You first: look up fact.
You don’t believe me? Somehow I think you’re just trying to be cute.
Race in capital cases
“On 18 March 2003, two African American men were executed. The two people for whose murder Louis Jones and Walanzo Robinson were killed – Tracie McBride, white, and Dennis Hill, black – ** were among some half a million people murdered in the USA since 1977. Blacks and whites were the victims of these murders in almost equal numbers.(2) Yet 80 per cent of the people executed since 1977 were convicted of murders involving white victims.**
To prevail under [the Equal Protection] Clause, petitioner must prove that the decision-makers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose… Because discretion is essential to the criminal justice process, exceptionally clear proof is required before this Court will infer that the discretion has been abused.” US Supreme Court, McCleskey v Kemp (1987).
A defining moment on this issue came in 1987, when the US Supreme Court rejected the appeal of Warren McCleskey, an African American man condemned to death in Georgia for the murder of a white police officer. ** The Justices had been presented with a detailed study showing that defendants who killed whites in Georgia were more than four times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed non-whites, a probability that was even higher if the defendant was black and the victim white. ** A majority of Justices held that “apparent disparities in sentencing are an inevitable part of our criminal justice system”, and that for a defendant to be successful in an appeal, he or she would have to provide “exceptionally clear proof” that the decision-makers in his or her particular case had acted with discriminatory intent.(7) Warren McCleskey was executed in 1991. ** There have been nearly 700 more executions in the USA since then, 80 per cent of them for murders involving white victims.**
Dissenting from the McCleskey majority, Justice Brennan wrote: “[W]e cannot pretend that in three decades we have completely escaped the grip of a historical legacy spanning centuries. Warren McCleskey’s evidence confronts us with the subtle and persistent influence of the past… [W]e ignore him at our peril, for we remain imprisoned by the past as long as we deny its influence in the present.” Justice Powell, who authored the 5-4 decision, said after he retired from the Court that he wished he had voted differently in the 1987 ruling, and that he had come to think that the death penalty should be abolished.(8) The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in his 1998 report on the USA, suggested that the McCleskey decision may be incompatible with the country’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, “which requires States parties to take appropriate steps to eliminate both direct and indirect discrimination”.(9)
The McCleskey ruling placed a huge obstacle in the way of defendants seeking to challenge their death sentences on the basis of evidence of racial discrimination in sentencing. ** In 1994, Girvies Davis, a black man convicted by an all-white jury of the murder of a white victim, appealed on the basis of a study indicating that the murder of a white in Illinois was about six times more likely to lead to a death sentence than the murder of a black, and that a black defendant accused of killing a white was 3.75 times more likely to be sentenced to death than a white charged with killing another white person.** The federal court wrote that “our analysis begins and ends with McCleskey v Kemp”, and rejected the appeal.(10) Davis was executed in 1995."
Check out the facts in the above post.
Not in Great Debates.
Leave the personal attacks out of it.
EVERYONE needs to calm down just a bit, here.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
How about magellan?
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defines racism as “the process of distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin.”
BTW it took the USA 20 years to ratify the Convention.
You have yet to prove your assertion that the policy itself is racist. BTW, you also completely ignored the majority decision in the citing you quoted above. But, then, that wouldn’t fit with your thesis about how bad, evil, and racist the US is, would it? Perhaps the Justices are more familiar than you with “correlation does not equal causation.”
How about the US Supreme Court?
"In 1994, a US Supreme Court Justice wrote: "Even under the most sophisticated death penalty statutes, race continues to play a major role in determining who shall live and who shall die."(25) Four years later, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions expressed his concern that “the imposition of death sentences in the United States seems to continue to be marked by arbitrariness. Race, ethnic origin and economic status appear to be key determinants of who will, and who will not, receive a sentence of death.”(26) The evidence has continued to mount since then "
De facto racism.
If you see someone violating board rules, report them. Do not escalate the fight to the point where you are more out of line than they are.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Was he writing for the majority or was it his own decision? If it’s for his own, no coopie doll!
Your refusal to even accept the opinion of a Supreme Court justice shows you really have no honest interest in this debate.
The statistics alone prove that de facto racial discrimination exists in the government. But obviously you aren’t interested in truth.
From the same site:
"Justice Powell, who authored the 5-4 decision, said after he retired from the Court that he wished he had voted differently in the 1987 ruling, and that he had come to think that the death penalty should be abolished.(8) The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in his 1998 report on the USA, suggested that the McCleskey decision may be incompatible with the country’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, “which requires States parties to take appropriate steps to eliminate both direct and indirect discrimination”.(9) "
I could reply to you with your comment to me in the other (mercy killed) thread; however, I’m far above that. Also, I have yet to lie to you. I would appreciate the same caliber of posting from you. Posting #111 does not qualify for such a description. Statistics alone mean nothing.
Yes they do. Especially when substantiated by other sources such as opinions of Supreme Dourt justices. That’s proof enough for me. Now I’ve posted enough proof. If you’re still hung up about the issue then by Googlong <racism + united states>.
It only returns 13,700,000 hits. Quite telling.
For a good laugh: Joke of the Day
That little stunt of yours is quite telling too.
BTW, if they’re “substantiated by other sources” then they’re not “statistics alone.”
Very diplomatic of them, isn’t it. Demand, they say?
Also from that link:
Interesting assertion, that. What? Criminals aren’t to be treated as criminals? Odd attitude.
Also from that link:
So, Mexico’s own statistics show Mexico’s president to be a liar. And Fox’s own spokesman admits that those criminals are leaving Mexico “for better living conditions.”
In the other thread (or maybe this one), CBEscapee was justifiably accused of “moving the goalposts” on this issue. His latest salvo was to ask what racism in Mexico has to do with his false assertion (which he maintains is true) that the United States’ current immigration policy is dictated by racism. His ridiculous “proof” of that assertion was to trot out some stuff about racism and capital punishment. It’s now my turn to ask: What does that have to do with immigration?
And just for fun, let’s ask some more questions: What other crimes do those who illegally cross the border commit if they’re in search of jobs in the US? Those who present false identification documents are certainly not the law-abiding blokes CBEscapee and Fox would have us believe.
I guess I should add another comment to those just above. If Fox thinks that “Migrants, regardless of their migratory status, should not be treated like criminals,” then he’s surely going to be releasing all those who’ve illegally crossed Mexico’s southern border and will cease and desist all border enforcement activity there.
I shan’t be holding my breath waiting for that to happen, though.
I’ve scanned through the whole thread, and unless I missed something, it seems that everyone’s talking about immigration in abstract terms. The immigrant advocates are levelling charges of racism, and the immigrant restrictionists are crying ‘criminal’. IMO those lines of argument don’t address the real issue which is like the elephant in the living room: overpopulation. How many more people can the Southwest, and California in particular, accommodate? How many more children can we properly educate, how many more cars and SUVs can we accommodate on the roads, and how much more acreage must be given over to exurban housing tracts, inhabited by 150-mile-a-day commuters?
California has been experiencing net domestic emigration (more Americans leave for other states than move here), for years now. The linked chart shows that international immigration has been entirely responsible for the state’s population growth, as well as that of the Los Angeles-Long Beach metro area. The fact that we no longer experience a gain from net domestic immigration doesn’t reflect too well on our quality of life.
Link.
For those of us who still live here, does anyone think we still need more people.
I defy anyone who doesn’t live here and advocates amnesty or the abolition of border controls to spend a year living down here and see if you still hold that view at the end of that time.
Don’t know about California/the Southwest, but the Mid-West is going through massive depopulation at the moment. So from that angle, there’s plenty of room to grow. (Of course, who knows if there are jobs to be had in the mid-West.)
At some point we can’t have any more cars and SUVs, and then we’re going to have to rediscover the joys of public transportation. But to make public transportation feasible, we’re going to have to start giving up on the suburbs and start moving back into city centers. And doing either of those things would require a massive overhaul of American culture, unfortunately.
You never know who or what to believe. Europe and Japan are supposedly going to have tough times in the next couple of decades because of de-population; other places are going to be hurt by having too many people. Which is it?
Under American law, do criminals have any protection against abuse by the authorities? Criminals have no rights? People have the right to abuse criminals in the US?
According to a poster in the other thread you have made several referrals to, motor vehicle violations constitute criminal offenses. So by this reasoning the governor of California is a criminal? (that is NOT my opinion).
How many people hanging around these boards have used illegal drugs? That makes them criminals so how should they be treated?
BTW Arnolds smoked pot and LIKED it!!! http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry090803.asp
This guy’s record keeps growing! Oops, don’t forgot the steroids!
Then we have:
Bernard Kerik, the nominee as the head Homeland Security, the very person most responsible for securing US borders, employing an illegal alien.
Linda Chavez, the Bush nominee for Secretary of Labor employing an illegal alien.
Zoe Baird, Clinton’s nominee for Attorney General, the top LE position in the US employing illegal aliens.
Were they treated as criminals?
What a novelty, a politician lying, a president even. Let’s play a little game; what is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the following:
“I am not a crook”
“I did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky”
Show me a cite that Fox has called for a completely open border. A Google search for <”fox calls for open border”> returns exactly ONE hit. And when opening that link you’ll not find ONE quote of Fox calling for an open border. I’ve yet to find ONE quote attributed to Fox.
[quote=monty]
His ridiculous “proof” of that assertion was to trot out some stuff about racism and capital punishment.
[quote]
Ridiculous? Is that what it is? Is that what you call “debating”? How about refuting anything in the article I posted? I quoted a source that proved de facto racism exists in the US. And the worst part is it is a major factor in who receives capital punishment.
Now for ridiculous, how about your post #95 asking why Spanish is the main language in Mexico and thinking it has anything to do with this thread. I’d REALLY like to hear what the point of that was?
[quote=monty]
Actually, it’s merely your (ill-informed & unfounded) opinion that the United States of America is an inherently racist country. Time after time, you’ve been asked to provide proof of your assertion and all you’ve done is, essentially, repeat your charge.
[quote]
Ill-informed and unfounded? Is that why Google returns MILLIONS of hits regarding racism in the US? I can list literally thousands of sites about inherent racism in the US. Are you prepared to prove they are all ill-informed and unfounded?