Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Cephus · Jul 4, 2005, 10:37 am

Quote:

Quote by: Gorgo

There is just no reasonable evidence for such a statement. It is true that when it comes to violent crime, abject poverty is a factor. White people use drugs more, but people of color are imprisoned more for drug-related crimes.

Of course there is, they were found guilty by a jury of their peers. Are you suggesting that they were sentenced without regard to their Constitutional rights? Wow, you could get a lot of people out if you could prove that they had no trial, couldn't you?

But, of course, you can't. Maybe the reason more "people of color" (read black, sheesh) people are in prison for drug crimes is because more black people COMMIT DRUG CRIMES? Not because they're black, but because they're poor. Not that it's an excuse, of course, a crime is a crime.

Stop blaming people's skin color and blame the people responsible, the criminals.

Gorgo · Jul 4, 2005, 11:47 am

It's mostly about economics, but people of color are arrested more, are more likely to be convicted, and when convicted are more likely to receive longer sentences.

Do some of them get there without committing a crime? Sure. They are told to cop a plea or face a long sentence, so they plead guilty to things that they didn't do. In some cases, that saves the state some money, because often they did do something worse than what they're pleading to, but in some cases, they just didn't do it and can't afford a lawyer. The D.A.'s and the cops work together sometimes.

Some kids cop a plea, get probation, and have it happen again getting them to prison without any trial at all, and no evidence of any crime committed.

This episode of The Awful Truth, Michael Moore's (now defunct) TV show, talks about a D.A.'s office where this practice was the norm. This is an extreme case, but you know it happens to some degree all over the country.

Cephus · Jul 5, 2005, 03:15 am

Quote:

Quote by: Gorgo

It's mostly about economics, but people of color are arrested more, are more likely to be convicted, and when convicted are more likely to receive longer sentences.

They are arrested more because they commit more crimes! It's a statistical fact that poor black males commit more crimes in this country than any other racial or economic group so it's not surprising at all that they tend to be arrested more or any of the rest.

It's silly to turn it into a racial issue when the fact is that they're not being singled out from the outside because of their skin color, they are singling themselves out through their actions.

BaldEagle · Jul 25, 2005, 12:18 am

The death penalty is not a deterent. It is punishment and it makes certain the murderer will never kill again, not even in prison. Now if we want to make it a deterent then it should be the only punishment regardless of the crime. Murder...death penalty, steal a candy bar...death penalty. Not that I think stealing a candy bar is worthy of such punishment, I am only talking about deterence. I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. When I see some of the crimes committed against children and other innocents I can get behind it because of the emotions it evokes. But when criminals kill each other I am not in favor of then killing the "winning" criminal. I am not sure this happens that much anyway. I do have more and more confidence through the use of DNA evidence than I once did regarding guilt or innocence. I do not think the death penalty should ever be considered without DNA evidence. I think that people on death row that have been exonerated because of DNA should give us some insight as to how many people have been wrongly convicted and some already executed. Convictions are almost quota based. The authorities have to provide a net of safety for the public so they will pursue wrongful convictions simply because they need to convict someone. Not always, but sometimes. The judicial system is partly to blame. It is not about guilt or innocence, but is about who has the best lawyer. I have always hated watching trials and seeing the prosecutor demand a straight yes or no answer to an ambiguous question and the judge allows it. So it boils down to if your lawyer is sharp enough to address the issue in his/her questioning in order to clear up any discrepancy. As an example (perhaps a light-hearted example) what is the correct way to respond to this question if you can only answer yes or no: Have you ever screwed a chicken all you wanted? Either response can be construed as odd unless amplfying info can be given. So in he end law pertains only to lawyers and judges and has nothing to do wih justice. As for abortion, I can't and won't speak for anyone else especially given the fact that I am male and will probably not be getting pregnant in the remainder of my lifetime. However, if I do I'll let you know then how I feel about it.

BaldEagle

Cephus · Jul 25, 2005, 11:16 am

Quote:

Quote by: BaldEagle

The death penalty is not a deterent.

It's not supposed to be a deterent, it's called the DEATH PENALTY, not the DEATH DETERENT. Even if it never stops anyone out there from commiting a crime, it stops one individual from ever doing anything wrong again and it does it with 100% effectiveness.

Prometheus · Jul 25, 2005, 11:23 am

I think that there is a point for both sides on the penalty/deterrent issue. Cephus made one of the points - if you are killed you can't do it again.

The other side of the coin however, is that the threat of death probably dosen't stop anyone. When contimplatinf commiting a murder, I am sure that no one thinks about wheather thier state has the death penalty, and wheather they are willing to use it. I think life in prison and the death penalty have an equal ability to deter crimes.

My stance on this issue? Hard to be sure. If the statistics of wrongfull conviction are true, then we probably shouldn;t be killing people. However, if these statistics are axaggerated (as I suspect they may be) then it's probably not worth keeping the scum alive. That costs money. My money.

BaldEagle · Jul 25, 2005, 01:14 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Cephus

It's not supposed to be a deterent, it's called the DEATH PENALTY, not the DEATH DETERENT. Even if it never stops anyone out there from commiting a crime, it stops one individual from ever doing anything wrong again and it does it with 100% effectiveness.

I thought that is what I said. I am refering to some people's justification for it as though it somehow makes people stop in the middle of committing a murder and think about it. I don't think it is a deterent, nor do I think it was intended to be.

BaldEagle

Cephus · Jul 26, 2005, 01:06 pm

Quote:

Quote by: BaldEagle

I thought that is what I said. I am refering to some people's justification for it as though it somehow makes people stop in the middle of committing a murder and think about it. I don't think it is a deterent, nor do I think it was intended to be.

No, and you were absolutely right. It's just that there are so many anti-DP people out there who seem to think that if the DP doesn't stop criminals dead in their tracks, we should abolish it.

News flash people, prison doesn't stop anyone either. Heck, there are criminals who commit crimes SPECIFICALLY to get INTO prison. Anyone want to get rid of that?

Jul 25, 2005, 12:18 am	#64 (permalink) (top)
BaldEagle Molten Ash Location: Lisbon, CT Posts: 82	The death penalty is not a deterent. It is punishment and it makes certain the murderer will never kill again, not even in prison. Now if we want to make it a deterent then it should be the only punishment regardless of the crime. Murder...death penalty, steal a candy bar...death penalty. Not that I think stealing a candy bar is worthy of such punishment, I am only talking about deterence. I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. When I see some of the crimes committed against children and other innocents I can get behind it because of the emotions it evokes. But when criminals kill each other I am not in favor of then killing the "winning" criminal. I am not sure this happens that much anyway. I do have more and more confidence through the use of DNA evidence than I once did regarding guilt or innocence. I do not think the death penalty should ever be considered without DNA evidence. I think that people on death row that have been exonerated because of DNA should give us some insight as to how many people have been wrongly convicted and some already executed. Convictions are almost quota based. The authorities have to provide a net of safety for the public so they will pursue wrongful convictions simply because they need to convict someone. Not always, but sometimes. The judicial system is partly to blame. It is not about guilt or innocence, but is about who has the best lawyer. I have always hated watching trials and seeing the prosecutor demand a straight yes or no answer to an ambiguous question and the judge allows it. So it boils down to if your lawyer is sharp enough to address the issue in his/her questioning in order to clear up any discrepancy. As an example (perhaps a light-hearted example) what is the correct way to respond to this question if you can only answer yes or no: Have you ever screwed a chicken all you wanted? Either response can be construed as odd unless amplfying info can be given. So in he end law pertains only to lawyers and judges and has nothing to do wih justice. As for abortion, I can't and won't speak for anyone else especially given the fact that I am male and will probably not be getting pregnant in the remainder of my lifetime. However, if I do I'll let you know then how I feel about it. BaldEagle It is better to give than receive, so what did you bring me?

Jul 25, 2005, 11:23 am	#66 (permalink) (top)
Prometheus Glad to be back! Location: Vernal, UT Posts: 1,725	I think that there is a point for both sides on the penalty/deterrent issue. Cephus made one of the points - if you are killed you can't do it again. The other side of the coin however, is that the threat of death probably dosen't stop anyone. When contimplatinf commiting a murder, I am sure that no one thinks about wheather thier state has the death penalty, and wheather they are willing to use it. I think life in prison and the death penalty have an equal ability to deter crimes. My stance on this issue? Hard to be sure. If the statistics of wrongfull conviction are true, then we probably shouldn;t be killing people. However, if these statistics are axaggerated (as I suspect they may be) then it's probably not worth keeping the scum alive. That costs money. My money. Fixed ideas are like a cramp in the foot - the best remedy against it is to tread on it. -Søren Kierkegaard

Jul 4, 2005, 11:47 am	#62 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	It's mostly about economics, but people of color are arrested more, are more likely to be convicted, and when convicted are more likely to receive longer sentences. Do some of them get there without committing a crime? Sure. They are told to cop a plea or face a long sentence, so they plead guilty to things that they didn't do. In some cases, that saves the state some money, because often they did do something worse than what they're pleading to, but in some cases, they just didn't do it and can't afford a lawyer. The D.A.'s and the cops work together sometimes. Some kids cop a plea, get probation, and have it happen again getting them to prison without any trial at all, and no evidence of any crime committed. This episode of The Awful Truth, Michael Moore's (now defunct) TV show, talks about a D.A.'s office where this practice was the norm. This is an extreme case, but you know it happens to some degree all over the country.