Racial Tension in the U.S.

[David.]

Yo

Either.



I've said more times than I can count that 1) there are some disadvantageous to being black, and 2) there are a whole lot of other cards each of us are dealt in life that can be advantages/disadvantages as well that may be far greater than skin color.

Nor am I "switching" to anything. I've been asking you that exact same question repeatedly, because I think inherent in the usage of that term are some things that a lot of folks would oppose. So why not (finally) answer it? What kind of compensation (if any), systemic or personal, do you think is appropriate?



That's how I interpreted the following statement in the context of your answer to another poster:



But since perhaps my interpretation was wrong, why not clarify what you meant? Do you support some form of affirmative action to compensate for "white privilege"? And if so, what exactly are you proposing?



This is manifestly untrue. It is obvious that race still plays some role in our society. More for some than for others. And I've been consistent about my "solution" to those issues. Our laws have been changed to make government-sanctioned discrimination illegal. Violations, when found, should be corrected.

Beyond that, each of us should start by treating/judging others not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Treat them as equal individuals regardless of their skin color. And if we see an individual being treated adversely because of their skin color, speak out/act against it. I follow that every single day in my own life.

I don't think continuing to promote thinking of people as members of a group rather than as individuals is ever going to solve our racial problems. They're not solved yet, and there is no magic bullet, but I absolutely believe it must start with looking at people as individuals.

You mean fighting racism by making everything about race and focusing exclusively on race and making everyone hypersensitive to how different we are from each other is crazy?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Yo

You mean fighting racism by making everything about race and focusing exclusively on race and making everyone hypersensitive to how different we are from each other is crazy?

To me, the problems with expressly racial solutions to problems is that 1) problems are rarely exclusive to one race, though they may well be more prevalent among one race than others, and 2) people of the same race may have vastly different life circumstances that make race-based remedies unjust/unfair.

Got a problem with the disparity in sentencing between cocaine and crack? Fine -- make the sentences the same. I support that. But that isn't a race-based remedy. Cops mistreating black people disproportionately? Fine -- train all your cops better on how they should treat everyone, including black people.

I've done that type of training for workforces, and the bottom line isn't "this is how you should treat women and minorities". It's really "this is how everyone should be treated."

 

[gourimoko]

I've done that type of training for workforces, and the bottom line isn't "this is how you should treat women and minorities". It's really "this is how everyone should be treated."

The problem with that kind of color-blind thinking is that there are many people who will gladly listen to "this is how everyone should be treated;" until they run across a group of people they don't consider to be "everyone." This is why race and gender and sexual orientation has to be brought up, because unfortunately in the eyes of many, we're not all equal parts of this "everyone" concept.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The problem with that kind of color-blind thinking is that there are many people who will gladly listen to "this is how everyone should be treated;" until they run across a group of people they don't consider to be "everyone."

I'm not sure what you mean by "color-blind" thinking. Advocating a "color blind" approach does not mean that you are blind to the existence of racism. It obviously exists. The way to get rid of racism is to treat people without regard to their color. Color-blind treatment is not a racism-blind worldview. Heck, one of the first things you do in that kind of training is acknowledge that racism, sexism, etc., exists, and that our goal is to eliminate it.

Training always includes running down the company's EEOC statement, includes race/gender specific slurs, includes how even the lack of such slurs but treating people of a different race/gender differently is still illegal, etc., etc. It would be impossible to come out of there and not know that discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc., is morally wrong, illegal, and bad for business. "Everyone" is "everyone".

Of course legally (and morally as well), all those prohibitions apply equally to so-called reverse discrimination as well. You cannot treat someone worse because they are white, or male (and yes, it absolutely does happen), or show preference to someone because they are a minority or female.. So the bottom line is that while you run down slurs/mistreatment, etc. on the basis of race, gender, or religion, etc.., it all still amounts to teaching that everyone must be treated fairly. As a literal matter, it is impossible to do such training correctly and not have it end at that point.

Of course it is possible for someone to come out of such training, still be a bigot, and do it anyway. Some people don't want to let go of their prejudices. But that's not because they don't know what is right and wrong under the company policy. It's that they're nasty bastards who choose to do the wrong thing despite knowing better.

There is no magic bullet remedy for people like that, other than to hope that others report them if they engage in that conduct (that's actually probably the most important thing to get across in a class), and get rid of them then. Certainly, telling them to "check their privilege" isn't going to accomplish a damn thing. Although one of the very first ones I ever did, back in the mid-90's at a car dealership, had one guy who basically refused during the training to clean up his language regarding women, said that it's a free country and he could say what he wanted about women in general, keep his porn up in the garage, etc..

So we took a break, I went and explained it all to the Service Manager, who then listened in while I get the guy to repeat exactly what he had just said. Service Manager fired him on the spot. Made for an effective class when the guy was told to get the hell out.

 

[David.]

To me, the problems with expressly racial solutions to problems is that 1) problems are rarely exclusive to one race, though they may well be more prevalent among one race than others, and 2) people of the same race may have vastly different life circumstances that make race-based remedies unjust/unfair.

Got a problem with the disparity in sentencing between cocaine and crack? Fine -- make the sentences the same. I support that. But that isn't a race-based remedy. Cops mistreating black people disproportionately? Fine -- train all your cops better on how they should treat everyone, including black people.

I've done that type of training for workforces, and the bottom line isn't "this is how you should treat women and minorities". It's really "this is how everyone should be treated."

One thing ill give credence to is bias, situationallly.

Ive heard varying stances on this but one school of thought is that ingroups inherently bias members of ingroup. A potential remedy is biad training. Ive heard largely and via academic research that these programs dont do much, and if anything, actually hurt the cause it intends to help.

Police? I think after a certain point, cops seen too much. It just has to impact you at a level that cant be conducive. The flip side is that itd be nonsensical to posit that a waspy 80 year old woman should be to whom police give special attention. No, it isnt fair, but theres reasons why we do this that are beneficial and there's biases we develop because of prior situations. If peoples lives are on the line, being politically correct isnt best policy, contrary to popular belief.

In sales, i could tell within the time it took for them to respond back to my greeting if they were buyers. That ended up being a profitable and efficient skill.

The taboo side of the freedom of enterprise is that well, your biases are your biases. What, youte requiring state mandated brainwashing? What if someone is perfectly fine with their biases and likes them? You hire a big fat guy as your sales guy because they can handle the booze while meeting clients. I understand that its not fair to people that get excluded. Im not saying Thats untenable, its the most tenable position.

But youre setting a precedent. I know thats radical way to look at things, but you've got a political party called "progressive" and the only way they can ascertain power is by achieving progress, or at least give the illusion of it.

The only thing about the crack/coke thing - crack in fact is incredibly more addictive and harmful than coke, so there is cause for harsher punishment. But thats a much larger issue that i dont think is addressed the right way anyways. You dont cure addiction with a prison cell. Or maybe uou do, i havent looked at data. Who knows.

 

[gourimoko]

I'm not sure what you mean by "color-blind" thinking. Advocating a "color blind" approach does not mean that you are blind to the existence of racism. It obviously exists.

I'm not arguing that one entails the other.

The way to get rid of racism is to treat people without regard to their color.

The only problem with this, again, is if you need to see their color in order to make decisions about how they're being treated. I understand that you're arguing that you need to be aware of racism while treating people the same based on their color, which is fine; but the problem is that this often gets turned into an understanding that the world in general doesn't treat people different - again, as you put it, blind to the existence of racism.

Color-blind treatment is not a racism-blind worldview.

Right, but again, as mentioned before, there are instances where one views the world through a colorblind lens and this causes them to miss instances of racism. I'm not saying that's you; you've made your position clear - I'm speaking about others.

Of course it is possible for someone to come out of such training, still be a bigot, and do it anyway. Some people don't want to let go of their prejudices. But that's not because they don't know what is right and wrong under the company policy. It's that they're nasty bastards who choose to do the wrong thing despite knowing better.

Maybe they don't know better? Maybe their bias is deeply rooted and implicit? I think that's the bias that color-aware advocates are trying to root out and address head-on. Not the kind of folks you're talking about.

There is no magic bullet remedy for people like that, other than to hope that others report them if they engage in that conduct (that's actually probably the most important thing to get across in a class), and get rid of them then. Certainly, telling them to "check their privilege" isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.

Yea, I'm with you on the "check your privilege" thing.. it's a stupid phrase that should never be used.

Which reminds me I need to respond to your previous post about "White privilege" since there still seems to exist a misunderstanding there.

Although one of the very first ones I ever did, back in the mid-90's at a car dealership, had one guy who basically refused during the training to clean up his language regarding women, said that it's a free country and he could say what he wanted about women in general, keep his porn up in the garage, etc..

So we took a break, I went and explained it all to the Service Manager, who then listened in while I get the guy to repeat exactly what he had just said. Service Manager fired him on the spot. Made for an effective class when the guy was told to get the hell out.

Very PC of you... But seriously that's fantastic you did that in the workplace. Every woman there probably breathed a sigh of relief.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The only problem with this, again, is if you need to see their color in order to make decisions about how they're being treated. I understand that you're arguing that you need to be aware of racism while treating people the same based on their color, which is fine; but the problem is that this often gets turned into an understanding that the world in general doesn't treat people different - again, as you put it, blind to the existence of racism.

Okay, I agree with you that there are people who are more or less blind to the existence of racism, and who therefore think that being "color-blind" is the way to go. No argument there. However, advocating that we treat people in a color blind manner does not cause a lack of awareness of racism, nor is it necessarily a consequence of a lack of awareness of racism.

In other words, those people may be advocating the right solution, but for the wrong reason.

Right, but again, as mentioned before, there are instances where one views the world through a colorblind lens and this causes them to miss instances of racism. I'm not saying that's you; you've made your position clear - I'm speaking about others.

We actually agree on this. But...I think there also is a flip side that also should be considered.

If you have people who always see things through a racial lens, and are convinced of widespread, built-in racism, then they are more likely to see racism where it isn't, which can breed anger and resentment towards people who have in fact done nothing wrong. And I think that attitude can make it very difficult to address true racism as well.

Very PC of you... But seriously that's fantastic you did that in the workplace. Every woman there probably breathed a sigh of relief.

Heck, I was pretty young, and kind of nervous as hell when it happened. I was glad when the break came, and I mentioned what happened to the owner and Service Manager -- what the hell else could I do? So they asked me what should be done, and we agreed that if he recanted, that would be fine, but if not, he was gone.

If you actually look at the situation with which we were presented -- a guy flat-out and publicly refusing to obey his own company's policy -- we didn't have any choice. I even remember telling the guy "do you understand that this is your dealership's policy, and that the owner, Mr _________, hired me to come in here and tell all you folks that this must be followed?" I was kind of incredulous that he persisted even after that.

Guy was clearly a douche. Not a surprise, really, since they'd told me that the reason they wanted training was because of certain guys in the service department.....

 

[Tornicade]

The public attorney system is failing. at least 3 states and multiple counties have lawsuits filed against those programs such as Missouri and Louisiana.

The Orleans Public Defenders are facing a million-dollar deficit as a result of statewide budget cuts. For a small office like ours, that’s devastating. To avoid layoffs, the entire staff will see the equivalent of four unpaid weeks per year in furloughs, increased caseloads and a hiring freeze — and the submission to the Louisiana Public Defender Board of a plan to cut services to the people of New Orleans. We are already stretched thin: Our office represents 85 percent of the people charged with crimes in Orleans Parish but has an annual budget about a third the size of the district attorney’s. The American Bar Association recommends that public defenders not work on more than 150 felony cases a year. In 2014, I handled double that.

The United States accounts for less than 5 percent of the world’s population but almost 25 percent of the global prison population. The vast majority of people in prison are indigent: The Justice Department has estimated that 60 to 90 percent of criminal defendants nationwide cannot afford their own attorneys and that in 2007, U.S. public defender offices received more than 5.5 million cases.

I posted similar stats for New York and also showed a study showing the discrepancies between time allotted for the DA compared to time allotted for the the public defendants. Humongous discrepancies.


someone tell me how this isn't institutionalized Classism and yet nothing is done because it is considered a black problem.

There is no due process here and it creates institutionalized racism since the legal systems most severely impacted are populations Black majority populations with a significant portion of low income families and the issues aren't just limited to these areas. this is just where it currently is the most pronounced.


Not only are these systems discriminatory. they reek of a level of inequality ends up heavily impacting sentencing and jail time.

This has a major impact on .. well everything. Police feel empowered to stomp on its citizens rights because they know a Public defender is unlikely to get them off. As we saw there was over 60 complaints lodged against those 2 officers in Gerogia leading to the dismissal of 60 odd cases.. cases that would of never been dismissed or investigated had not someone made public a video of the exact type of behavior Citizens were dealing with.


It also impacts bail. how long people spend in jail before going to trial.

Is an officer going to target the ones who cant defend themselves or the ones who can? They are goin after the guys they think they can get to stick regardless of due process.

Also for Federal cases. Districts a e set up and the and each has a head public defender. these defenders choose how resources are allocated causing a great degree of variance amongst districts.




This @ david is systematic Classism which also festers racism and sets up a system to target those who become a number in the system. This system is also perpetuated by the wealthy whose willingness to pay high legal fees creates a scale that many cannot afford especially with the erosion of the middle class.


This also created a system where attorneys would prefer to chase after lawsuits with no fee ulness they win rather than being able to offer affordable legal service to those who need it most.

Even The judges of these courts are frustrated with the imbalance in the system .


couple this with laws and regulations that allow the courts and police officer to treat drug possession on a more severe level than theft and violent crimes and you have the recipe for oppression. turning our prisons into the largest welfare program in the world.

From the 6th amendment.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.[5]

Supreme court ruling 1932.

Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.[10]


in 1942. the Supreme court ruled that states only had to provide counsel for capital crimes and any other case it was their discretion.

1963. the Supreme court ruled Justice Black reiterated the 1932 Alabama case ruling.

Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.[15]


then in 1984 the supreme court ruled

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)[edit]
The Supreme Court case Strickland v. Washington changed the way people interpret the Sixth Amendment by stating that the legal counsel provided to defendants should be reasonably effective.[17] Strickland was placed on trial for murder charges in the state of Florida and was sentenced to death.[18] Strickland appealed to the Supreme Court justice on the grounds that his counsel did not fulfill his duty on grounds such as not seeking a psychiatric exam despite the fact Strickland plead emotional issues.[18] The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that effective legal counsel is a right but in order to prove the counsel is ineffective, the defendant needs to prove (1) their lawyer's performance was below a certain standard and (2) there is a chance that if it was not for the ineffectiveness, a different result could have occurred.[18]

 

[David.]

The public attorney system is failing. at least 3 states and multiple counties have lawsuits filed against those programs such as Missouri and Louisiana.

The Orleans Public Defenders are facing a million-dollar deficit as a result of statewide budget cuts. For a small office like ours, that’s devastating. To avoid layoffs, the entire staff will see the equivalent of four unpaid weeks per year in furloughs, increased caseloads and a hiring freeze — and the submission to the Louisiana Public Defender Board of a plan to cut services to the people of New Orleans. We are already stretched thin: Our office represents 85 percent of the people charged with crimes in Orleans Parish but has an annual budget about a third the size of the district attorney’s. The American Bar Association recommends that public defenders not work on more than 150 felony cases a year. In 2014, I handled double that.

The United States accounts for less than 5 percent of the world’s population but almost 25 percent of the global prison population. The vast majority of people in prison are indigent: The Justice Department has estimated that 60 to 90 percent of criminal defendants nationwide cannot afford their own attorneys and that in 2007, U.S. public defender offices received more than 5.5 million cases.

I posted similar stats for New York and also showed a study showing the discrepancies between time allotted for the DA compared to time allotted for the the public defendants. Humongous discrepancies.


someone tell me how this isn't institutionalized Classism and yet nothing is done because it is considered a black problem.

There is no due process here and it creates institutionalized racism since the legal systems most severely impacted are populations Black majority populations with a significant portion of low income families and the issues aren't just limited to these areas. this is just where it currently is the most pronounced.


Not only are these systems discriminatory. they reek of a level of inequality ends up heavily impacting sentencing and jail time.

This has a major impact on .. well everything. Police feel empowered to stomp on its citizens rights because they know a Public defender is unlikely to get them off. As we saw there was over 60 complaints lodged against those 2 officers in Gerogia leading to the dismissal of 60 odd cases.. cases that would of never been dismissed or investigated had not someone made public a video of the exact type of behavior Citizens were dealing with.


It also impacts bail. how long people spend in jail before going to trial.

Is an officer going to target the ones who cant defend themselves or the ones who can? They are goin after the guys they think they can get to stick regardless of due process.

Also for Federal cases. Districts a e set up and the and each has a head public defender. these defenders choose how resources are allocated causing a great degree of variance amongst districts.




This @ david is systematic Classism which also festers racism and sets up a system to target those who become a number in the system. This system is also perpetuated by the wealthy whose willingness to pay high legal fees creates a scale that many cannot afford especially with the erosion of the middle class.


This also created a system where attorneys would prefer to chase after lawsuits with no fee ulness they win rather than being able to offer affordable legal service to those who need it most.

Even The judges of these courts are frustrated with the imbalance in the system .


couple this with laws and regulations that allow the courts and police officer to treat drug possession on a more severe level than theft and violent crimes and you have the recipe for oppression. turning our prisons into the largest welfare program in the world.

From the 6th amendment.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.[5]

Supreme court ruling 1932.

Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.[10]


in 1942. the Supreme court ruled that states only had to provide counsel for capital crimes and any other case it was their discretion.

1963. the Supreme court ruled Justice Black reiterated the 1932 Alabama case ruling.

Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.[15]


then in 1984 the supreme court ruled

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)[edit]
The Supreme Court case Strickland v. Washington changed the way people interpret the Sixth Amendment by stating that the legal counsel provided to defendants should be reasonably effective.[17] Strickland was placed on trial for murder charges in the state of Florida and was sentenced to death.[18] Strickland appealed to the Supreme Court justice on the grounds that his counsel did not fulfill his duty on grounds such as not seeking a psychiatric exam despite the fact Strickland plead emotional issues.[18] The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that effective legal counsel is a right but in order to prove the counsel is ineffective, the defendant needs to prove (1) their lawyer's performance was below a certain standard and (2) there is a chance that if it was not for the ineffectiveness, a different result could have occurred.[18]

I understand what you are saying. Maybe this is semantics. But i think "its expensive to be poor" is more accurate.

And it is. It can be hard to get out of poverty. If you dont have a car, add 3 hours to your day. Etc. Prices are higher to cover costs of theft.

But institutionalized xyz is going to turn a lot of people off. Especially in this instance.

1. Dont break the law.
2. Products and services cost money.

Consequences hit everybody. Entrepreneurs are in the business of getting sued. Classism is just another angle to use to divide without providing a better answer as a consequence of this angle.

 

[Tornicade]

I understand what you are saying. Maybe this is semantics. But i think "its expensive to be poor" is more accurate.

And it is. It can be hard to get out of poverty. If you dont have a car, add 3 hours to your day. Etc. Prices are higher to cover costs of theft.

But institutionalized xyz is going to turn a lot of people off. Especially in this instance.

1. Dont break the law.
2. Products and services cost money.

Consequences hit everybody. Entrepreneurs are in the business of getting sued. Classism is just another angle to use to divide without providing a better answer as a consequence of this angle.

uh no its called provide the constitutional right at an equal measure.

Don't break the law... lol

who pays for your attorney David?


the point is everyone is innocent until proven guilty and everyone has a right to legal counsel to aid in the defense.

Funding is not equal. The scales of justice are off.

That is what creates the divide.

so if the goal here is to ensure people are treated equally by the government is to improve legal counsel for the indigent.

because until a judge and a jury issue a guilty verdict its just some guy saying someone broke the law.

They still have to prove it.



Now I have supported ,demonstrating with easily verifiable statistics, an imbalance in the justice system. at an institutional level.

It is a problem that can and should be addressed.

maximum standards for how many cases public attorney handle a year by case type and when those numbers are reached either bringing in more public attorneys or contracting out as some cities havel already begun doing

Also balancing funding and mandating funding ratios between the DA office and public attorney office.

The courts are designed to be adversarial which is what differentiates America as a free state from a police state.


these are not people who have broken the law. these are people accused of breaking the law.

The Us districts also need to be examined and variances between US public defenders officers across the country should be adjusted to ensure all districts are meeting the needs of their constituency.


We still have plea bargaining, Jury selection and bail arraignment to cover.

This is all part of Due process.


@gourimoko, and I have discussed classism vs racism at length in these discussions

Most of my points are from a classism viewpoint. however many of these issues create a racial issues. so a lot of these things are intertwined.

A lot of these matter need to be addressed not just because they perpetuate racism but that they promote inequality. and addressing these matters remove barriers that a lot in the black demographics face on a daily basis.

some people take Jail terms as opposed to facing longer sentences against a jury that often has the defendants actual peers removed from consideration as a juror.

What we do have is a system that is supposed to make available Quality legal counsel for indigent defendants according to our constitution supported by multiple supreme court rulings on the matter.
Those parameters aren't being met
and this inequity heavily impacts a specific demographic of the population and perpetuates racism amongst the legal system and law enforcement once human nature is factored in.



.

 

[David.]

uh no its called provide the constitutional right at an equal measure.

Don't break the law... lol

who pays for your attorney David?


the point is everyone is innocent until proven guilty and everyone has a right to legal counsel to aid in the defense.

Funding is not equal. The scales of justice are off.

That is what creates the divide.

so if the goal here is to ensure people are treated equally by the government is to improve legal counsel for the indigent.

because until a judge and a jury issue a guilty verdict its just some guy saying someone broke the law.

They still have to prove it.



Now I have supported ,demonstrating with easily verifiable statistics, an imbalance in the justice system. at an institutional level.

It is a problem that can and should be addressed.

maximum standards for how many cases public attorney handle a year by case type and when those numbers are reached either bringing in more public attorneys or contracting out as some cities havel already begun doing

Also balancing funding and mandating funding ratios between the DA office and public attorney office.

The courts are designed to be adversarial which is what differentiates America as a free state from a police state.


these are not people who have broken the law. these are people accused of breaking the law.

The Us districts also need to be examined and variances between US public defenders officers across the country should be adjusted to ensure all districts are meeting the needs of their constituency.


We still have plea bargaining, Jury selection and bail arraignment to cover.

This is all part of Due process.

I pay for my attorney. With my money. That ive been making since before i went to college. Whats your point? Yes, dont break thr law. I shouldn't have. It doesnt change the fact that you shouldn't break the law.

Is it really this difficult for you to make a single post without starting something? Im trying to have a conversation with you. What part made you feel like bumping up hostility? Couldnt have been a more innocuous conversation. Just low blows out of nowhere man. Guess we wont talk then.

 

[DJTJ]

I pay for my attorney. With my money. That ive been making since before i went to college. Whats your point? Yes, dont break thr law. I shouldn't have. It doesnt change the fact that you shouldn't break the law.

Is it really this difficult for you to make a single post without starting something? Im trying to have a conversation with you. What part made you feel like bumping up hostility? Just low blows out of nowhere man. Guess we wont talk then.

I'm hoping in, just because I don't believe the way Torn is makings is point is going well (no offense bc I understand and agree).

If a poor black male was charged with what you were, and he could not afford as competent of an attorney as you, is it fair that because he's poor that his attorney will likely push for the first guilty he can get because they're a public defender with 100 cases working 90 dollars a week?

Because I agree with you Dave; you pay more, your attorney is better. And it should be. But the issue is that when you get a court appointed lawyer, and that lawyer half asses it, and poverty is the key contributor to someone having a court appointed lawyer, you're likely to have shittier representation if you're a poor black whilist also having the likelihood of harsher sentencing.

The don't do the crime thing is irrelevant because the crime happened. But what happens after the charges are presented shouldn't put any race or socioeconomic leveled individual behind the eight ball.

 

[David.]

I'm hoping in, just because I don't believe the way Torn is makings is point is going well (no offense bc I understand and agree).

If a poor black male was charged with what you were, and he could not afford as competent of an attorney as you, is it fair that because he's poor that his attorney will likely push for the first guilty he can get because they're a public defender with 100 cases working 90 dollars a week?

Because I agree with you Dave; you pay more, your attorney is better. And it should be. But the issue is that when you get a court appointed lawyer, and that lawyer half asses it, and poverty is the key contributor to someone having a court appointed lawyer, you're likely to have shittier representation if you're a poor black whilist also having the likelihood of harsher sentencing.

The don't do the crime thing is irrelevant because the crime happened. But what happens after the charges are presented shouldn't put any race or socioeconomic leveled individual behind the eight ball.

Thanks for jumping in because its actually a really interesting conversation.

Ill start with my anecdotal experience and posit some variables that could change how you may view things.

I said zero words while detained last year. Zero. And i was so panic ridden because of what i was sure were life ending consequences that they thought inwas high. They tested my blood and i was clean so their case looked like shit. Ahd they cared more about the drugs than the dry erase board and office supplies i walked out with. Big difference from my first one. Open and shut case. I actually spent more on my first one and got 5 years probation and lost my right to privacy and was ordered to pay a 1500$ fine.

Things changed. I had a volatile relationship with my first attorney. A new diversion program was started a year ago that i enrolled in instead of community service. It didnt exist my first case. So that stuff isnt black and white, theres just too much unknown. The sentencing of judges right before lunch vs right after would BLOW YOUR MIND. An empty stomach is linked to disgust i believe, so judges inherently judge more harshly when hungry

As far as public defenders go, i was pulled over on school property and because i was on 5th waiver, i lost all rights to privacy and they take that as an opportunity to search your car. Every time. Every time. They found my gf at the times meds in my Car and charged me with possession.

I was appointed an attorney that had no business driving an ice cream truck. I had to guide her through the system and what to say. I was ordered 10 aa meetings. I did them. Went to court. Appointed different representation. This guy was the best out of the 4 ive worked with. He pointed out that the prosecution only tested one pill, so they only had me for 1 pill technically. Then he got them to drop the case immediately. Didnt have to appear.

So this all is hit and miss and really requires more data is my point. One thing doesnt mean another. And im a white guy and fell into a rough spot. If i was black im sure that would have looked like a different set of data. I dont know how id feel about my representation, but i tend to think with the environment that people are incubating.. I wouldnt be surprised i believed i was profiled by cops, got hit by the institution and they made it easier to keep me in the system, my representation appointed was intentinally shit, and my first lawyer fucked me over bc he was a rich white man. Racism/classism.

So perception changes things and data looks different when looked through a different lense. And way too many variables in those handfuls of situations would go unaccounted for.

I will absolutely concede that i didnt earn my iq and my profitable skills. THAT is privilege. And im lucky for that and its just not even close to realistic that a vast vast number of people in america are going to have options and will be able to earn enough so being poor isnt so expensive. So i dont rightly know how to solve that. You can control the decisions you make. So start there. Raise your kids right. Work hard. At least give everyone a chance.

Now to the dont commit the crime thing.. Its absolutely valid. You wouldbt have any of these problems if you didnt break the law. I cant blame that on anyone but myself. To assume people dont have agency does absolutely nothing for them, and absolutely nothing for anyone involved in the situations. Do i have a petulant temperment and brain chemistry issues and a bad childhood? Ok, but that doesnt make me do anything. I do. Everyone has agency. You can lead a horse to water works both ways. If you break the law, that is on absolutely no one but yourself and it is.. Suicide to think otherwise. And murder. Weve seen it.

These muddy conclusions based on incomplete data would in fact be irrelevant if the crime had not been committed. So we need to stop blaming other people. It starts with ourselves. Were focusing so.much on who to blame and how victimized we are. If we feel were victims, whether it be on our own or because literally half the rest of the country tells us we are, its gonna take 2 seconds before we start looking for the perpetrator. And that's a hell you dont want.

