in jail than powdered cocaine. Every president dem or rep has targeted a certain group. This one was Clintons. Opium they went after Asians under Nixon. Even Reagan went after a certain group.

false

[roadmaster]

The expanded sentences for crack were demanded by the black community to try to control the extreme violence associated with the drug.Still it's the same thing. I can understand giving the ones selling more time but the users should be in a rehabilitation center than jail unless they did a serious crime while using. We are the only country that has this many people locked up and so many felons that shouldn't be felons. Even near the border if the pot doesn't weigh a certain amount in those trucks they let them go but Americans with 1/2 pound get arrested and a felon. Something is wrong.

[jillian]

What other reasons?

the black community did crack cocaine. the white suburban kids did coke.

[Peter1469]

i don't believe that's correct. but i'm happy to see something substantiating it. my understanding has always been they felt the harsher sentences attaching to crack were racist and unequal application of laws.

The cases that reversed convictions for crack were based of a 2010 law that required states to equalize sentences for cocaine and crack cocaine. The court did cite to racism, but that was dicta.

[Mister D]

the black community did crack cocaine. the white suburban kids did coke.

Yes, the black community did crack cocaine...and gunned one another down in a orgy of violence due to the trade of crack cocaine. That just might have had something to do with the law.

[Peter1469]

the black community did crack cocaine. the white suburban kids did coke.

And crack led to lots of bloodshed; cocaine didn't.

[Mister D]

i don't believe that's correct. but i'm happy to see something substantiating it. my understanding has always been they felt the harsher sentences attaching to crack were racist and unequal application of laws.

"i don't believe that's correct. but i'm happy to see something substantiating it."

Of course the violence engendered by crack cocaine is well known and not in dispute.

[Cigar]

You can always tell when they are losing it ... :angryfire:


:smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Mister D]

And crack led to lots of bloodshed; cocaine didn't.

Exactly. Hence the laws. Whether they are wise or just is moot. The issue is their alleged racist intent. That is patent nonsense.

You are correct. There were complaints of racism ecause the state wasn't doing enough to curb the violence in the inner city so the state steps in and does all it knows how to do in such circumstances: crack skulls and lock people up. Who could have foreseen that would mean more blacks in jail? lol

[Mister D]

You can always tell when they are losing it ... :angryfire:


:smiley_ROFLMAO:

:huh:

[Cigar]

:huh:

It's Wednesday, that time of the week, MR. D needs a hug :laugh:

[Mister D]

It's Wednesday, that time of the week, MR. D needs a hug :laugh:

Cigar, you're lame.

[roadmaster]

You can always tell when they are losing it ... :angryfire:


:smiley_ROFLMAO:Clinton started it and Obama finished it. Laws should apply the same if it's crack or powered. Things only become dangerous when others use it. The media plays a big part in this only telling one side. While judges, Politian's, police ect know it's being smuggled in by their own. They get slave wages and it's big money locking up people.

[Cigar]

Cigar, you're lame.

Trust me, you'll not get your Hug from me, so you better send some PMs

[jillian]

Clinton started it and Obama finished it. Laws should apply the same if it's crack or powered. Things only become dangerous when others use it. The media plays a big part in this only telling one side. While judges, Politian's, police ect know it's being smuggled in by their own. They get slave wages and it's big money locking up people.

what are you talking about? these laws go back to reagan and the rockefeller drug laws.

and there was a president in between presidents clinton and obama.

or did you block him out?

[Cigar]

Clinton started it and Obama finished it. Laws should apply the same if it's crack or powered. Things only become dangerous when others use it. The media plays a big part in this only telling one side. While judges, Politian's, police ect know it's being smuggled in by their own. They get slave wages and it's big money locking up people.

Equality always happens ... sooner or later ... but you can bet it's always happens by any means necessary :wink:

[Mister D]

Trust me, you'll not get your Hug from me, so you better send some PMs

no, you usually offer oral or anal sex. Seriously, I think I might appreciate hug references a bit more. :laugh:

[The Xl]

The expanded sentences for crack were demanded by the black community to try to control the extreme violence associated with the drug.

I really doubt the majority of blacks wanted that. And if they did, they certainly didn't want all that shit for lesser drug charges and use, like weed.

[Cigar]

I really doubt the majority of blacks wanted that. And if they did, they certainly didn't want all that shit for lesser drug charges and use, like weed.

