• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Judge Asked Harvard to Find Out Why So Many Black People Were In Prison. They Could Only Find 1 An

"Systemic racism"? I think not.

The only other reason is obvious, isn't it?
 
Trump enabling, Republican card carrying, FoxNews watching, White Nationalism rooted spin coming in 5... 4... 3...
 
99percenter said:
Harvard Study Shows Systemic Racism in Massachusetts Criminal Justice System
Click to expand...

OK, the laws were not deemed to be "racist" (leaving legislators off the hook), but the enforcement of them (the direct responsibility of elected executives) were deemed to be "racist" (based on examination of outcomes). BTW, Latinx is not a race - it is an ethnicity. Also notable is that this was happening regardless of which party controlled the WH or held a congressional majority - i.e. is indicative of "racist" state/local government policies (practices).
 
TheParser said:
"Systemic racism"? I think not. The only other reason is obvious, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Of course, that could only mean that Black people commit much more crime, right? Nope. OK, then maybe Black people commit worse crimes. That wasn’t it. What they found is the criminal justice system is unequal on every level. Cops in the state are more likely to stop Black drivers. Police are more likely to search or investigate Black residents. Law enforcement agents charge Black suspects with infractions that carry worse penalties. Prosecutors are less likely to offer Black suspects plea bargains or pre-trial intervention. Judges sentence Black defendants to longer terms in prison. And get this: The average white felon in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections has committed a more severe crime than the average Black inmates...

* It’s not that Black people are criminals: It’s that the cops think Black people are criminals: For instance, despite making up only 24 percent of Boston’s population, Black people made up 63 percent of the civilians who were interrogated, stopped, frisked or searched by the BPD between 2007 and 2010...

* Black suspects don’t get bail: The average bail is slightly higher in cases involving Black defendants. Furthermore, more Black and Latinx defendants are detained without bail as compared to white defendants...

* Black people are charged with higher offenses: But curiously, when they get to court, Black defendants are convicted of charges roughly equal in seriousness to their White counterparts despite facing more serious initial charges...

* There are actually two separate systems: The study notes that prosecutors are more likely to exercise their discretion to send Black and Latinx people “to Superior Court where the available sentences are longer..

[Continues to note: black people charged with crimes with mandatory minimums get longer sentences than whites in the same position, black people with drugs/guns more likely to be jailed and jailed for longer than white people in the same position, and "The average Black person’s sentence is 168 days longer than a sentence for a white person. Even when the researchers controlled for criminal history, jurisdiction, and neighborhood, they concluded: “[R]acial disparities in sentence length cannot solely be explained by the contextual factors that we consider and permeate the entire criminal justice process.”"

Harvard Study Shows Systemic Racism in Massachusetts Criminal Justice System

But as a Trumpist, you are under orders to claim it's just because black people are inherently criminal. How deplorable of you.





PS: thank you for continuing to prove what we already knew about posters who pick names designed to suggest their posts should be seen with greater credibility than those of others. You call yourself "The" Parser, yet you don't even read what you are pretending to parse. It's just black man bad.

PSS: Announcing that Your Lordship "thinks not" does not function to prove a claim untrue.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, the laws were not deemed to be "racist" (leaving legislators off the hook), but the enforcement of them (the direct responsibility of elected executives) were deemed to be "racist" (based on examination of outcomes). BTW, Latinx is not a race - it is an ethnicity. Also notable is that this was happening regardless of which party controlled the WH or held a congressional majority - i.e. is indicative of "racist" state/local government policies (practices).
Click to expand...

And yet, you know exactly what is being said when the term "racist" is used to describe systemic discrimination against people of that ethnicity. There's no point in making up a new word, "ethnithicist"...
 
Mr Person said:
And yet, you know exactly what is being said when the term "racist" is used to describe systemic discrimination against people of that ethnicity. There's no point in making up a new word, "ethnithicist"...
Click to expand...

That is a fair point, yet the headline wasn't "white folks receive (special?) breaks from the criminal "just us" system (in MA?)". It would have been very informative to have noted which judges and/or prosecutors were showing (offering?) this "white privilege" and to what extent.

My primary point was that the laws were not found to be inherently "racist", thus the problem (executive and/or judicial branch "racism") can't be fixed by the legislature.
 
Mr Person said:
And yet, you know exactly what is being said when the term "racist" is used to describe systemic discrimination against people of that ethnicity. There's no point in making up a new word, "ethnithicist"...
Click to expand...

Yeah. I hate when people play semantic argument games.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a fair point, yet the headline wasn't "white folks receive (special?) breaks from the criminal "just us" system (in MA?)". It would have been very informative to have noted which judges and/or prosecutors were showing (offering?) this "white privilege" and to what extent.

My primary point was that the laws were not found to be inherently "racist", thus the problem (executive and/or judicial branch "racism") can't be fixed by the legislature.
Click to expand...

Its the culture that's racist and that racism can be mitigated by deciding what we do and do not criminalize.
 
Master Debator said:
Its the culture that's racist and that racism can be mitigated by deciding what we do and do not criminalize.
Click to expand...

The study was careful to compare equal offenses (violations of existing laws). Which law(s?) specifically would you drop (no longer criminalize)?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The study was careful to compare equal offenses (violations of existing laws). Which law(s?) specifically would you drop (no longer criminalize)?
Click to expand...

The war on drugs is an easy one. Despite whites and blacks using drugs at roughly the same rate black and brown people are 2.5x times as likely to be arrested and convicted for drug offenses and as the article states, often times get harsher sentences. Nevermind that it fuels gang violence.
 
Master Debator said:
The war on drugs is an easy one. Despite whites and blacks using drugs at roughly the same rate black and brown people are 2.5x times as likely to be arrested and convicted for drug offenses and as the article states, often times get harsher sentences. Nevermind that it fuels gang violence.
Click to expand...

I have no objection to legalizing (and regulating, like alcohol) drugs, but see decriminalization of "street drugs" as being a poor compromise. Of course, "illegal" (i.e. without a permit) possession of guns was cited as having a similar 'problem' with enforcement.
 
Joe Biden sponsored and helped author the 1994 Crime Bill that led to mass incarceration of black people for minor criminal offenses.

Kamala Harris put young black men in prison for minor marijuana possession offenses.

How’s that for systematic racism?
 
Chuck9788 said:
Joe Biden sponsored and helped author the 1994 Crime Bill that led to mass incarceration of black people for minor criminal offenses.

Kamala Harris put young black men in prison for minor marijuana possession offenses.

How’s that for systematic racism?
Click to expand...

Whataboutism noted. No one is saying that this is a R vs D problem.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a fair point, yet the headline wasn't "white folks receive (special?) breaks from the criminal "just us" system (in MA?)". It would have been very informative to have noted which judges and/or prosecutors were showing (offering?) this "white privilege" and to what extent.

My primary point was that the laws were not found to be inherently "racist", thus the problem (executive and/or judicial branch "racism") can't be fixed by the legislature.
Click to expand...

Logical fail intended to deflect responsibility of the legislature for creating a just society with equal opportunity for all.

Just because the legislature didn't create systemic racism doesn't mean they're not responsible to use their power to dismantle it.
 
That there is racial disparity in the United States of America is a given.

We will know that we no longer have to consider race as a 'short list' problem when we can Look at the federal legislature and see a racial distribution which approximates that of the US. Or when we can see the CEO's of the Fortune 500(r) corporations and see a racial distribution which approximates that of the US.

There are other simple 'tests'.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I have no objection to legalizing (and regulating, like alcohol) drugs, but see decriminalization of "street drugs" as being a poor compromise. Of course, "illegal" (i.e. without a permit) possession of guns was cited as having a similar 'problem' with enforcement.
Click to expand...

I agree on decriminalization but I'd take it over our current system. As other crimes having similar problems with "enforcement" that goes back to this being a cultural problem. As a culture, not just police but people, and not just white people but black and brown people as well, because of centuries of propoganda we believe that black people are more violent, more prone to criminality in general, less intelligent and less willing to work and be productive members of society. And as a society Americans are taught to ignore the horrors and atrocities committed by previous generations which results in lingering inequities going unaddressed. That's just the world we live in and so changing laws won't change that fundamental flaw. That's why racism continues to be systemic. It's built into the system itself. Blacks are looked at suspiciously more often, stopped more often, searched more often, all things being equal your going to find more black criminals and fewer white ones. The only way to change that is to change American culture itself. Changing some laws can mitigate that but it's mitigated by limiting black interaction with police. Thats isn't a long term solution. I feel like some liberals are under the impression this change can come without some pain, without white people having to give up some of the lies and beliefs they hold dear and sacred and that just isn't the case.
 
Digger said:
Logical fail intended to deflect responsibility of the legislature for creating a just society with equal opportunity for all.

Just because the legislature didn't create systemic racism doesn't mean they're not responsible to use their power to dismantle it.
Click to expand...

How, exactly, can the legislature control how LEOs, prosecutors or judges choose to apply (or ignore) the law as written? For example: federal immigration law as written and passed by congress contains no exceptions for "dreamers" or folks who have not committed some other (violent and serious?) offense, yet the law is implemented (selectively enforced?) as if it did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom