Charges Dropped in the Jussie Smollett Case

#251
#251
05_never_again said:
It's race-neutral because it isn't created with the intent of disproportionately impacting a certain demographic. A new hardline law or enforcement emphasis on stock option backdating is going to disproportionately impact a very small set of middle-aged white men. Nobody would say that's a law that creates racial injustice, even though the people who go down for it are likely to overwhelmingly be from a particular demographic.

If marijuana is illegal, people who buy/sell/consume it in a way that is easier to detect are going to get nailed by it disproportionately, no matter their race. The real racial injustice is when you have black people and white people convicted of the same drug crime, under similar circumstances, and black people serve longer jail sentences for it. The different penalties for crack and cocaine that used to exist are some of the best evidence of that. That happens as well.
Click to expand...

Luther, the intent of the law is not what matters. ; )

If a minority is 50% more likely to get busted for a non-violent drug offense, is that a racial injustice?
 
#252
#252
n_huffhines said:
This isn't even a relevant point. Say one group has more criminals than the other, that doesn't mean there aren't racial injustices that need to be corrected. At least make a valid point if you are going to say something vaguely racist.

If a minority is 50% more likely (or whatever the number is) to get busted for a non-violent drug offense, that's a racial injustice. Nobody is calling anybody racist. They're just saying it's an unequal outcome, when you compare outcomes by race.

Which group would be getting in more trouble in a world without the war on poverty and the war on drugs? We're debating the merits of something that has destroyed the black community, so an argument that blacks commit more crimes is just a troll job. This isn't even a whites vs. blacks debate, it's a question of whether or not the war on drugs has been harder on blacks. You lose nothing by admitting this obvious truth, but nope...you're gonna go the other way and hit black folks with an erroneous jab.
Click to expand...
Your thought process would be correct if everyone was equal. We arent. Stop thinking of humans as special snowflakes and realize we are just biological creatures made from primordial soup with many differences even thought our shared dna is almost exact. Think about dogs for example.
 
#253
#253
n_huffhines said:
Luther, the intent of the law is not what matters. ; )

If a minority is 50% more likely to get busted for a non-violent drug offense, is that a racial injustice?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, no.

Rich white guys are way more likely to get busted for corporate frauds. Is that a racial injustice?

We're basically in agreement about this issue and the failed drug war. I just think the racial injustices of it are truly revealed in the sentences for drug crimes, not necessarily the arrest rate. A higher or lower arrest rate for crimes can be driven by a variety of factors.
 
#255
#255
05_never_again said:
Not necessarily, no.

Rich white guys are way more likely to get busted for corporate frauds. Is that a racial injustice?
Click to expand...

Are they? Do you have a link? There are more rich white guys, so there are more total rich white guys busted, but the rate is what matters. I have no idea if white rich criminals get busted at a higher rate. If they do and it's significantly higher, then yes, that would be a racially unjust outcome. Of course it would be. By definition, it would be.
 
#256
#256
82_VOL_83 said:
Can I write you a check?
Click to expand...
Actually...who the f under 60 writes a check anymore?
n_huffhines said:
This isn't even a relevant point. Say one group has more criminals than the other, that doesn't mean there aren't racial injustices that need to be corrected. At least make a valid point if you are going to say something vaguely racist.

If a minority is 50% more likely (or whatever the number is) to get busted for a non-violent drug offense, that's a racial injustice. Nobody is calling anybody racist. They're just saying it's an unequal outcome, when you compare outcomes by race.

Which group would be getting in more trouble in a world without the war on poverty and the war on drugs? We're debating the merits of something that has destroyed the black community, so an argument that blacks commit more crimes is just a troll job. This isn't even a whites vs. blacks debate, it's a question of whether or not the war on drugs has been harder on blacks. You lose nothing by admitting this obvious truth, but nope...you're gonna go the other way and hit black folks with an erroneous jab.
Click to expand...
Also..in a world without a war on drugs your see no difference. Sh!tholes of today would still exist. The same people reaponsible for most crime wouldnt change either. Removing drug crime doesnt fix bad areas. They will just look for another illegal endeavour. You have to understand illegal activities offer quick cash for minimal effort most of the time. Thats why most criminals are poor..and stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#257
#257
n_huffhines said:
Are they? Do you have a link? There are more rich white guys, so there are more total rich white guys busted, but the rate is what matters. I have no idea if white criminals get busted at a higher rate. If they do and it's significantly higher, then yes, that would be a racially unjust outcome. Of course it would be. By definition, it would be.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it is or not, but it basically has to be, right? There just aren't that many minorities or women in executive positions in Corporate America.

If you consider that outcome to be racially unjust, then what should we do to remedy that? Not prosecute corporate fraud? Specifically focus on finding malfeasance done by minority and female executives, to make the demographic of the people busted for it more balanced?
 
#258
#258
MercyPercy said:
I believe you said "whites don't blame their problems on others" or something to that affect. You didn't say some whites. You said whites.

Your supply is well documented here. There are certainly a lot of claims of faux racism and I hate that **** as much as anyone, but have a little self awareness. I know the older you get, the less consideration there is for the thoughts in your head coming straight out of your mouth, but I think you can manage it.
Click to expand...
I blame all my problems on the Irish.
 
#259
#259
n_huffhines said:
Luther, the intent of the law is not what matters. ; )

If a minority is 50% more likely to get busted for a non-violent drug offense, is that a racial injustice?
Click to expand...
No.

What happens when the minority doesnt commit most of the crimes? Now..minorities arent all non Whites fyi..
 
#260
#260
05_never_again said:
I don't know if it is or not, but it basically has to be, right? There just aren't that many minorities or women in executive positions in Corporate America.

If you consider that outcome to be racially unjust, then what should we do to remedy that? Not prosecute corporate fraud? Specifically focus on arresting minority and female executives, to make the demographic of the people busted for it more balanced?
Click to expand...

Before I go on this tangent, let's establish that the answer to this question has no bearing on whether or not it would be racial injustice.

Before acting on anything, I would first need to know why it is happening. Under no circumstances would the answer be "not prosecute corporate fraud" or "target _______ more".
 
#261
#261
FLVOL_79 said:
Actually...who the f under 60 writes a check anymore?
Click to expand...

Hey, raise that age a bit! I'm over 60 and have probably written 10 checks in the last 5 years and all of them were for big ticket items or service work on my house.
 
#262
#262
n_huffhines said:
Whether the motive is racist or not (notice I never called it "racist" or "racism"), it's still a racial injustice.

If it creates racial injustice, how is it "race neutral"? The intent of the law is not what matters, it's the result that matters.
Click to expand...
that's a loaded view point. which would be fine if it was applied equally, but its not.

as you are stating it, there is no way to fix the issue but to make racist laws.
 
#263
#263
n_huffhines said:
Are they? Do you have a link? There are more rich white guys, so there are more total rich white guys busted, but the rate is what matters. I have no idea if white rich criminals get busted at a higher rate. If they do and it's significantly higher, then yes, that would be a racially unjust outcome. Of course it would be. By definition, it would be.
Click to expand...

I just can't get behind this man. It's like arguing that deer poaching regulations are racially unjust because the huge majority of offenders are rural whites.
 
#264
#264
hndog609 said:
I just can't get behind this man. It's like arguing that deer poaching regulations are racially unjust because the huge majority of offenders are rural whites.
Click to expand...

In the quote you just posted, you'll see I mentioned the word "rate", which is what matters. If white poachers get busted at a significantly higher rate than black poachers, then yes, that is a racial injustice. I have no idea what the rate is. Do you have a link?
 
#266
#266
n_huffhines said:
In the quote you just posted, you'll see I mentioned the word "rate", which is what matters. If white poachers get busted at a significantly higher rate than black poachers, then yes, that is a racial injustice. I have no idea what the rate is. Do you have a link?
Click to expand...
I have an age old solution...……... Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top