Who would know more about what Black People want than White people who make Duck Calls :laugh:

[Mister D]

Between 1984 and 1994, the homicide rate for Black males aged 14-17 more than doubled...

It also turns out that rates of low birth weight, fetal death, and weapons related offenses also increased substantially.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/fhlm_crack_cocaine_0.pdf

but it was racism, folks. Of course.

[Cigar]

Ever Study the affects Oxycontin :laugh:

[Mister D]

Ever Study the affects Oxycontin :laugh:

The white homicide rate doubled?

Or do you just like getting the black smacked off your ass? :grin:

[The Xl]

It also turns out that rates of low birth weight, fetal death, and weapons related offenses also increased substantially.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/fhlm_crack_cocaine_0.pdf

but it was racism, folks. Of course.

That's great and all, but what does all of that have to do with non violent blacks who peacefully use and/or sell, and doubly so if it's for a lesser charge? How does that logically justify ridiculous sentences?

[roadmaster]

Equality always happens ... sooner or later ... but you can bet it's always happens by any means necessary :wink:
In the Clinton years, police overreach in the name of the Drug War shredded much of what remained of the Bill of Rights. And those most frequently caught in its web were not the "drug kingpins" legislators claimed to be going after. Mothers, fathers, small-time dealers, medical-marijuana users and even children were caught in a criminal- justice system so overgrown no one is immune to the new powers Johnny Law uses to protect us from ourselves. And while much of the horror heaped on the American public has occurred at the state and local levels, the tenor of the times begins at the top-which places the responsibility squarely at Bill Clinton's feet. All of the Presidents have done things to attack certain people. Many currently illegal drugs, such as marijuana, opium, coca, and psychedelics have been used for thousands of years for both medical and spiritual purposes. They are building more jails than ever before while they know plane full of coke and other things were brought here by our own government planes. The war on drugs was never meant to work. Has it stopped drugs from coming here.

[Mister D]

That's great and all, but what does all of that have to do with non violent blacks who peacefully use and/or sell, and doubly so if it's for a lesser charge? How does that logically justify ridiculous sentences?

It doesn't. The issue is the alleged racism. It's nonsense. The state enacted those laws for obvious reasons and out of goodwill. no conspiracy here, folks.

[Cigar]

That's great and all, but what does all of that have to do with non violent blacks who peacefully use and/or sell, and doubly so if it's for a lesser charge? How does that logically justify ridiculous sentences?

This is what racist are reduced to, Internet Political Forums :laugh:

Where else can they go ... ?

[Cigar]

In the Clinton years, police overreach in the name of the Drug War shredded much of what remained of the Bill of Rights. And those most frequently caught in its web were not the "drug kingpins" legislators claimed to be going after. Mothers, fathers, small-time dealers, medical-marijuana users and even children were caught in a criminal- justice system so overgrown no one is immune to the new powers Johnny Law uses to protect us from ourselves. And while much of the horror heaped on the American public has occurred at the state and local levels, the tenor of the times begins at the top-which places the responsibility squarely at Bill Clinton's feet. All of the Presidents have done things to attack certain people. Many currently illegal drugs, such as marijuana, opium, coca, and psychedelics have been used for thousands of years for both medical and spiritual purposes. They are building more jails than ever before while they know plane full of coke and other things were brought here by our own government planes. The war on drugs was never meant to work. Has it stopped drugs from coming here.

They talk about Obama Care being a failure on January 1st 2014, not even 24 hours old.

The War on Drugs started in 1971 ... :rollseyes:

[Chris]

They talk about Obama Care being a failure on January 1st 2014, not even 24 hours old.

The War on Drugs started in 1971 ... :rollseyes:



And the War on Poverty started January 8, 1964.


That's 3 flops.

[roadmaster]

To be charged with a felony, crack users needed to possess only five grams of the drug. To be hit with the same charge, powder cocaine users needed to be caught with 500 grams. This is what Obama passed in his first term but now trying to change it to 28 grams of crack. Will they release the ones in prison.

[Mr Happy]

Apparently crack is a lot more addictive and a lot more dangerous than powdered cocaine. That is only what I have read in magazines etc. Most articles have quoted stats, but I can't remember where they are from...

[roadmaster]

Apparently crack is a lot more addictive and a lot more dangerous than powdered cocaine. That is only what I have read in magazines etc. Most articles have quoted stats, but I can't remember where they are from... It is more dangerous that I agree. But if they didn't do a crime 20 years to life seems to be harsh. It cost a lot less money to help them if they are addicted. The reason why crack is so much used is because it's a lot cheaper and it was targeted to the black community.

[Mister D]

Apparently crack is a lot more addictive and a lot more dangerous than powdered cocaine. That is only what I have read in magazines etc. Most articles have quoted stats, but I can't remember where they are from...

Relatively cheap too.

[Max Rockatansky]

blacks are more likely to be misidentified.
blacks are more likely to be convicted based on incorrect id's.
blacks are more likely to be given the death penalty than white criminals are for the same crimes
blacks are more likely to be wrongfully convicted because the inter racial recognition rate is about 15%

the real number is 35% of people executed are black (461 executed). that is far greater than the percentage they are of the population whites were only 56% (751) though they are a far greater percentage of the population.

the number of victims were as follows:

black: 302 (15%)

and here's the real kicker:

death penalty for inter-racial murders:

white defendant// black victim (20)
black defendant// white victim (261)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976 1495 (77%)

These are all valid statistics, but I also think some very important stats are missing. On the face of it there appears the ugly face of racism. IMHO, the differences are more economic than outright racial. Poor people can't afford good lawyers, Middle Class people can. Rich people can literally get away with murder as both OJ Simpson and Robert Blake proved.

Where are the stats on economic status of defendants? Yes, blacks and whites may get different sentences for the same crimes, but if the graph below is to be believed, the whites probably have better lawyers.....or better "fucking lawyers" as I like to say.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1357389/thumbs/o-SHRINKING-INCOMES-facebook.jpg

http://www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrights101/economicjustice.html

IN GENERAL, economic indicators improved for all racial and ethnic groups throughout the strong American economy of the 1990s. These trends will require close observation, however, as economic conditions fluctuate. Moreover, despite improvements, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans have disproportionately lower incomes, and disproportionately higher unemployment and poverty rates than their white counterparts. For this reason, continuing evaluation of the state of civil rights in America must include an examination of income inequality and economic opportunity.

[Mister D]

These are all valid statistics, but I also think some very important stats are missing. On the face of it there appears the ugly face of racism. IMHO, the differences are more economic than outright racial. Poor people can't afford good lawyers, Middle Class people can. Rich people can literally get away with murder as both OJ Simpson and Robert Blake proved.

Where are the stats on economic status of defendants? Yes, blacks and whites may get different sentences for the same crimes, but if the graph below is to be believed, the whites probably have better lawyers.....or better "fucking lawyers" as I like to say.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1357389/thumbs/o-SHRINKING-INCOMES-facebook.jpg

http://www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrights101/economicjustice.html

Good point.

[roadmaster]

We could have stopped it if there wasn't corruption all over from the governors, police,CIA to the white house. Just like the border, they have never planed on securing it. Don't worry jails are becoming privatized and making money so more will go.

[Max Rockatansky]

Sorry, but I give little regard to conspiracy theories. None have ever been proven correct.

[The Xl]

It doesn't. The issue is the alleged racism. It's nonsense. The state enacted those laws for obvious reasons and out of goodwill. no conspiracy here, folks.

If the practice itself makes no sense, then why wouldn't it be racism?

It's the only logical explanation.

[Max Rockatansky]

If the practice itself makes no sense, then why wouldn't it be racism?

It's the only logical explanation.
Disagree it's "the only logical explanation". I posted one previously; economic differences. Another is the actions of Democrats eagerly seeking to appear "tough on drugs" by passing mandatory sentencing laws. Dude, it's the Democrats who kicked the idea of mandatory sentencing laws into action.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/primer/

In 1986, the Democrats in Congress saw a political opportunity to outflank Republicans by "getting tough on drugs" after basketball star Len Bias died of a cocaine overdose. In the 1984 election the Republicans had successfully accused Democrats of being soft on crime. The most important Democratic political leader, House Speaker "Tip" O'Neill, was from Boston, MA. The Boston Celtics had signed Bias. During the July 4 congressional recess, O'Neill's constituents were so consumed with anger and dismay about Bias' death, O'Neill realized how powerful an anti-drug campaign would be.

O'Neill knew that for Democrats to take credit for an anti-drug program in November elections, the bill had to get out of both Houses of Congress by early October. That required action on the House floor by early September, which meant that committees had to finish their work before the August recess. Since the idea was born in early July, the law-writing committees had less than a month to develop the ideas, to write the bills to carry out those ideas, and to get comments from the relevant government agencies and the public at large.


One idea was considered for the first time by the House Judiciary Committee four days before the recess began. It had tremendous political appeal as "tough on drugs." This was the creation of mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases.......

......For example, a drug offender could receive five years in federal prison for selling as little as five grams of crack cocaine. Five grams might be only 25 doses of crack, depending on purity, worth a few hundred dollars. This is not what high level traffickers are involved in. Most drug cases involve low level offenders. In a report issued in 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that only 11% of federal drug trafficking defendants were major traffickers. More than half were low level offenders.

The mandatory minimum sentences were criticized by the U.S. Sentencing Commission as early as 1991. In this report the commission found that all defense lawyers, and nearly half of prosecutors queried had serious problems with mandatory minimum sentences. Most of the judges pronounced them "manifestly unjust." The 1991 sentencing report particularly criticized the transfer of power in courts from judges - who are supposed to be impartial - to prosecutors, who are not. In response to some of the criticism in 1994 Congress enacted a "safety-valve" provision permitting relief from mandatory minimums for certain non-violent, first-time drug offenders.

Note the difference between penalties for crack and cocaine noted in the article. Now someone call the Democrats a bunch of racists. Please.

[roadmaster]

If the practice itself makes no sense, then why wouldn't it be racism?

It's the only logical explanation. Well freeway Rick that was a black person did start it in the black community. He is well known and can be paroled in 2014. I said they targeted blacks with this law but it was the blacks that brought it into the black neighborhoods. In fact Rick is the first one to figure out how to make crack and make a business out of it. Nixon was the one who put pot on the most dangerous list and put together the DEA and so forth. The war on poverty was eliminated to the war on drugs. We now have a meth problem. Who backed this war on drugs, cigarette and alcohol companies did. Every time we try to put a WAR label on things it gets worse. Why corruption and money.

[jillian]

These are all valid statistics, but I also think some very important stats are missing. On the face of it there appears the ugly face of racism. IMHO, the differences are more economic than outright racial. Poor people can't afford good lawyers, Middle Class people can. Rich people can literally get away with murder as both OJ Simpson and Robert Blake proved.

Where are the stats on economic status of defendants? Yes, blacks and whites may get different sentences for the same crimes, but if the graph below is to be believed, the whites probably have better lawyers.....or better "fucking lawyers" as I like to say.


http://www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrights101/economicjustice.html

there is absolutely a socioeconomic aspect to the numbers. and there is absolutely an issue of affordability of legal assistance.

but it goes beyond that. in determining whether there is going to be a prosecution or whether a deal is going to be made, you will see prosecutors favor more well off defendants who "come from a good family" so that they might not even get that far and might be given a deal up front.

but in making the racial comparisons, all other things tend to be equal as far as i know.

[Max Rockatansky]

there is absolutely a socioeconomic aspect to the numbers. and there is absolutely an issue of affordability of legal assistance.

but it goes beyond that. in determining whether there is going to be a prosecution or whether a deal is going to be made, you will see prosecutors favor more well off defendants who "come from a good family" so that they might not even get that far and might be given a deal up front.

but in making the racial comparisons, all other things tend to be equal as far as i know.

I think the issue is complex. My point is that there are other factors to consider rather than only overt racism. The Democrat's mandatory sentencing laws and economic class are two examples. Is race a part of it? I suspect so, but glossing over these other factors and just calling it all racism is wrong.

[Peter1469]

To be charged with a felony, crack users needed to possess only five grams of the drug. To be hit with the same charge, powder cocaine users needed to be caught with 500 grams. This is what Obama passed in his first term but now trying to change it to 28 grams of crack. Will they release the ones in prison.

Only the ones convicted after the law was passed in 2010.

[Peter1469]

Sorry, but I give little regard to conspiracy theories. None have ever been proven correct.

The initial cover up of the Challenger disaster was. Although that wasn't a far out conspiracy theory. Just a contractor trying to save money, and NASA trying to stay on schedule.

[Max Rockatansky]

The initial cover up of the Challenger disaster was. Although that wasn't a far out conspiracy theory. Just a contractor trying to save money, and NASA trying to stay on schedule.

Conspiracies happen. We conspired to build an atomic bomb before Germany. We conspired to kill Osama bin Laden. The difference between a conspiracy and a "conspiracy theory" is that the latter is unsupported by facts, much less common sense, while the former is often revealed over time.