 

[Tornicade]

I pay for my attorney. With my money. That ive been making since before i went to college. Whats your point? Yes, dont break thr law. I shouldn't have. It doesnt change the fact that you shouldn't break the law.

Is it really this difficult for you to make a single post without starting something? Im trying to have a conversation with you. What part made you feel like bumping up hostility? Couldnt have been a more innocuous conversation. Just low blows out of nowhere man. Guess we wont talk then.

I was being unreasonable responding to the unreasonable of your assertation that the only way to fix the legal system is for people not to break the law. I had Sr22 insurance for awhile. and there was a glitch with my insurance showing it was cancelled.

The local police pulled me over o a random tag check 2 blocks from my home. The officer was willing to allow me to call someone to come get the car but the desk sergeant insisted it be impounded. (presumably so they could search it)

I then got a statement from my Insurance company and had dealing with the DMV to show I actually had insurance at the time .

They wouldn't release the car.

I took the case to county. The insurance paid me the money to get my car out of impoundment. the judge had me take the papers to the police station and still they refused to release the car from impoundment and still continued to charge me for the impoundment.


At this point I went to the judge who at this point was incensed. she ordered my car released and the impoundment fee waived.


so even though I actually had insurance. even though I had the money to get the car out and the court and the DMV confirming my valid license.

In order to get my car back and court fees charged to the municipality that took my car.


I had to plead guilty to jaywalking or the deal was off the table.


so maybe I find "don't break the law" as callous and thoughtless nor constructive at all which surprised me based on the legal experiences you've shared with us in the past


The point is you seem to be assuming all people who are charged and goto courty are guilty when that's the opposite of how the criminal system should work.. All people should be assumed innocent until proven guilty and the easiest way to prove some one guilty is to tilt the odds against them

 

[David.]

I was being unreasonable responding to the unreasonable of your assertation that the only way to fix the legal system is for people not to break the law. I had Sr22 insurance for awhile. and there was a glitch with my insurance showing it was cancelled.

The local police pulled me over o a random tag check 2 blocks from my home. The officer was willing to allow me to call someone to come get the car but the desk sergeant insisted it be impounded. (presumably so they could search it)

I then got a statement from my Insurance company and had dealing with the DMV to show I actually had insurance at the time .

They wouldn't release the car.

I took the case to county. The insurance paid me the money to get my car out of impoundment. the judge had me take the papers to the police station and still they refused to release the car from impoundment and still continued to charge me for the impoundment.


At this point I went to the judge who at this point was incensed. she ordered my car released and the impoundment fee waived.


so even though I actually had insurance. even though I had the money to get the car out and the court and the DMV confirming my valid license.

In order to get my car back and court fees charged to the municipality that took my car.


I had to plead guilty to jaywalking or the deal was off the table.


so maybe I find "don't break the law" as callous and thoughtless nor constructive at all which surprised me based on the legal experiences you've shared with us in the past


The point is you seem to be assuming all people who are charged and goto courty are guilty when that's the opposite of how the criminal system should work.. All people should be assumed innocent until proven guilty and the easiest way to prove some one guilty is to tilt the odds against them

The system is the system. And with power corruption will follow. We can only do so much about that. We need the police. As awfully as they've handled many situations with me and with others, theyd be a lot worse without them. Any entity is going to come with negative repercussions. The easiest thing to control is yourself. And no, it isnt always fair. We're all being oppressed in different ways. Make the world easier where you can, but the easiest place, or at least the place that you are in control of mostly, is with yourself.

This isnt an easy place for anyone. Difficulty and pain is literally inevitable throughout your entire life. Everything good will end, everyone you know will die, and heck, you will too. And maybr youre not pretty enough, or thin enough, or smart enough, or likeable, or you like the wrong sports team, or the guy interviewing you is a racist. Yes, theres progress to be made. Were all going through shit and we dont need to make enemies of everyonr else and everything else. You dont know the struggle theyre going through and you very well could be responsible for making them struggle with your behavior and actions.


If the answers were simple, we'd have them.