I suppress making a comment about bad fast food and road rage.
Actually, CNN just posted some Florida statistics on success rates for a SYG defense. The success rate is pretty much the same for both white and black defendants, I believe 61% and 63% respectively.
Apologies if my numbers are off by a point or two. Lots of multitasking going on today.
The Atlantic has dug into the numbers in a bit more depth.
There's one specific situation in which blacks "benefited" from the "stand your ground" law, if you will. Killings of whites by blacks were slightly more likely to be found justified than killings of whites by whites. But otherwise, the law has been less than helpful to the state's black community. Nearly four-in-five killings of black people where it has been invoked have resulted in the killer being freed. It's hard to see the benefit in that.
jam3 wrote:"That's not race. It's just the way the law is written." The entire point that I and others are making is that the law itself is violating peoples civil rights. From SYG to mandatory minimums to drug laws, stop and frisk, these are all tools of institutional racism.
The widely different mandatory minimum sentences for crack and powder cocaine are racist. Stop and frisk laws are racist.
Analysis of homicides, however, doesn't quite show that Stand Your Ground laws are racist. There is a clear bias whereby whites who kill blacks are far more likely to have those killings to be found justifiable, but there simply isn't enough data to say that it's racist. That's because there were only 25 examples of whites killing blacks in the five years of FBI homicide data analyzed.
The only thing we know about SYG now is that states that have those laws report about 8% more homicides than states who don't.
And tacking on years to a sentence because you shot a gun during the commission of a crime? Not really racist at all.
I think the data you listed, common sense, and this case where there is clear racial profiling lead to SYG laws showing their institutional racism. And the Daniel Adkins case as well show the pure abject stupidity of them to boot. Same thing for gun use which I kinda agree there is not a clear racial bias but definitely a clear socioeconomic one. You never hear lets put a mandatory minimum on white collar crimes.
Mandatory sentencing is a flawed concept.
I think the data you listed, common sense, and this case where there is clear racial profiling lead to SYG laws showing their institutional racism. And the Daniel Adkins case as well show the pure abject stupidity of them to boot. Same thing for gun use which I kinda agree there is not a clear racial bias but definitely a clear socioeconomic one. You never hear lets put a mandatory minimum on white collar crimes.
And I would disagree. The data shows that some sort of racial bias exists, but there literally isn't enough data for anyone to claim with any confidence that SYG laws are inherently racist. Common sense and a single case simply aren't enough.
There also isn't a clear socioeconomic bias for gun use because the Florida law clearly says that the discharge of *any* firearm gets you more time in jail. I would agree that the law would have a clear socioeconomic bias (and, by extension, some racial bias) if it had been written in such a way as to give harsher sentences based on how expensive the firearm was, such as people who shot a $60 Saturday Night Special got ten extra years on their sentence, but folks who shot a $500 Glock 17 only got two additional years.
OG_slinger wrote:jam3 wrote:"That's not race. It's just the way the law is written." The entire point that I and others are making is that the law itself is violating peoples civil rights. From SYG to mandatory minimums to drug laws, stop and frisk, these are all tools of institutional racism.
The widely different mandatory minimum sentences for crack and powder cocaine are racist. Stop and frisk laws are racist.
Analysis of homicides, however, doesn't quite show that Stand Your Ground laws are racist. There is a clear bias whereby whites who kill blacks are far more likely to have those killings to be found justifiable, but there simply isn't enough data to say that it's racist. That's because there were only 25 examples of whites killing blacks in the five years of FBI homicide data analyzed.
The only thing we know about SYG now is that states that have those laws report about 8% more homicides than states who don't.
And tacking on years to a sentence because you shot a gun during the commission of a crime? Not really racist at all.
I think the data you listed, common sense, and this case where there is clear racial profiling lead to SYG laws showing their institutional racism. And the Daniel Adkins case as well show the pure abject stupidity of them to boot. Same thing for gun use which I kinda agree there is not a clear racial bias but definitely a clear socioeconomic one. You never hear lets put a mandatory minimum on white collar crimes.
There are mandatory minimums on some white collar crimes.
see page 15
jam3 wrote:I think the data you listed, common sense, and this case where there is clear racial profiling lead to SYG laws showing their institutional racism. And the Daniel Adkins case as well show the pure abject stupidity of them to boot. Same thing for gun use which I kinda agree there is not a clear racial bias but definitely a clear socioeconomic one. You never hear lets put a mandatory minimum on white collar crimes.
And I would disagree. The data shows that some sort of racial bias exists, but there literally isn't enough data for anyone to claim with any confidence that SYG laws are inherently racist. Common sense and a single case simply aren't enough.
There also isn't a clear socioeconomic bias for gun use because the Florida law clearly says that the discharge of *any* firearm gets you more time in jail. I would agree that the law would have a clear socioeconomic bias (and, by extension, some racial bias) if it had been written in such a way as to give harsher sentences based on how expensive the firearm was, such as people who shot a $60 Saturday Night Special got ten extra years on their sentence, but folks who shot a $500 Glock 17 only got two additional years.
Maybe from a purely mathematical and statistical view, but the preliminary data is showing a bias and individual cases like this one are showing that it is a racist law. And common sense at the very least shows us that experimenting with 100's of years of common law by changing an affirmative defense to non-affirmative, that leaves the burden on the state, is just plain stupid. Why don't we switch insanity to non-affirmative and make the state prove that a defendant is not insane beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean heck you have just as much right to be insane as you do to carry a firearm.
There are mandatory minimums on some white collar crimes.
Wow did you actually read the white collar crimes in that document and the additional required sentencing that have MM's, that is laughable.
There are mandatory minimums on some white collar crimes.
Spoiler:see page 15
Yes, but they are an absolute joke.
Cooking the books or commodity fixing: One year.
Fraud or embezzlement: Two years.
Robbing a bank, on the other hand, will get you a mandatory dime.
The punishments for white collar crime is woefully out of whack with other mandatory sentences considering that the average bank robbery nets criminals about four grand and cooking the books or fraud can reap upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Sentencing for white collar crimes should be based on the number of victims affected and the total amount of money in question. The result should be that someone like a Jeff Skilling should have faced thousands of years in jail versus a mere 24.
It is a never-ending area of debate. Not every state wants to give judges or juries a lot of leeway, and I really cannot blame them for it. Minnesota has about the strictest guidelines, but it is very even handed. Their guidelines are the poster child for everything that is bad and everything that is good about strict sentencing.
And you can look at the changes year over year-such as a separate grid for sex offenders.
http://www.msgc.state.mn.us/msgc5/gu...
I happen to think that like offenses need to be punished in same/similar ways. A murder, is a murder and a rape is a rape. And some of the mitigating factors that can come in to the equation where judges or juries get a lot of discretion has nothing to do with the crime or the criminal's mindset-character evidence like how nice a guy they are, school records, etc.
I agree that mandatory prison for drug crimes, for most non-violent felonies, and trying high school aged kids as adults is a problem. But part of justice has to be consistency.
18 Billion got Bernie 150 years, could we at least say a billion gets you life?
18 Billion got Bernie 150 years, could we at least say a billion gets you life?
The elites take exception to having *their* money stolen.
18 Billion got Bernie 150 years, could we at least say a billion gets you life?
I like the per victim measure better. Bernie had 2,000+ victims. He sentence should be as if he robbed each of those 2,000+ people, giving him a sentence somewhere in the range of 4,000 to 14,000 years (served non-concurrently, of course).
If you look at the chart you will notice a pattern. Manditory sentencing is mostly reserved for violent and repeat offenders. Why do you think this is?
If you look at the chart you will notice a pattern. Mandatory sentencing is mostly reserved for violent and repeat offenders. Why do you think this is?
Because they won elections:
If you look at the chart you will notice a pattern. Manditory sentencing is mostly reserved for violent and repeat offenders. Why do you think this is?
Look again. Four of the sixteen pages are dedicated to mandatory sentencing laws involving drugs, half of which prescribe long sentences for non-violent crimes. Another three and a half pages are dedicated to extra punishment for sex crimes involving children. And another two and a quarter pages are for murdering children or various government officials, like a horse official or egg inspector (mandatory death sentence, in case you were wondering).
There's quite a large amount of moral arbitrariness and general feel-goodness to the sentencing laws, none of which have actually been shown to make us safer, reduce crime, or achieve any meaningful social metric.
When you spend irresponsibly, you get bad credit.
When you get bad credit, you screw up your job prospects.
When you screw up your job prospects, you take it out on your girlfriend.
When you take it out on your girlfriend, she takes out a restraining order.
When she takes out a restraining order, you feel powerless.
When you feel powerless, you want to take the power back.
When you want to take the power back, you join the neighborhood watch whilst carrying a ghetto pimp gun.
When you join the neighborhood watch whilst carrying a ghetto pimp gun, you murder a teenager.
Don't murder a teenager. Get Direct TV.
Nomad wrote:If you look at the chart you will notice a pattern. Manditory sentencing is mostly reserved for violent and repeat offenders. Why do you think this is?
Look again. Four of the sixteen pages are dedicated to mandatory sentencing laws involving drugs, half of which prescribe long sentences for non-violent crimes. Another three and a half pages are dedicated to extra punishment for sex crimes involving children. And another two and a quarter pages are for murdering children or various government officials, like a horse official or egg inspector (mandatory death sentence, in case you were wondering).
There's quite a large amount of moral arbitrariness and general feel-goodness to the sentencing laws, none of which have actually been shown to make us safer, reduce crime, or achieve any meaningful social metric.
I guess I was assuming that murder and sex crimes against children counted as violent crime.
I guess I was assuming that murder and sex crimes against children counted as violent crime.
Oh, you mean we didn't already have laws against murder or child abuse and these special laws were needed to plug that gap in our legal code?
Nomad wrote:I guess I was assuming that murder and sex crimes against children counted as violent crime.
Oh, you mean we didn't already have laws against murder or child abuse and these special laws were needed to plug that gap in our legal code?
I'm not sure you want to argue the position that there are no gaps in our legal code, especially considering the thread your post is in.
I'm not sure you want to argue the position that there are no gaps in our legal code, especially considering the thread your post is in. ;)
Zimmerman didn't walk because there wasn't an applicable crime he could be charged with. He walked because the police and prosecution f*cked up.
OG_slinger wrote:Nomad wrote:I guess I was assuming that murder and sex crimes against children counted as violent crime.
Oh, you mean we didn't already have laws against murder or child abuse and these special laws were needed to plug that gap in our legal code?
I'm not sure you want to argue the position that there are no gaps in our legal code, especially considering the thread your post is in. ;)
That wasn't a gap in our legal code, that was a hole that was intentionally drilled in to it.
The ACLU weighs in... and reminds Holder that federal charges for an already tried crime is essentially double jeopardy.
The ACLU weighs in... and reminds Holder that federal charges for an already tried crime is essentially double jeopardy.
The right and NRA continue to hate them anyway.
NormanTheIntern wrote:The ACLU weighs in... and reminds Holder that federal charges for an already tried crime is essentially double jeopardy.
The right and NRA continue to hate them anyway.
Well, except Oliver North.
I wondered when someone would make the A Time to Kill reference.
And that's a terrible situation and travesty of justice. But that's not what happened here.
But it does pull at the old heart strings and try to continue to make this an emotional argument rather than one based on evidence.
Pages