The Pentagon Papers, NSA spying, the Watergate break-in, Monica's dress. To cover-up a conspiracy requires a lot of very dedicated people and it only takes one to leak it.

One silly conspiracy theory is that the Navy shot down TWA 800 (http://www.businessinsider.com/flight-twa-800-doesnt-support-claims-2013-7). Those theorists totally ignore the fact that hundreds of sailors would have heard the missiles launch, that hundreds of investigators from various government and civil agencies would keep their mouths shut about murdering 230 human beings. Same goes the Apollo project, JFK, aliens in Area 51 and numerous other conspiracy theories. They all presuppose that hundreds, if not thousands of Americans (plus the Russians, Chinese, Brits and others in the case of the Moon) would keep their mouths shut to deceive the American public. That's highly unlikely has history has shown time and time again.

[Mister D]

If the practice itself makes no sense, then why wouldn't it be racism?

It's the only logical explanation.

We see a massive upsurge in violence and other social ills coinciding with the advent of the crack cocaine trade in the 1980s. This was followed by a public outcry. Why do you ignore this? It's BY FAR the most likely cause of the disparity in sentencing. I just don't find your explanation plausible. What's it based on?

[Adelaide]

There is a startling disparity and under-representation of minorities in law enforcement, the legal/judicial system, the government - it's the same way up here. It could have nothing to do with sentencing, but when you look at statistics and realise there is less opportunity for minorities to get into positions within the judicial system, more likelihood of entering the criminal system (socioeconomics), and typically more common and harsher sentencing for minorities it makes you wonder. Up here, it's aboriginals that tend to get what seems to be the most prejudicial treatment with absolutely the lowest representation.

[Peter1469]

There is a startling disparity and under-representation of minorities in law enforcement, the legal/judicial system, the government - it's the same way up here. It could have nothing to do with sentencing, but when you look at statistics and realise there is less opportunity for minorities to get into positions within the judicial system, more likelihood of entering the criminal system (socioeconomics), and typically more common and harsher sentencing for minorities it makes you wonder. Up here, it's aboriginals that tend to get what seems to be the most prejudicial treatment with absolutely the lowest representation.

I would add jury convictions to that list.

[Dr. Who]

I would add jury convictions to that list.

That's assuming they even get before a jury, which is rare. Pressure to plea bargain is significant for two reasons - trials cost government a great deal of money and they also require a great deal of human resources. If everyone got their day in court, their court date would be ten years a coming. Hence those people who end up with court appointed counsel, rarely go to trial. People who haven't the ability to retain decent counsel will often accept a plea even if they are innocent, because the down side of going to trial with incompetent counsel and no money to challenge the police investigation is longer time. It's pretty sickening that there are in fact people doing time over circumstantial unchallenged evidence.

[Peter1469]

That's assuming they even get before a jury, which is rare. Pressure to plea bargain is significant for two reasons - trials cost government a great deal of money and they also require a great deal of human resources. If everyone got their day in court, their court date would be ten years a coming. Hence those people who end up with court appointed counsel, rarely go to trial. People who haven't the ability to retain decent counsel will often accept a plea even if they are innocent, because the down side of going to trial with incompetent counsel and no money to challenge the police investigation is longer time. It's pretty sickening that there are in fact people doing time over circumstantial unchallenged evidence.

I was thinking about the more serious cases. Certainly in death penalty cases if you look (or have a personality, i.e. Scott Peterson) that scares the jury, you are much more likely to get the DP.

[Dr. Who]

I was thinking about the more serious cases. Certainly in death penalty cases if you look (or have a personality, i.e. Scott Peterson) that scares the jury, you are much more likely to get the DP.

True, high profile cases are rarely pleaded out. I suspect that politics tend to come into it however - both the prosecution and defense counsel look to make their reputations on these cases. If it happens to be the death of someone that doesn't garner any press, say a low level drug dealer or a prostitute, then I suspect that the government would be looking to dispatch the case as expeditiously as possible.

[Mister D]

Race of Defendants Executed in the U.S. Since 1976



BLACK

465
35%


LATINO
106
7%


WHITE

764
56%


OTHER
24
2%









Current U.S. Death Row Population by Race



BLACK

1,300
41.83%


LATINO

389
12.52%


WHITE

1,341
43.15%


OTHER
78
2.52%