• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are blacks and whites treated equally by the justice system?

Are blacks and whites treated equally by the legal system?


  • Total voters
    26

Amadeus

Chews the Cud
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
6,081
Reaction score
3,216
Location
Benghazi
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Assuming that a black person is charged with exactly the same crime, with the same evidence, do you think that the legal system treats them equally? Feel free to comment if your opinion is not represented in the options.

Edit: Both defendants are economically identical.
 
Last edited:
Assuming that a black person is charged with exactly the same crime, with the same evidence, do you think that the legal system treats them equally? Feel free to comment if your opinion is not represented in the options.

Not really sure on that. I do think the rich are treated more favorably than the poor simply because they can hire more expensive lawyers. Does it work everytime? No, of course not, however take a look at the case where the judge let the teen off with probation because it was argued he would be scarred if he went to prison since he had spent his whole life being rich.
 
Assuming that a black person is charged with exactly the same crime, with the same evidence, do you think that the legal system treats them equally? Feel free to comment if your opinion is not represented in the options.

My opinion is rather immaterial. There's significant evidence they are treated differently. As are celebrities, politicians, business icons, and the wealthy. (Probably more, but those immediately come to mind.)
 
I agree with TheNextEra. I think the justice system is divided by income and influence more than it is race. I think a black and white person of equal wealth would likely get about the same sentence, whereas a rich person will not get the same sentence as a poor person regardless of the race of the two individuals.
 
Assuming that a black person is charged with exactly the same crime, with the same evidence, do you think that the legal system treats them equally? Feel free to comment if your opinion is not represented in the options.

Are they both economically the same?

edit: I should have read down further, as a couple already wondered the same thing!
 
My opinion is rather immaterial. There's significant evidence they are treated differently. As are celebrities, politicians, business icons, and the wealthy. (Probably more, but those immediately come to mind.)

You make different points as if they are one. Is the disparity that folks are treated differently because of wealth, "standing in the community" or because of race? Correlation is not the same as causation - obviously one can be both poor and black.
 
Interesting to note:

jurystudy.jpg
 
Yes they are treated equally. There is no legal determination to show otherwise.
 
Interesting to note:

jurystudy.jpg

All this proves is that blacks are overall more racist and stick to their own and hate others.

Here's the bottom line of what people often times forget.

Balance is irrelevant. Just because on guy of one racial group goes to prison, doesn't mean that one of another racial group has to go to prison too for the sake of "balance". There is only 1 thing that matters, and that's the evidence. The facts. And while certain things like eye witness testimony should count for less in a court of law because it's unreliable, it's not to say that there's a problem with the system, but there's a problem with the actors in the system. Again, this is a sidenote to exemplify what I am talking about.

But I cannot stress this enough. Balance is irrelevant. I know this is absolutely mindblowing and bordering on heresy for people of a leftist mindset, but this is the correct mindset. You don't look to make "prison quotas" based on gender or race or any other collective determination. "Oh, we sent 1 black guy to prison, better send a white guy too for the sake of balance or else we'll seem racist!". That's how you get people doing abuse in the legal system. Just like affirmative action is abuse in the political and economic system. And I repeat myself, hoping against hope, that this notion hits home: BALANCE is IRRELEVANT.
 
I don't think there's an issue, but I think people like to think that there is a disparity between blacks and whites in the justice system. It might justify things. :shrug:
 
I feel it has more to do with the ability to hire a competent attorney. As in every other profession, attorneys can be divided into a multitude of categories, but suffice to say that there are great, good, average, below average and just crappy attorneys. Also, as with everything else, you get what you pay for. If a person has to get a court appointed attorney, they are getting the bottom of the barrel most of time because those are the attorneys that either just passed the bar, have no experience and haven't built a client base yet, or they're getting an attorney that can't build a client base because they're an awful attorney but still have to make a living.

Basically, it costs a minimum of $10,000.00 to hire an attorney to go to court for anything other than a basic traffic violation. The price goes up as the level of the accused crime goes up in severity. This is why a lot of people plead out, instead of going to court for a full trial, and also why many will opt for a judge instead of a jury trial. The cost of paying an attorney to go through sitting a jury can add a lot to the bill, but it's worth it if you have a great attorney and can afford it (see story at the end).

So, I don't think that rich people get treated differently, as much as they can afford to pay for competent and highly qualified representation. It's like getting your car fixed at the dealership or by the guy down the street that was on TV a few weeks ago for doing crappy work. Both places have mechanics - the dealership is more expensive, but you get what you pay for. Another example would be eating at a restaurant that had a highly trained and very popular chef, versus the greasy spoon or fast food restaurant that has a minimum wage cook. Both places will give you food - the chef's food is more expensive, but is probably more healthy for you to eat and tastes great, where the minimum wage cook's food is probably cheap, fattening, may make you sick, and may not taste good at all.

An attorney that has a good or great reputation has that for a reason and you have to pay for that. It has to do with his/her intelligence and their ability to use the law, rules and procedures in favor of their client. An attorney that's getting what equates to "lawyer minimum wage" is probably not the person that's going to be able to use the law and precedence or the rules to help get their client a fair and positive outcome in a trial.

So again, I don't think that any judge or jury is going to say to themselves that "Hey, this guy is rich so we should let him off", although that may happen in some cases - 'OJ Simpson' - but even his case had more to do with his great attorneys than his celebrity.

A lawyer buddy of mine told me a lawyer joke:

A sheriff's deputy stopped by a friend's farm one day. He saw the tractor in front of the barn still running and no one around, but the barn door was open. Feeling something bad had happened to his friend, he got out of his patrol car and walked in the barn to check. When he walked in, he saw his friend with a goat's rear end against him and his friends pants down. The deputy told his friend that even though they were friends, he would have to take him to jail but would get him a great lawyer.

The farmer hired the lawyer, and when the lawyer visited the farmer in jail, he told him that he thought the best thing to do was to get a jury trial, because the lawyer had a great reputation of getting the best jurors for his clients problems.

When they went to court, after the lawyer had picked the best jurors, the trial began. The deputy took the stand and told exactly what he had witnessed. The prosecution rested and the defense called only one witness... the farmer. When the farmer took the stand, his attorney said "Just tell us in your own words, what happened." The farmer said, "Well? I was out plowing in the field and had to pee. I looked around and saw that my neighbor's wife was in her yard hanging up the laundry, so I couldn't just get off the tractor to relieve myself. I had to drive the tractor to the house. When I got next to the barn, I couldn't hold it anymore. I jumped out of the tractor, left it running (as the deputy had testified that he saw) and ran into the barn to pee. I dropped my pants, and before I knew what had happened, that goat had backed right up on me right when the deputy walked in..."

At that point, one juror leaned over to another juror and said... "You know? A good goat'll do that."

This story shows, that a great lawyer can get you off (no pun intended) for just about anything.
 
I tend to think there is much more at play than color. I don't think that blacks get treated worse than whites in general. I think that some blacks get treated badly, and some whites do as well, and the reverse is true too. Some of it depends on who is representing you. Some of it depends on how you act in a court setting (iow, are you being a sulky jerk, or are you well-dressed and respectful to the court?) Different factors come into play, and color isn't very high on the scale.
 
Assuming that a black person is charged with exactly the same crime, with the same evidence, do you think that the legal system treats them equally? Feel free to comment if your opinion is not represented in the options.

Edit: Both defendants are economically identical.

Absolutely not equal. The most glaring example comes from death penalty cases, where blacks are much more likely to be sentenced to death for the same crime than are whites.

And the above replies just shows how incredibly ignorant so many are of how bad it really is.
 
All this proves is that blacks are overall more racist and stick to their own and hate others.

Here's the bottom line of what people often times forget.

Balance is irrelevant. Just because on guy of one racial group goes to prison, doesn't mean that one of another racial group has to go to prison too for the sake of "balance". There is only 1 thing that matters, and that's the evidence. The facts. And while certain things like eye witness testimony should count for less in a court of law because it's unreliable, it's not to say that there's a problem with the system, but there's a problem with the actors in the system. Again, this is a sidenote to exemplify what I am talking about.

But I cannot stress this enough. Balance is irrelevant. I know this is absolutely mindblowing and bordering on heresy for people of a leftist mindset, but this is the correct mindset. You don't look to make "prison quotas" based on gender or race or any other collective determination. "Oh, we sent 1 black guy to prison, better send a white guy too for the sake of balance or else we'll seem racist!". That's how you get people doing abuse in the legal system. Just like affirmative action is abuse in the political and economic system. And I repeat myself, hoping against hope, that this notion hits home: BALANCE is IRRELEVANT.

I don't really get what you're arguing..
The point is, same crime, same state, overall same conditions, Black people get more jail time than White people.
That is not "BALANCE"
 
I tend to think there is much more at play than color. I don't think that blacks get treated worse than whites in general. I think that some blacks get treated badly, and some whites do as well, and the reverse is true too. Some of it depends on who is representing you. Some of it depends on how you act in a court setting (iow, are you being a sulky jerk, or are you well-dressed and respectful to the court?) Different factors come into play, and color isn't very high on the scale.

I'm willing to bet that if called to take the stand between a white redneck who can't spell right and speaks at the rate of 2 words a minute... and an educated black man, and all the court had to go on was ones' word against anothers'... my bet is that the black guy comes out on top. Likewise is also valid. In fact, strip the colors, and add any color you want. Native american vs asian? Asian vs white? black vs arab? arab vs asian? If one's a dumbass who not speak raight end de auther can speak laik a fine gentleman... well...
 
I don't really get what you're arguing..
The point is, same crime, same state, overall same conditions, Black people get more jail time than White people.
That is not "BALANCE"

I'm arguing against the concept that balance matters in how many people get what prison sentence. You don't do quotas on who gets to go to jail in any way. Balance is irrelevant.

What are the years for crimes? lets say that for X crime, a guy can go to prison for anywhere between 10-15years. Ok? If a person of one color gets 10 years and the other of another color 15 you don't go back and say... you know what... lets make the guy with 10 get 15 too. Or you don't go... you know what... 12.5 for both. That's fair!

No, balance is irrelevant.
Same for a larger fragment of people. Say you have 100 people of different racial groups go to prison and you analyze.
The average for one race group is 11 years. The average for another is 11.5 years. The average for another is 13 years. You don't go about saying... you know what? From now on, we balance **** out and make it so that the racial group with the average of 11 years gets more, the average with 11.5 gets a wee bit more and the average with 13 gets less, for the sake of balance.
So what happens if you do this? The next court case where someone gets tried for that crime, if he happens to fall in one of those racial groups he will, for the sake of balance, get more or less time than he would normally. because that's what the people demand, for balance...


Balance. is. irrelevant. You try each individual for the deeds based on the facts. You start demanding that justice takes into account ones' race when serving out sentences, you are polluting the very essence of the justice system, that justice is blind and only weighs in the facts.
 
Balance. is. irrelevant. You try each individual for the deeds based on the facts. You start demanding that justice takes into account ones' race when serving out sentences, you are polluting the very essence of the justice system, that justice is blind and only weighs in the facts.

"that justice is blind and only weighs in the facts".. That's the point, it isn't.
 
"that justice is blind and only weighs in the facts".. That's the point, it isn't.

Ok, and if that is the case I'll tell you something you don't wanna hear.

You're to blame for it buster. That's right, you the people are to blame for whatever lack of independence or fairness or failure of the justice system. Either because you're part of the group of people who constantly think they know better and protest legal cases or shout or demand stuff from their politicians to interfere with the legal process for "fairness" and whatever other "noble" reason they can think of... or if you're part of the people who tolerate them ,you're to blame. You're the ****ers who ****ed up one way or the other. And if you happen to be in the camp of the people who lie in apathy about how society is run, you're also to blame.

The justice system is set up to be independent. It just is according to the law. The failure to protect that independence from either political influence or cultural influence by popular movements, is the failure of the people. And if you don't like what you got, you don't get to complain, coz you are part of the problem.

You want a better legal system? Stop polluting it. Stop cultural influences in the courtroom. Stop political influences in the courtroom and the prosecutorial conduct and office. Stop politicizing the ****ing legal system.
 
Absolutely not equal. The most glaring example comes from death penalty cases, where blacks are much more likely to be sentenced to death for the same crime than are whites.

And the above replies just shows how incredibly ignorant so many are of how bad it really is.

Spare me,

A lizzie said, there are many factors in why some people are treated favorably and others not so favorably. Does your source compensate for:

-Economic disparities between black and white defendents?
- Other factors in the victim's status rather than race. For example, are proportionally more black murder victims involved in "drug deal gone bad" type situations and thus less appealing to jurors and proscecutors?
-Are white "meth head" vs "meth head" murders also unlikely to elicit alot of effort to pursue death penalties?
-Is the proportion of whites sentenced to death for say, home invasion robbery / murders really disproportionate to blacks convicted of murder in similar circumstances?
 
That's a good point. Yes, they are both economically the same.

Does each defendant have the same history?

I mean does the black defendant has priors?
 
I agree with TheNextEra. I think the justice system is divided by income and influence more than it is race. I think a black and white person of equal wealth would likely get about the same sentence, whereas a rich person will not get the same sentence as a poor person regardless of the race of the two individuals.

I agree with this. The only color that really makes any difference in today's courts is the color green.
 
So, I don't think that rich people get treated differently, as much as they can afford to pay for competent and highly qualified representation. It's like getting your car fixed at the dealership or by the guy down the street that was on TV a few weeks ago for doing crappy work. Both places have mechanics - the dealership is more expensive, but you get what you pay for.

Good post. I don't have any serious disagreements with it.

As to your point about wealth and lawyer competence, that is certainly correct. I still don't know how that rich kid got off so easily after mowing down a group of people with his car, killing them all, while drunk. If a young (poor) black kid did the same thing, I don't think he'd be doing community service as punishment...
 
I was in court once, for my license plate, I was the only white person there, all others were Hispanic.

before I came before the judge, he had to cases of DWI, and violence with officers in those 2 cases.

the judge talked to the two Hispanic men, and told them he would do anything he could for them, work out payments for there fines, he bent over backwards for them in my opinion.

after seeing this I thought I would have no trouble, because of the way he acted....and I had done nothing wrong.

I was there because the cop stated my registration had expired, however it had not and I had a paper from the DMV, showing it was not , as I showed it to the judge...suddenly the judge pickup his gavel, and slammed it down on my case and shouted 150 dollar fine!

I knew then and there... the judge knew I had money and could pay, were as the rest of the Hispanics of the court looked poor.
 
Back
Top Bottom