• 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!

Racism in America

Which of the following statements do you agree with?

  • America is becoming more and more racist

    Votes: 5 12.8%

  • America isn't becoming any more racist but racists in America are becoming more and more vocal

    Votes: 22 56.4%

  • America is no more or less racist today that it has ever been

    Votes: 14 35.9%

  • America is not a racist country and never has been

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • Total voters
    39
TurtleDude said:
you have reviewed the legislative history behind the crack cocaine sentence disparities? The violence-mostly black perpetrators-had a lot to do with it. Whether it was the violence or the race of the perpetrators is a difficult delineation to make though.
Click to expand...

Not really.

One has to ASSUME racism to get to point of ignoring the violence associated with crack, and then work backwards to claim the legislation is racist. It's logically unsupportable.

And the ACLU is not a reliable source, as their agenda of ripping the Constitution is quite evident in many of the cases they take on .
 
Catz Part Deux said:
There's a hellalot of coke snorting amongst elected officials and corporate shot-callers. Not much crack-smoking.
Click to expand...

Not much armed robbery and gang wars either (well, at least not openly... : D ).

No. They think, "Cocaine isn't that bad, after all, I know lots of people who use it, but crack kills."
Click to expand...

Which is not the same as a cabal of white racists conspiring to oppress black people through disparate drug laws. It's just standard bias and hypocrisy; not exactly uncommon for politicians...
 
1984 said:
Okay, this is a reasonable position to take, so long as we can admit the motivations behind it (violence or race) are not clear. The word "crack" tends to elicit images of violence and social ruin; perhaps that is why it's treated differently. Is that a good reason for doing so? I don't think so, but it's not the same as a cabal of white racists conspiring to oppress black people...
Click to expand...

I have problems with

1) a mandatory jail sentence for mere prossession when more dangerous stuff (some of the crystal meth stuff is far more likely to cause violence than crack) does not have a federal mandatory prison sentence. Five years for a nickel bag of rock--that is idiotic and 5 years of prison almost guarantees that a first time offender is "institutionalized" after release. mere possession when there is no intent to sell should not merit prison.

2) that often low level dealers get harsher time than major league traffickers because the low level guys normall don't have the ability to rat out a big time supplier

3) and yes, the supposed violence of the crack trade which was seen as black violence

100 to one disparity is BS
 
1984 said:
Not much armed robbery and gang wars either (well, at least not openly... : D ).

Which is not the same as a cabal of white racists conspiring to oppress black people through disparate drug laws. It's just standard bias and hypocrisy; not exactly uncommon for politicians...
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing otherwise. But the two substances are basically the same, and should be treated the same in the law, whether your friends use one of them or not.

And don't think I'm soft on crime, either. Caine will tell ya I'm not. ;)
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Not really.

One has to ASSUME racism to get to point of ignoring the violence associated with crack, and then work backwards to claim the legislation is racist. It's logically unsupportable.

And the ACLU is not a reliable source, as their agenda of ripping the Constitution is quite evident in many of the cases they take on .
Click to expand...

I have been around the courts for a few decades and sat through a few dozen major league drug trials and guess what? The people selling and doing crack aren't anywhere near 100 times as bad as the guys doing or selling blow
 
TurtleDude said:
I have been around the courts for a few decades and sat through a few dozen major league drug trials and guess what? The people selling and doing crack aren't anywhere near 100 times as bad as the guys doing or selling blow
Click to expand...

True dat. Crackheads are just sad desperate creatures. Coke dealers scare me.
 
TurtleDude said:
I have problems with

1) a mandatory jail sentence for mere prossession when more dangerous stuff (some of the crystal meth stuff is far more likely to cause violence than crack) does not have a federal mandatory prison sentence. Five years for a nickel bag of rock--that is idiotic and 5 years of prison almost guarantees that a first time offender is "institutionalized" after release. mere possession when there is no intent to sell should not merit prison.

2) that often low level dealers get harsher time than major league traffickers because the low level guys normall don't have the ability to rat out a big time supplier

3) and yes, the supposed violence of the crack trade which was seen as black violence

100 to one disparity is BS
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm simply saying the disparate punishments are probably the result of standard bias and ignorance as opposed to pernicious racism.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
True dat. Crackheads are just sad desperate creatures. Coke dealers scare me.
Click to expand...

well one thing is for sure-the guys selling cracks to the mopes in the hood and the BMW driving yuppies selling Kilo amounts of blow to rich hollywood types or trust fund idiots are all getting their stuff from the same place. Crack is "made" at the almost lowest level of distribution.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Nobody is arguing otherwise. But the two substances are basically the same, and should be treated the same in the law, whether your friends use one of them or not.

And don't think I'm soft on crime, either. Caine will tell ya I'm not. ;)
Click to expand...

I thought that's what you were saying, i.e., the disparity in punishments is the result of racist whites. I think the more rational explanation is that they're just ignorant and biased.
 
TurtleDude said:
100 to one disparity is BS
Click to expand...

But it doesn't automatically mean racism.

If you want to argue the facts of disparate sentencing, few will dispute you.

But you've no evidence of overt racism, and you thus weaken your case against disparate sentencing by insisting that such is racially motivated.
 
1984 said:
I thought that's what you were saying, i.e., the disparity in punishments is the result of racist whites. I think the more rational explanation is that they're just ignorant and biased.
Click to expand...

when dealing with politicians, both reasons are equally valid
 
1984 said:
I don't disagree with any of this. I'm simply saying the disparate punishments are probably the result of standard bias and ignorance as opposed to pernicious racism.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, standard bias results in systemic pernicious racism in terms of effects. Those of us who see the end result of the laws see the pernicious racism.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
But you've no evidence of overt racism, and you thus weaken your case against disparate sentencing by insisting that such is racially motivated.
Click to expand...

You don't need evidence of overt racism to state that the substances are virtually the same and should be handled the same in court. :roll:
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
But it doesn't automatically mean racism.

If you want to argue the facts of disparate sentencing, few will dispute you.

But you've no evidence of overt racism, and you thus weaken your case against disparate sentencing by insisting that such is racially motivated.
Click to expand...

well I doubt any politician is going to admit that. Just as none of the gun banners are going to admit that their motivation is to punish conservative gun owners.

I deal with discrimination cases. Very few employers will admit that they fired someone because they are black, female, white, disabled or over 40. However, if the reason they give for their employment decision is clearly specious than it is prational for the jury to conclude that discrimination was the true motive

when politicians give BS arguments that have continually been shot down as factually devoid, then presuming a more nefarious reason is rather valid
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Sometimes, standard bias results in systemic pernicious racism in terms of effects. Those of us who see the end result of the laws see the pernicious racism.
Click to expand...

Okay, now you're arguing the effect is racist, whereas before you were arguing the motivations were racist. If you want to say the effect of this ignorance and bias is racist, I can agree with that, I suppose, but if you want to suggest the motivation behind the disparate sentencing is racism, then I must insist you substantiate that accusation with more than mere inferences.
 
1984 said:
Okay, now you're arguing the effect is racist, whereas before you were arguing the motivations were racist. If you want to say the effect of this ignorance and bias is racist, I can agree with that, I suppose, but if you want to suggest the motivation behind the disparate sentencing is racism, then I must insist you substantiate that accusation with more than mere inferences.
Click to expand...

I never argued that the motivations were racist, though I would stand by what I said about why the laws were written as they were.

I said that the penalties should be equalized. I think you read into my post.

Catz Part Deux said:
There is still some equalization that needs to occur in federal sentencing for drug crimes. For instance, treating crack offenses differently than powder cocaine offenses.
Click to expand...
 
If a law has a disparate impact on a group that is a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Now sometimes that disparate impact can be rebutted. In my opinion it has not been in the crack/powder sentencing disparity
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You don't need evidence of overt racism to state that the substances are virtually the same and should be handled the same in court. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, let's....if I take a half-ounce lead slug and and throw it at someone's head, I've probably committed a misdeanor.

If I take that same half-ounce slug and fire it at 700 fps at that same head, I'm looking at a life sentence in prison.

But, hell, it's the same damn material.

It's just racist that shooting it through a gun is treated differently under the law than lobbing sinkers at people.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Well, let's....if I take a half-ounce lead slug and and throw it at someone's head, I've probably committed a misdeanor.

If I take that same half-ounce slug and fire it at 700 fps at that same head, I'm looking at a life sentence in prison.

But, hell, it's the same damn material.

It's just racist that shooting it through a gun is treated differently under the law than lobbing sinkers at people.
Click to expand...

That's probably the worst apples/oranges comparison I've ever seen. Hands down.

Would you like to try again?

p.s. I wonder if there is a correlation to this:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I've seen plenty of people snorting coke.
Click to expand...
 
cocaine and crack cocaine are big problems. I think crack cocaine was introduced into the black community but it is rapidly spreading in the latino and white communities. Here in western and south florida most known crackheads in my neighborhoods were white though alot of latino and blacks too. It is rapidly spreading into rural america.
 
TurtleDude said:
If a law has a disparate impact on a group that is a prima facie case of racial discrimination.
Click to expand...

No.

It's not.

Your argument is not logically defensible.

It's possible evidence that certain groups are statistically more likely to engage in certain unlawful behaviors.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No.

It's not.

Your argument is not logically defensible.

It's possible evidence that certain groups are statistically more likely to engage in certain unlawful behaviors.
Click to expand...

you confuse a prima facie case -which is the first stage-with the rebuttal which is the third.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
That's probably the worst apples/oranges comparison I've ever seen. Hands down.

Would you like to try again?
Click to expand...

No, it worked fine for me, especially since the argument that crack and coke are "the same substance" isn't true.

If they were the same substance they'd have the same effect on a body.

Properly tempering a Hershey Bar and pouring it into a bunny mold doesn't alter the properties of the chocolate and it won't affect the physical and chemical effects of the body when consumed. Since crack clearly causes a different physical response, the argument that it's an identical substance is refuted.
 
TurtleDude said:
you confuse a prima facie case -which is the first stage-with the rebuttal which is the third.
Click to expand...

No.

Just the observance of a disparity does not logically imply the existence of racism, the judgement of the vagina of Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor to the contrary notwithstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom