Racial Tension in the U.S.

[Tornicade]

Different issue. Paying for prosecutions is not an individual right. It is a governmental power implied under Article III and the Necessary and Proper clause. And the entire common law history includes government prosecutors, so it was something that was clearly understood by everyone at the founding of the Constitution. That's not true with respect to government-provided counsel.



I don't disagree with that as a matter of policy. But defense counsel paid for by the government was not part of the common law, nor was it the practice in this country for our first 175 years of existence. So I'm not questioning whether or not it is a good idea. I was just pointing out that it was not considered a Constitutional right by the Framers, and was only made such comparatively recently. But that's really more an academic point than anything else -- I think it is a good idea, personally.



Then I have absolutely no idea what you meant when you said this:



Can you explain the context in which you meant that?

Implied?
What does the due process imply?

In the late 1700's the legal system was a lot different than it is today. It was less complex and there were far less regulations to navigate and it was a a system transitioning from the English court system where victims were responsible for persecuting alleged crimes against themselves.

Also the public defender didn't just come out of nowhere in the thirties and the sixties. there was a movement and multiple states adapting those principles long before the supreme court decided what the due process clause implied.

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Hamilton on using the clause to Establish the first Government bank
"No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included."


its also ignoring that when that constitution was "framed" it was fare more about states governing their people than the us government. so while they may state in the 6th amendment that people are entitled to due process. they weren't gonna tell the states how to enforce that.

It is clear there are more indigent people than a pro bono or private system would support.

many local governments have been taken to the woodshed for establishing debtor prisons to pay off court fees and other cost associated with the legal system for people who cant afford those fees and cost.


The Constitution has declared that.
Amendment 6
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 defence

Nowhere in that amendment does it state that due process is excluded from the Necessary and proper clause.
The government is just as responsible for protecting those it attempts to prosecute as prosecuting them in the first place.

lets move on to the 14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No state shall make or ENFORCE any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the united states.

Essentially if a defendant ask for an attorney and cannot afford one and the state fails to provide an attorney . the case would have to abridge that persons right to counsel in order to prosecute this person.

These current spending discrepancies create an inequality on a massive scale. States are not providing equal protection for it's US citizens and it is time for these states to implement changes to provide equality or for the US government to step in and mandate it.


Equality within the law fosters equality by law enforcement .Inequality within the law fosters inequality in law enforcement.

The US government and State governments didn't have the infrastructure in the 1800's to support the principle so sadly it got left to the wayside.

Now it does.

 

[Tornicade]

@David.

Give this a read
http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/139.pdf

perhaps its too long and wordy and you wont bother but sometimes proof and evidence takes more than a paragraph.

it has a lot of studies and sources cited.
It shows the discrepancy between prosecution funding and indigent defense funding.
and different methods states and counties have implemented or tried.

That's just one aspect of the current justice system that significantly impacts the poor population that continues to grow every day with the erosion of the middle class.

as far as the cost ....just converting drug possession from a crime with jail time to one with alternative sentencing would significantly reduce the burden of indigent defense.

I'm okay with more fineable offenses too but local governments have been prone to turn fines into a debtors prison taking advantage of those who need it most.

here is an example of issues that can crop up with fines
https://thinkprogress.org/towns-that-jail-people-because-theyre-poor-are-put-on-notice-671e596510a3

lots of articles about this if you don't "trust" the source.

https://www.google.com/search?num=5...j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.-BO0fx6hMsM#spf=1

 

[David.]

@David.

Give this a read
http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/139.pdf

perhaps its too long and wordy and you wont bother but sometimes proof and evidence takes more than a paragraph.

it has a lot of studies and sources cited.
It shows the discrepancy between prosecution funding and indigent defense funding.
and different methods states and counties have implemented or tried.

That's just one aspect of the current justice system that significantly impacts the poor population that continues to grow every day with the erosion of the middle class.

as far as the cost ....just converting drug possession from a crime with jail time to one with alternative sentencing would significantly reduce the burden of indigent defense.

I'm okay with more fineable offenses too but local governments have been prone to turn fines into a debtors prison taking advantage of those who need it most.

here is an example of issues that can crop up with fines
https://thinkprogress.org/towns-that-jail-people-because-theyre-poor-are-put-on-notice-671e596510a3

lots of articles about this if you don't "trust" the source.

https://www.google.com/search?num=50&newwindow=1&q=small town found to be operating debtor prison&oq=small town found to be operating debtor prison&gs_l=serp.3...46007.54811.0.55048.46.44.0.2.2.0.176.4466.21j22.43.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..1.34.3527...0j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i131i67k1j0i20k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.-BO0fx6hMsM#spf=1

I mean its 238 pages.

I understand your point, ive been making a concerted effort to communicate that I do. I just dont believe its a conspiracy to get poor people or to get black people. To en extent. Its profitable to arrest, but yhays another story.

Ive noted that its costly to be poor. But this isnt a systemic conspiracy to get poor people or get black people. If you commit a crime, you need to get representation. The better representation you have, thr better the chance theyll leave you the fuck alone on a 40$ petty theft.

Youre looking at it starting from the end and getting to the start. Im well aware that prosecutors records look better with convictions and ehat that means and how they get there. Ive been through it. My issue is how dubious you claim it to be. Life is better if you have money. It wont buy you happiness, but youre less likely to sell drugs and youll be able to better represent yourself if trouble should occur. Thats not a conspiracy.

As far as stopping crime at the core of it, goodluck. Theres an army of professionals looking at mountains of data and they can't figure it out. I want to believe there's a better way than sentencing. A diversion program 2ith good intentions(im in one that doesnt have them) may help. It may not. It certainly puts the rest of america at risk when they arent detained.

Im not fighting that there arent better ways to address situations but when we start yelling conspiracy get the blacks, you lose me. This effects everyone. I have money and i got arrested and im white and i got put in jail and 5 years probation for a sweatshirt. And i paid $3000 to get that outcome. And i lost my right to privacy. And i was right to, they caught me on something else as a result. And ivr been in many interactions with the police, they really, really avoid detention unless they are sure its the right call. Ill give you police using tickets to raise revenue all day long, but they arent in the business of hamstringing peoples livelihoods for the rest of their lives without cause.

There isnt a conspiracy to put poor people in 83 volvos, thats just a result of how much money someone has and the asset they desire and quality they are able to afford.

The solution some peope seem to be advocating is to not arrest peoplr for crime, and some want to not arrest black people for crime, if you put their rhetoric to practice. They dont think theyre saying that, but thats the only logical solution to their complaints.

 

[Tornicade]

I mean its 238 pages.

I understand your point, im trying to make a concerted effort to establish that I do. I just dont believe its a conspiracy to get poor people or to get black people. To en extent. Its profitable to arrest, but yhays another story.

Ive noted that its costly to be poor. But this isnt a systemic conspiracy to get poor people or get black people. If you commit a crime, you need to get representation. The better representation you have, thr better the chance theyll leave you the fuck alone on a 40$ petty theft.

Youre looking at it starting from the end and getting to the start. Im well aware that prosecutors records look better with convictions and ehat that means and how they get there. Ive been through it. My issue is how dubious you claim it to be. Life is better if you have money. It wont buy you happiness, but youre less likely to sell drugs and youll be able to better represent yourself if trouble should occur. Thats not a conspiracy.

As far as stopping crime at the core of it, goodluck. Theres an army of professionals looking at mountains of data and they can't figure it out. I want to believe there's a better way than sentencing. A diversion program 2ith good intentions(im in one that doesnt have them) may help. It may not. It certainly puts the rest of america at risk when they arent detained.

Im not fighting that there arent better ways to address situations but when we start yelling conspiracy get the blacks, you lose me. This effects everyone. I have money and i got arrested and im white and i got put in jail and 5 years probation.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. it doesn't have to be intention. it doesn't have to have malice.

What it does have is results and those results are systematic.

The current justice system perpetuates classism and fosters institutionalized racism.

That's not blame that justification to change it.

It doesn't matter that someone with money gets better legal representation than those without money.

It is a matter of scale.

What matters is millions of people aren't being protected by the constitution

 

[David.]

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. it doesn't have to be intention. it doesn't have to have malice.

What it does have is results and those results are systematic.

The current justice system perpetuates classism and fosters institutionalized racism.

That's not blame that justification to change it.

It doesn't matter that someone with money gets better legal representation than those without money.

It is a matter of scale.

What matters is millions of people aren't being protected by the constitution

Laws are only valid if they effect every demographic equally? Men commit 91% of crime. Are the laws sexist and how do you propose we resolve this?

Drunk driving is an offense mostly with white perpetrators.

Is this systemic racism and what is your solution?

This is exponential marxism. Weve moved from a planned economy all the way to a planned prison system. I know this is difficult to imagine with an alternate worldview, but equal outcome is a concept that is only logical if you force it to be. Its not natural. Equity is a pathology.

 

[Tornicade]

Laws are only valid if they effect every demographic equally? Men commit 91% of crime. Are the laws sexist and how do you propose we resolve this?

Drunk driving is an offense mostly with white perpetrators.

Is this systemic racism and what is your solution?

This is exponential marxism. Weve moved from a planned economy all the way to a planned prison system. I know this is difficult to imagine with an alternate worldview, but equal outcome is a concept that is only logical if you force it to be. Its not natural. Equity is a pathology.

before i respond are we still talking about the constitutional right to Legal council ? or are you wanting to move onto a different topic.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. it doesn't have to be intention. it doesn't have to have malice. What it does have is results and those results are systematic. The current justice system perpetuates classism and fosters institutionalized racism.

I'm not sure how you'd define "classism", but there are some truisms we really can't escape:

Good-looking people tend to do better in life than ugly people, and good looking people are more likely to marry each other. Smart people tend to do better in life than dumb people, and smart people are more likely to marry each other.

And, poor people (especially if they're dumb) are more likely to commit crimes than rich people. One thing criminology studies shows is that criminals, in the aggregate, have below-average I.Q.'s.

Essentially, life fosters inequality because people do not have identical characteristics and abilities, and we're going to tend to have a disproportionate number of dumb, ugly people in prison even if the administration of the system was 100% bias free because those people are statistically more likely to commit crimes in the first place. So if you're going to say that the justice systems fosters "classism"...well, that's why I think you need to better explain what you mean by that.

Also, while I support criminal defendants getting government-provided attorneys, and I support funding the system enough so that those attorneys are not overloaded (which is the case in some places), the truth is that attorneys vary widely in quality, and the better ones are going to charge more. So, rich people are going to tend to get better attorneys.

I don't really see a way to fix that without violating someone's rights.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

In the late 1700's the legal system was a lot different than it is today. It was less complex and there were far less regulations to navigate and it was a a system transitioning from the English court system where victims were responsible for persecuting alleged crimes against themselves.

Also the public defender didn't just come out of nowhere in the thirties and the sixties. there was a movement and multiple states adapting those principles long before the supreme court decided what the due process clause implied.

You're making policy arguments with which I agree. But I disagree with changing the interpretation of the Constitution based on "changing times". That should be addressed by legislation, or by Amendment.

I am not stating that there isn't a Constitutional right unless that exact same right existed in 1987. For example, wiretaps didn't exist back then, so we're not changing an interpretation by addressing them now. But counsel for criminal defendants did exist back then, and nobody agreed that the government must supply one if you can't afford it. So we're actually reversing the meaning as it was clearly understood at the time of ratification.

Whether or not that is a "good" idea or not is irrelevant to the Constitutional issue -- or at least, it should be. Because if it isn't, that means we not only have to support the right of courts to invent new rights that we like, but also to invent new rights that we don't.

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Hamilton on using the clause to Establish the first Government bank
"No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included."

This has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional right to counsel. It is a statement of authority/discretion granted to Congress, and I've never said that Congress cannot mandate criminal representation if it chose to do so. A right to counsel created by Congress under Article I's Necessary and Proper Clause is not the same thing as a constitutionally-mandated right to counsel created under Article III by the courts.

What does the due process imply?

If you're going to base the right to government-provided counsel on the due process clause, which protects people from being deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law", then you'd have to provide attorneys for civil defendants as well, because civil courts and executive branch enforcement of those decisions deprive people of "property" all the time.

In any case, as far as I'm concerned, this is all there is to be said on this topic because I agree that we should provide attorneys for criminal defendants who cannot afford them. I just don't think it should have been considered a Constitutional mandate outside of an Amendment, which I would have supported.

 

[Wrathe]

and we're going to tend to have a disproportionate number of dumb, ugly people in prison

Now wait, how did ugly people get roped into this mess? I didn't sign up for this!?

 

[Wrathe]

I don't really see a way to fix that without violating someone's rights.

"Ladies and Gentleman, I give to you...The Wheel of Representation! Step on up, give it a spin, let's see who you get to represent you today in the Court of Law!"

Ya spin the wheel and it lands on a lawyer, they get to represent the winner!

Just lemme know if you need anything else figured out, I'll check back in soon.

 

[Tornicade]

I'm not sure how you'd define "classicism", but there are some truisms we really can't escape:

Good-looking people tend to do better in life than ugly people, and good looking people are more likely to marry each other. Smart people tend to do better in life than dumb people, and smart people are more likely to marry each other.

And, poor people (especially if they're dumb) are more likely to commit crimes than rich people. One thing criminology studies shows is that criminals, in the aggregate, have below-average I.Q.'s.

Essentially, life fosters inequality because people do not have identical characteristics and abilities, and we're going to tend to have a disproportionate number of dumb, ugly people in prison even if the administration of the system was 100% bias free because those people are statistically more likely to commit crimes in the first place. So if you're going to say that the justice systems fosters "classism"...well, that's why I think you need to better explain what you mean by that.

Also, while I support criminal defendants getting government-provided attorneys, and I support funding the system enough so that those attorneys are not overloaded (which is the case in some places), the truth is that attorneys vary widely in quality, and the better ones are going to charge more. So, rich people are going to tend to get better attorneys.

I don't really see a way to fix that without violating someone's rights.

relative equality.

if court cases were decided in combat . I would expect both combatants to have swords even if one guy has a nicer sword than the other.

If one guy has a sword and the other gets a paper machete.. he might not feel like he got a fair deal.

A fair court system doesn't lower or raise the crime rate. what it does do is provide faith in the court system and ensure peoples rights are being enforced evenly and keep the courts more honest.

I mean when you have 733k people across the country in jail because they cant afford to pay a fine. That's goes beyond a reasonable differential for the difference between having money or not.


There is no quick fix for the stuff happening right now but there are plenty of things that can be done

sure not all things are equal but there is a reasonable expectation of relative equality that is not happening in todays justice system.

Jailing people for not paying court fines without making a determination if they can pay is one of them
Right to legal counsel
Repeater sentences,
Lack of reasonable Max sentences across the line.
etc

as far as your criminals are just dumb theory.

A lot of factors can affect your IQ score over time. Poverty. Nutrition. Stress. How familiar you are with standardized tests. Nisbett's research has shown that children from lower socioeconomic levels adopted into a middle-class family often increase their IQ scores by 15 to 20 points.
"Heritability is not as great as some people (believe)," Nisbett said. "Environmental factors are very potent."
In one study, researchers tested 33 adolescents' intelligence once and then again four years later. In that short amount of time, some of their IQ scores varied by more than 20 points. The changes matched with structural and functional changes in their brains.

Oe would expect criminals to score lower on their iq test.

 

[David.]

before i respond are we still talking about the constitutional right to Legal council ? or are you wanting to move onto a different topic.

I dont think i changed topics. You mentioned laws impacting different socioeconomic groups and races, no?

With what specifically do you take issue? The fact that laws hit different demos differently or poor people? We're covering a lot of ground.

 

[DJTJ]

Drunk driving is an offense mostly with white perpetrators. Is this systemic racism and what is your solution?

Just because I want to...

I'll wager a WAG that the stat exists because African Americans largely live in densely populated urban areas, frequent public transportation/bike/walk, and own less cars.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Baltimore asks FBI for help: 'Murder is out of control'

(CNN)The number of homicides in Baltimore this year is soaring -- reaching 100 before the end of April for the first time in nearly two decades -- and the mayor is asking the FBI for more help.

"Murder is out of control," said Mayor Catherine Pugh, at her weekly news briefing Wednesday. "There are too many guns on the streets. We're looking for all the help we can get."

The mayor met recently with the special agent in charge of the FBI's Baltimore office and asked for additional agents to help local police battle violent crime in the city, according to the mayor's spokesman, Anthony McCarthy. He said that could either mean bringing in more FBI agents from other field offices across the country or reassigning agents already in Baltimore to work with local police investigating violent crime.....

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/26/politics/baltimore-crime-fbi-help/index.html

.

 

[David.]

Just because I want to...

I'll wager a WAG that the stat exists because African Americans largely live in densely populated urban areas, frequent public transportation/bike/walk, and own less cars.

Sure, i wouldn't even argue that. sounds like a logical conclusion.

There are rational explanations for why crimes hit different demographics at different rates. That crime isnt institutional racism against white people, its an end result of lot of other variables.

Any propsed solution for equity doesnt makr sense. Arrest white people less so there is equity in the court system? Arrest black people more? Give black people more cars and move them to the burbs so they commit a more proportionate amount of crime? Take cars away from white people?