Crack cocaine sentencing guidelines changed. Re: racism

[Daniel]

A few times on these boards we have gotten into discussions over whether or not there is an inherent racism in the judicial system. This stems from the fact that the vast majority of inhabitants of the federal judicial system are black, despite being a minority population. I've heard such things as "black people commit more crimes, etc etc."

Well..apparently, the U.S. Sentencing committee and several other legal entities disagree.

Still standing in the way is the congressionally imposed minimum sentencing guidelines. Even still, the USSC is considering making these changes retroactive, meaning that thousands of inmates will be eligible for early release.

Discuss.

Reference: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20071119_hofer.html

The U. S. Sentencing Commission Considers Shortening Terms for Imprisoned Crack Offenders: Should the Reduction of the Disparity Between Crack and Powder Cocaine Sentencing Be Retroactive?
By MARK ALLENBAUGH AND PAUL HOFER
----
Monday, Nov. 19, 2007

Congressionally-mandated minimum penalties are the source of the infamous 100-to-1 powder- to-crack sentencing ratio. For example, the mere possession of five grams of crack cocaine requires a court to impose a minimum term of five years' imprisonment, regardless of mitigating factors that may be present in the case. In contrast, the possession with intent to distribute 500 grams of powder cocaine is required to trigger the five-year mandatory minimum.

This disparity has led to gross unfairness. Moreover, many claim this unfairness represents a form of racial discrimination, since empirically, powder cocaine is more likely to be used in white communities, and crack cocaine in minority communities. Fortunately, on November 1 of this year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission promulgated less onerous sentencing guidelines for crack offenses. While statutory mandatory minimums remain in place, this is still a promising turn of events for advocates of saner sentencing policies.



Now that the new, amended crack Sentencing Guidelines have become law, the Commission must decide whether the amendment should be made retroactive. In this column, we discuss the considerations relevant to answering that question.

Background: How Mandatory Minimums and the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Intersect

For over twenty years, the federal criminal justice system has labored under the burden of two separate, competing, and inconsistent sentencing schemes: the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, and mandatory minimum statutory penalties. The Guidelines were promulgated by, and are regularly amended by, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent agency within the federal judicial branch. While only advisory, according to recent Supreme Court precedent, the Guidelines nevertheless provide federal judges with a rather sophisticated system for meting out sentences that take into consideration several wide-ranging facts about the offense and the offender, and still provide the court with the ability to exercise discretion when imposing a sentence.

In contrast, whereas the Guidelines are sophisticated, mandatory minimum penalties are rather crude, triggered simply by the amount of drugs involved or possession of a firearm. Mandatory minimum penalties do not provide for the consideration of other relevant factors regarding the offense or the offender, and thereby nearly eliminate the ability of courts to exercise sound sentencing discretion.


In order to introduce some consistency between the two competing systems, the Commission early on decided that the drug sentencing guidelines it promulgated should be linked to the mandatory minimum penalties dictated by Congress. Nevertheless, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, as well as many other organizations, has consistently lobbied Congress to eliminate mandatory minimum penalties and to reduce the legislated disparity between powder and crack cocaine sentences, but without success.

Column continues below ↓
Ads by Google
Practice Forex TradingTrade Forex 24-Hours a Day on the Official FX Solutions Website Todaywww.FXSolutions.com
Fast, Easy…Dealbook WebTrade Forex with Ease and Greater Accessibility, No Manual Updates!www.GFTForex.com
Online Options SuccessHow to turn 3 little secrets into an options trading money machine.www.OptionsSuccess.com
Online Stock TradingOnline Stock Trading sites Save on Online Stock TradingPurchaseAce.com
Futures trading onlineTrade futures and CFDs online or over the phonewww.BrokerOne.com.au
Should the Amended Crack Sentencing Guidelines Be Retroactive, Permitting Early Release? The Commission's Criteria for the Decision

On November 13, the Commission held a day-long hearing in Washington, D.C., to consider the retroactivity question, after having received over 30,000 letters in support of retroactivity.

According to a Commission analysis, nearly 20,000 federal drug offenders could become eligible for early release from prison by an average of 27 months if the amendment is made retroactive. This would be especially significant because, since the abolition of parole in the federal system in 1987, imprisoned offenders have few opportunities to reduce the length of their sentence.



By federal statute, when the Commission amends the guidelines for an offense, it may specify "in what circumstances and by what amount the sentences of prisoners serving terms of imprisonment for the offense may be reduced." Moreover, the Commission has previously, though rarely, made guideline amendments retroactive. Examples include amendments for trafficking in LSD, OxyContin and marijuana plants. However, none of these potentially affected as large a number of offenders as the change to the crack guideline currently under consideration.

The Commission has developed criteria that guide its decisions on whether an amendment should be made retroactive, including the purpose of the amendment, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range made by the amendment, and the difficulty of applying the amendment retroactively.

First, the purpose of the crack amendment is clear: to address a longstanding injustice that has punished crack offenders--the vast majority of whom are African-American--more harshly than is warranted by the seriousness of their offense. This disparity is particularly glaring relative to powder cocaine. Powder cocaine, after all, is the essential ingredient from which crack cocaine is made and is otherwise pharmacologically equivalent to crack.

Second, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range under the crack amendment is smaller than with some previous amendments, but, as noted above, the number of offenders who might benefit is far larger. Commission analyses estimate that 3,804 offenders would qualify for release consideration within the next year; another 17,300 would qualify over the next decade. Crack offenders from every state who were sentenced in federal court would be affected.

Third, and finally, the criterion of the difficulty of applying the amendment retroactively was carefully considered at the hearing. Simply processing the motions for reconsideration of sentence that a federal statute requires (in subsection u) would impose a burden on the courts. But Judge Reggie Walton, speaking on behalf of the Criminal Law Committee of the federal courts, testified at the November 13 hearing that judges and probation officers were prepared to shoulder this burden in the interest of justice.

Moreover, although the cost of reviewing crack sentences could be in the millions, witnesses testified that the savings to the Bureau of Prisons and the American taxpayer would be far greater. Estimates of savings ranged from $1 billion to $1.7 billion in reduced incarceration expenses and prison construction--money that several witnesses argued could be better spent on drug use prevention and rehabilitation.

In the end, the line-up of witness opinion reflected the adversarial roles seen in courtrooms every day. Federal judges, Public Defenders and other defense counsel, the American Bar Association, and advocacy groups like the Sentencing Project, the NAACP, and Prison Fellowship Ministries, testified in favor of retroactivity. However, the Department of Justice, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Fraternal Order of Police testified against it.



Even if Retroactive Sentence Reductions are Authorized, They Will Not Be Automatic

Even if the Commission makes the crack amendment retroactive, not every crack offender will necessarily get a sentence reduction. The relevant federal statute states that courts "may reduce the term of imprisonment . . . if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission" (emphasis supplied). In addition, Commission members seemed interested in ways to limit the scope of issues that would be litigated at sentence reduction hearings.

Most importantly, Commissioners were concerned that the early release of offenders could affect public safety. Analyses show that over a third of the offenders who would qualify for retroactive application of the amendment had possessed or used a gun in relation to their offense. Almost 80 percent had a criminal record that increased their prison term.

On the other hand, the majority of crack offenders sentenced in the federal courts are not "kingpins" or wholesale-level dealers. Most are street dealers selling directly to users. When these offenders are taken off the street, others easily replaced them to meet user demand, making it doubtful that their release would significantly affect the crack market.

It remains unclear whether the Commission will issue policy statements to limit the types of offenders eligible for a sentence reduction, or give guidance to courts as to how to conduct their sentence review. Judge Walton and other witnesses expressed confidence that judges could be trusted to use their discretion to ensure that dangerous offenders are not released to the community prematurely.

Further Complications Will Arise From Recent and Pending Supreme Court Cases

Meanwhile, recent and pending Supreme Court decisions make the effects of retroactivity more difficult to assess. Nearly three years ago, in United States v. Booker, the Court rendered the federal guidelines "advisory" rather than "mandatory" and made sentences reviewable under a "reasonableness" standard.

The full implications of Booker are still developing, and will be explored in other decisions to be decided this term. U.S. v. Kimbrough, moreover, specifically involves the guideline for crack, and whether a court can justify a sentence outside the guideline range based upon a disagreement with the severity of crack sentences. If these decisions were applicable at retroactive reconsiderations of sentences, then courts would have authority to shorten sentences even more than that recommended by the amended guideline.

However, while the Ninth Circuit held in U.S. v Hicks that Booker is applicable to reductions of sentences under the applicable federal statute, some witnesses and Commissioners disagreed with that analysis. It may be possible for the Commission to issue policy statements to narrow the issues courts can consider at sentence reduction hearings. In any event, the question appears headed for further litigation.

The Commission's Remedy is Still Only a Partial One, and Congress Must Act

The hearing demonstrated the willingness of the Commission, the federal judiciary, the defense bar, and many others to work together to correct a longstanding injustice in federal sentencing. Despite these efforts, however, the Commission made clear when it promulgated the crack amendment that it represents "only a partial solution to some of the problems associated with the 100-to-1 drug quantity ratio. Any comprehensive solution to the 100-to-1 drug quantity ratio would require appropriate legislative action by Congress." In particular, the mandatory minimum penalty statutes need to be repealed or amended to reflect the actual seriousness of crack offenses.

The behavior of offenders who benefit from the Commission's actions through early release will also affect future efforts to reform our nation's harsh drug laws. All eyes will be on them to see how responsibly they handle the earlier freedom the Commission might make possible. A return to addiction or crime will make future reform more difficult, and will disappoint the many supporters who worked to make crack penalties more just.

Near the end of the hearing, Julie Stewart, testifying for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, asked persons in the audience with family members in prison to stand and make their presence known. The room fell silent as mothers, fathers, siblings, and children who had traveled to Washington from around the country rose and held aloft pictures of their loved ones who are still behind bars.

[Sean of the Thread]

I didn't have the time to read it at this moment but I believe strongly in reducing the sentencing and penalties for crack. I personally don't believe the original 100-1 was racially motivated.

Everybody does crack.. not just one race. I just think it was an overreaction by idiots who thought crack was a sign of the apocalypse.

That being said I've seen some pretty fucked shit go on in crack houses. I've had the pleasure of visiting one in action before on accident. FAR WORSE then any drug scene I've EVER seen.

Every small room of a 900sqfoot house packed with 20 people. Of which 5 are shitting wherever. 10 are sucking or being sucked (male female every race) and 5 smoking. Despite all the feces and urine and cum all you can smell is crack smoke. Porno mags and piles of puke filled with cum everywhere. It pretty much reminded me of a death camp.

It's a scary fucking thing.

[Artha]

I think crack should be sentenced harder than powder, as the societal effects of the two are vastly different. Sniffing it gives you cravings, but they aren't enough to make you (unless you're already predisposed) rob someone, or break into someone's house, or really just break the law to get money to get more. Crack, on the other hand, turns you into a crackhead...and you will do those things. And I've met quite a few homeless people, here in Richmond, with obvious signs of crack usage...I doubt very much that they sniff the powder.

100 to 1 is a little ridiculous, though.

[Celephais]

You sure must love crack to post so much about it.

What good is early release going to do, suddenly releasing a ton of crack heads into the streets isn't going to do anybody any good.

[Daniel]

I think crack should be sentenced harder than powder, as the societal effects of the two are vastly different. Sniffing it gives you cravings, but they aren't enough to make you (unless you're already predisposed) rob someone, or break into someone's house, or really just break the law to get money to get more. Crack, on the other hand, turns you into a crackhead...and you will do those things. And I've met quite a few homeless people, here in Richmond, with obvious signs of crack usage...I doubt very much that they sniff the powder.

100 to 1 is a little ridiculous, though.

It's the same drug, with the same effects.

[Daniel]

You sure must love crack to post so much about it.

What good is early release going to do, suddenly releasing a ton of crack heads into the streets isn't going to do anybody any good.

According to the American Bar Association: Justice.

A very well throughout post by one of those people I was referencing in my original post. Good job.

[Alfster]

It's the same drug, with the same effects.

haha

[Sean of the Thread]

It's the same drug, with the same effects.

Same effects times 100. Maybe teh 100-1 should stick.

It's nowheres near the same drug and same effects.

[Daniel]

haha

Chemically, speaking Crack effects the body quicker and has a shorter duration of Euphoria. However, the effects are the same.

The major difference between the two, is that one is cheaper to make and less pure. Making it more attractive to different populations.

[Sean of the Thread]

Chemically, speaking Crack effects the body quicker and has a shorter duration of Euphoria. However, the effects are the same.

The major difference between the two, is that one is cheaper to make and less pure. Making it more attractive to different populations.

Like I said I've been in a crack house and saw the effects. You can't compare the results by any means.

[Daniel]

Like I said I've been in a crack house and saw the effects. You can't compare the results by any means.

I'm not saying you can.

I'm saying the societal effects of crack cocaine go beyond the baking soda added to cocaine. In fact, I'd argue that a part of the societal problems of drug usage in African American communities lie in the imbalance of the judicial system.

[oldanforgotten]

A few times on these boards we have gotten into discussions over whether or not there is an inherent racism in the judicial system. This stems from the fact that the vast majority of inhabitants of the federal judicial system are black, despite being a minority population. I've heard such things as "black people commit more crimes, etc etc."


The drug issue does likely have some form of racial roots. As for black people commit more crimes, however, I would agree, but I'm not sure it has to do with people being black.

Poor people commit more crimes than wealthy people.
Poor people are more likely to get caught for the crimes they commit than wealthy people.
A higher percentage of black people are poor than white people.
A higher percentage of black people have not graduated from high school than white people.
People who have no schooling are more likely to commit crimes and get caught.
People who do nothing but gripe and moan and spread the gospel that the country is out to get them based on race/religion exacerbate the issue by blaming the problem solely on skin color, fostering paranoia.
The Media never helps any issue where stereotypes become part of the common mind, especially ones based on race/religion.
________
Best penny stocks (http://pennystockpicks.net/)

[Celephais]

According to the American Bar Association: Justice.

A very well throughout post by one of those people I was referencing in my original post. Good job.
The first part of my post was just a joke... obviously someone who can post such a massive wall of text advocating keeping crack heads on the street has a vested interest in crack.

I didn't bother reading your whole post, I read the first paragraph at best. My opinion is that if you're doing hard drugs, regardless of culture, you should be in jail... hell make it a 0.1-0.1, every 100mg give them a year for both. I will agree that the rules on "for distribution" are shitty, as I think the distributors should be hit a LOT harder.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not saying you can.

I'm saying the societal effects of crack cocaine go beyond the baking soda added to cocaine. In fact, I'd argue that a part of the societal problems of drug usage in African American communities lie in the imbalance of the judicial system.

Of course you would argue that... then you can use the "OMG BLACK PEOPLE ARE VICTIMS HERE" argument in yet another thread.

Crack heads should be away from the rest of society because they are crack heads.. not because they are black crackheads.

[Daniel]

The first part of my post was just a joke... obviously someone who can post such a massive wall of text advocating keeping crack heads on the street has a vested interest in crack.

I didn't bother reading your whole post, I read the first paragraph at best. My opinion is that if you're doing hard drugs, regardless of culture, you should be in jail... hell make it a 0.1-0.1, every 100mg give them a year for both. I will agree that the rules on "for distribution" are shitty, as I think the distributors should be hit a LOT harder.


Your lack of comprehension is mind jarring.

Firstly, I posted maybe 2 paragraphs. The rest was an article for reference.

Secondly, this measure will not put "crackheads back on the streets". It will put those back on the street who were sentenced for distribution. It has absolutely nothing to do with utilization, which is an entirely other argument.

Thirdly, the issue is not that people are going to jail for using, or selling drugs. It's that a portion of the population is being disporportionately sent to jail for longer periods for using or selling, essentially, the *same* drug.

What people are asking for is that they BE THE SAME. Exactly as you described, or whatever is appropriate for the law.

[Daniel]

Crack heads should be away from the rest of society because they are crack heads.. not because they are black crackheads.

Unfortately, that is not the case.

[Parkbandit]

Unfortately, that is not the case.


So.. the whole penalties imposed on crack convictions are there, just because they are black and all legislators are white.

Yea...

[Celephais]

Your lack of comprehension is mind jarring.

Firstly, I posted maybe 2 paragraphs. The rest was an article for reference.
Which is all I read, I'm not going to read those massive articles about such a dumb topic; the "joke" had to do with the fact that clearly you must have read them, looked them up, etc if you were to actually post them (unless you're posting shit without reading it).


Secondly, this measure will not put "crackheads back on the streets". It will put those back on the street who were sentenced for distribution. It has absolutely nothing to do with utilization, which is an entirely other argument.
I said the rules about "for distribution" were shitty because people who possessed for use were being incorrectly charged with distribution, and I'll bet there is some racism going on there, that part sucks. So yes, it will put crackheads back on the street, even worse would be putting crack dealers back on the street.


Thirdly, the issue is not that people are going to jail for using, or selling drugs. It's that a portion of the population is being disporportionately sent to jail for longer periods for using or selling, essentially, the *same* drug.
And the article/leadup advocates giving crack the same punishment as cocaine, when I think cocaine should get the same punishment as crack. That said I think we all know crack is much worse, and I would think if they punished crack dealers HARDER, this would be a good thing for the black community, less affordable drugs that ruin your society is a good thing... means they actually have to contribute to society in order to be able to afford expensive drugs.


What people are asking for is that they BE THE SAME. Exactly as you described, or whatever is appropriate for the law.
Sure, they can be the same, just don't go releasing worthless members back into society with the promise of a less harsh punishment.

I'm not knocking the "be the same" portion, I'm knocking reducing minimum punishments/current jailtimes. Do you seriously think that reducing consequences for dealing crack would be a good thing for the black community?

[Daniel]

So.. the whole penalties imposed on crack convictions are there, just because they are black and all legislators are white.

Yea...

Yea. Imagine that. Marginalized based on color exists in America. Crazy notion.

[Parkbandit]

Yea. Imagine that. Marginalized based on color exists in America. Crazy notion.


I just find you amusing how you make all black people victims and how all white people are obvious racists.

Man, you must hate Bill Cosby for telling it like it really is.

[Daniel]

.

I'm not knocking the "be the same" portion, I'm knocking reducing minimum punishments/current jailtimes. Do you seriously think that reducing consequences for dealing crack would be a good thing for the black community?

Yea. I would advocate anything that diminishes existent inequalities in our nation or are you insisting that something the black community constantly decries, is somehow helping them?

If you had read the article you would see that people who deal with these sorts of things believe that this would have no effect on the overall distribution of Crack Cocaine in Lower income neighborhoods as the majority of these arrests are for low level dealers that are merely operating within an existing market.


Even moreso where there continues to be glaring disparities in the way crimes are investigated or pursued.

[Artha]

It's the same drug, with the same effects.
It's the same drug, but the method of ingestion is different and makes all the difference.

[Daniel]

I just find you amusing how you make all black people victims and how all white people are obvious racists.

Man, you must hate Bill Cosby for telling it like it really is.

Actually I'm a huge fan of Bill Cosby and the things he has said. That however, does not change the reality that blacks are systematicly marginalized in the American Judicial system. Feel free to keep sticking your head in the sand.

However, people alot more intelligent and alot more involved in these issues disagree and if you think that entities like the American Bar Association are black apologists or a tool of the NAACP then I don't know what to tell you.

[Celephais]

Yea. I would advocate anything that diminishes existent inequalities in our nation or are you insisting that something the black community constantly decries, is somehow helping them?
Addressing the inequity by making dealing crack a more viable solution to your financial problems does not help the black community. The community might not like seeing their sons go away for a long time, but how about not dealing crack in the first place? The punishments are supposed to be deterrents. If the deterrents aren't "working" well... I'd rather not say my thoughts on individuals without the foresight for self-preservation, as I'm sure you'd label it a racist comment (I think the same of the white trailer trash with meth labs).


If you had read the article you would see that people who deal with these sorts of things believe that this would have no effect on the overall distribution of Crack Cocaine in Lower income neighborhoods as the majority of these arrests are for low level dealers that are merely operating within an existing market.
You say it yourself then, they're not addressing the source of the problem... if you "fix the inadequacy" but don't address the source you've still done nothing.


Even moreso where there continues to be glaring disparities in the way crimes are investigated or pursued.
Another topic that needs to be addressed that changing the sentences on crack has nothing to do with.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm not saying you can.

I'm saying the societal effects of crack cocaine go beyond the baking soda added to cocaine. In fact, I'd argue that a part of the societal problems of drug usage in African American communities lie in the imbalance of the judicial system.


While there is no doubt racists out there and in judicial/law enforcement I find it completely hard to believe that "most" of them are which is what you'd be saying if just going by the following statistics.

While blacks make up 13% of the population they account for 45% of the prison population and it isn't because every single judge or cop is racist. It's because 45% of the crimes are being committed by blacks. Give or take a FEW % because of racism and mistakes attributed to all cases.

Which goes the other way as well.. black cops and black judges. Or even whites who hate whites.

If I were to blame someone.. or attempt to assess responsibility on this whole clusterfuck it would fall on the parents and parenting from the start which applies to all.

[DeV]

Do you seriously think that reducing consequences for dealing crack would be a good thing for the black community?Equality, under the law, would be a great thing for the black community, and any other undrerepresented community in our country.

Currently, you have to possess more than 11 pounds of powder cocaine to get the same mandatory minimum sentence as someone caught with 2 ounces of crack cocaine. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

Prison is not the solution to substance abuse problems in our country. These crack cocaine addicts, for the most part, need rehabilitation. This throw them in jail and lock away the key mentality is as dysfunctional as the current war on drugs. It shouldn't even be a race issue, it's a common sense and a justice issue.

P.S. The dealers are not victims, they are law breakers, and, I for one do not support their criminally destructive activities, but they should all be sentenced in a manner representing the fairness and proportionality the justice system likes to tout.

And to quell any asine question I might be subjected to later on, having conversations about the disparity in sentencing is not excusing criminal behavior.

[Jayvn]

Fire up the Crack kiln, we're about to have thousands of returning clients, is that the smell of opportunity? or possibly just crack fumes?

[Celephais]

Equality, under the law, would be a great thing for the black community, and any other undrerepresented community in our country.
So you quoted me saying "reducing" but couldn't see that I wasn't saying keep it unequal? They're dealing drugs that destroy the community, we should not be making it easier on them; regardless of heritage.

Sometimes it's impossible to be fair, but I would rather err on the side of heavy handed when it comes to punishing dealers of drugs that do nothing but destroy lives.

I'm just amazed that anyone could think it would be a good thing for the black community to have more crack dealers released into their community/have less deterrents.

[Sean of the Thread]

Equality, under the law, would be a great thing for the black community, and any other undrerepresented community in our country.

Currently, you have to possess more than 11 pounds of powder cocaine to get the same mandatory minimum sentence as someone caught with 2 ounces of crack cocaine. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

Prison is not the solution to substance abuse problems in our country. These crack cocaine addicts, for the most part, need rehabilitation. This throw them in jail and lock away the key mentality is as dysfunctional as the current war on drugs. It shouldn't even be a race issue, it's a common sense and a justice issue.

P.S. The dealers are not victims, they are law breakers, and, I for one do not support their criminally destructive activities, but they should all be sentenced in a manner representing the fairness and proportionality the justice system likes to tout.

And to quell any asine question I might be subjected to later on, having conversations about the disparity in sentencing is not excusing criminal behavior.

Like I stated earlier.. the laws need to be changed regarding crack. But I strongly believe it has nothing to do with racism.

Whites constitute the majority of crack addicts here as would be expected based on demographics alone. I spent 1 day in a government rehab to try and kick my alcoholism before I had to leave... because everyone else was a meth or crack head and they're just fucking insane and nobody cared to do shit about it.

We absolutely need better rehab options. I think we should sentence people to a years worth of rehab. Earn a GED or other trade skills.. anything is better than prison for drug users where the problem and hate only grows.

*Actually most of the blacks in the rehab were alcoholics or on smack. The whites with the exception of me were all crack heads or meth fiends.

[Artha]

but how about not dealing crack in the first place?
When there's no jobs and the bills need paying and the cabinets are empty, you have to do what you have to do, so suggesting that isn't going to help anything.

Jail sentences aren't really a deterrent.

On the other hand, crack's pretty detrimental to a community, above and beyond powder and most other drugs, and therefore sentencing should be somewhat harsher...but not necessarily 100 to 1.

Another thing I'd like to add, is I know people around here get 10 years for having an eighth of an ounce of powder. Minimum sentences aren't the end-all of sentencing.

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't believe in min-max penalties in general because they prohibit a judge from doing their job, which is to judge. If we look at the statistics of incarcaration since 3 strikes in California then look at what the offenses are, it seems crazy to put a person away for life for toting around a little pot.

We can argue, "that's the law, and they broke it!!!111one," but it seems that sending these people to prison drastically curtails opportunities for rehabilitation because they're going to maximum security pretty much right off.

I wrote a whole research paper on this in 1998, but if you read much by Judge James Gray, my position can be somewhat summed up.

[Daniel]

Addressing the inequity by making dealing crack a more viable solution to your financial problems does not help the black community. The community might not like seeing their sons go away for a long time, but how about not dealing crack in the first place? The punishments are supposed to be deterrents. If the deterrents aren't "working" well... I'd rather not say my thoughts on individuals without the foresight for self-preservation, as I'm sure you'd label it a racist comment (I think the same of the white trailer trash with meth labs).



The question of not dealing crack is very easy to answer when you have other options. However, the reason why it is so prevalent is not only because it is seen as a viable option, but probably the most viable for some.

Will reducing the sentencing change the African american community? Of course not. However, it will go along way in dispelling the common assumption that the system is out to get them, which kinda undermines that whole self preservation thing.

The question for you is why do you think it is somehow good or neccessary to have inequality in the first place. Or do you presume to speak for the communities effected that are generally against it?



You say it yourself then, they're not addressing the source of the problem... if you "fix the inadequacy" but don't address the source you've still done nothing.

Yes, but the inverse is that you have done nothing by locking up hundreds of thousands of black youth and then there are still hundreds of thousands of black youth who are now apart of the system. So in essence, you have done harm but you have done no good.





Another topic that needs to be addressed that changing the sentences on crack has nothing to do with.

No, but it's a start.

[Sean of the Thread]

When there's no jobs and the bills need paying and the cabinets are empty, you have to do what you have to do, so suggesting that isn't going to help anything.

Jail sentences aren't really a deterrent.



Correct on both accounts.

I grew up hard on the streets when I was young... but I didn't sell or do drugs simply because I was brought up not to. For a several year span after my father hauled ass I ate nothing but fried bologna .. boiled cabbage and drank powdered goats milk every fucking day. But I didn't steal or sell/do drugs.

There is no excuse.

Jail is not a deterrent. We need a serious rehab system.

[Daniel]

While there is no doubt racists out there and in judicial/law enforcement I find it completely hard to believe that "most" of them are which is what you'd be saying if just going by the following statistics.

l.


I'm not saying most. I'm saying enough to be a problem.

[DeV]

So you quoted me saying "reducing" but couldn't see that I wasn't saying keep it unequal? You say this.

Then follow it up with this.


They're dealing drugs that destroy the community, we should not be making it easier on them; regardless of heritage.

So are you for equal justice under the law or are you for continuing disproportionality and inequality under the law as long as communities that have been suffering and destoyed despite the inequality STILL have not changed for the better? Something isn't working here.



I'm just amazed that anyone could think it would be a good thing for the black community to have more crack dealers released into their community/have less deterrents.I'm just as amazed that you think anyone has made any sort of mention to this so far in the discussion. I'm amazed that you think that deterring street level crack dealers will ever be a key element to figthing the war on drugs? Wait... did you even say that?

The problems plaguing the lower economic black communities are violence, illiteracy, lack of self-awareness, lack of policing, diminished views of education, lack of resources, lack of mentoring, and lack of positive reinforcement to a greater extent than crack ever was when it was the epidemic. Just saying there is more to addressing the problem than simply what meets the eye.

[Daniel]

Sometimes it's impossible to be fair, but I would rather err on the side of heavy handed when it comes to punishing dealers of drugs that do nothing but destroy lives.



Then make the law the same for cocaine. Problem solved from my end. However, I doubt you'd have a happy white America when Lindsey Lohan gets 6 years.

[DeV]

But I strongly believe it has nothing to do with racism. I'm not saying it has anything to do with racism either, but the statistic speaks for itself. Even if we all agreed that it had more to do with the higher rate of addiction among crack addicts because of the potency of the mixture, there still has to be a semblance of equality when it comes to prosecution and sentencing for the same drug, different methodology.


I think we should sentence people to a years worth of rehab. Earn a GED or other trade skills.. anything is better than prison for drug users where the problem and hate only grows.I absolutely agree.

[Celephais]

The question for you is why do you think it is somehow good or neccessary to have inequality in the first place. Or do you presume to speak for the communities effected that are generally against it?
I don't think inequality is good. I just think the solution proposed is not the proper way to address the inequality (and as already stated, Crack does not equal Cocaine, if the law was "black people with drugs get 1 year per gram, white people get 1 year per 100 grams" I would still think the proposed solution of "black people get 1 year per 100 grams" is stupid and that it should be changed to "white people get 1 year per gram".)

I can see what you're saying about the communities preception of the justice system being important... but I don't think the community will ever stop thinking "the white mans out to get them" anytime soon, no matter what we do.

[Daniel]

but I don't think the community will ever stop thinking "the white mans out to get them" anytime soon, no matter what we do.


What exactly have you done to make it so?

[Celephais]

What exactly have you done to make it so?
Me? Nothing, I meant we as a nation.

I could care less, it doesn't affect me. I've just been sharing my opinion on the topic, I'm sure it's no surprise to you I really know shit about the situation, I just have no sympathy for drug dealers... sure make it equal, just don't make it easier (I'm not sure "rehab" works for drug dealers). Hell don't make it equal, I don't care, it's a parasitic occupation, and one that I feel doesn't deserve compassion.

I'll agree that drugs are not the root problem, there are tons of things more important, I just don't think "taking it easy" on drugs is a good idea.

[Latrinsorm]

The question of not dealing crack is very easy to answer when you have other options. However, the reason why it is so prevalent is not only because it is seen as a viable option, but probably the most viable for some.In that case, how is making it more viable in any way justifiable?

[Daniel]

In that case, how is making it more viable in any way justifiable?

Because it's a moot point either way.

Prison sentences do not effect the viability of something. It merely makes it more or less attractive. As bad as prison it, it doesn't compare to starvation and it never will.

People are going to sell crack or do things as long as they believe that it is their best (or only) way to make a living. It doesn't matter if its 10 or 2 years in prison. However, if people feel like they have a place in society and the ability to do something about it then they won't do such things. Does that require a large amount of self motivation? Absolutely.

However, disportionate prison sentences do two things.

1) It feeds into the perception that the system is out to get them and that there is no reason to *not* commit crimes, by providing empirical evidence that the system is indeed out to get them.

2) It puts people in a position where it is almost impossible to reclaim their lives if they make the mistake of falling prey to that very believable, and now quantifiable perception.

If you catch a drug charge in America you life as an effective member of society is basicly over. Unless you have the grit and determination to grind it out for years just to get back to square 1. That's not exactly an inviting prospect for anyone, and yet that's what we not only ask but expect out of hundreds of thousands of people.

I'm not here suggesting that this is the Alpha and Omega of black problems in America, but it sure as fuck doesn't help, by a wide margin.

[DeV]

(I'm not sure "rehab" works for drug dealers).Sean2 and I were referring to drug addicts. I would never suggest rehab for dealers unless they've done their time and have been referred to or have willingly sought a program on their own with a focus on selling for repeat crimes of the same nature, which in the coming years I suspect will also be seen as an addiction of its own. However, that's a different topic altogether.

[Daniel]

Me? Nothing, I meant we as a nation.

I wasn't asking for what *you* have done personally. As I was asking what you, a member of this nation, thought has been done to counteract this thinking. I.e. your opinion.



I'll agree that drugs are not the root problem, there are tons of things more important, I just don't think "taking it easy" on drugs is a good idea.

I'd suggest that putting hundreds of thousands of African Americans into a hole deeper than what they are already in only exacerbates the situation and is less of a good idea than going easy on drugs.

[Gan]

What exactly have you done to make it so?

Funny, this isnt the first time you've countered with this argument and it isnt the first time your counter has occurred in a racially biased thread.

Reverting the discussion down to 'what have you done directly' is the on the same basis point as the old addage we've seen here "I R ARMY, U R NOT SO U DONT KNOW SHIT".



**Nevermind, you clarified your statment and the context in which it was stated.

[Gan]

Bottm line, we need to go out and educate those dumb motherfuckers to quit selling crack and start selling powder. That way they do less time.


duh.

[Daniel]

Bottm line, we need to go out and educate those dumb motherfuckers to quit selling crack and start selling powder. That way they do less time.


duh.

Is this the natural segway into critically underfunded schools in poor areas?

[DeV]

Funny, this isnt the first time you've countered with this argument and it isnt the first time your counter has occurred in a racially biased thread.

He could have easily countered it by saying... yes we will.

Just saw your edit. *disregard*

[Celephais]

What exactly have you done to make it so?


I wasn't asking for what *you* have done personally. As I was asking what you, a member of this nation, thought has been done to counteract this thinking. I.e. your opinion.
I wasn't answer the question as stated. I was saying that my opinion was that we could not counteract this thinking in some individuals, it's like trying to tell some southern folk they lost the civil war. What we should be doing IMO, is addressing all the social issues Dev listed off, over worrying about releasing drug dealers back on the street.

Couldn't you read that from what I typed?

[oldanforgotten]

Is this the natural segway into critically underfunded schools in poor areas?

No, but neither are commuting drug sentences. Most secondary education institutions in South Korea, India, and Taiwan spend a mere fraction of what we do even for the most "destitute" of schools, and yet they seem to be doing just fine. As to even the most underfunded schools, they tend to be in rural areas in mississippi, nebraska, and Texas, and contain both districts that are predominantly white and ones that are predominantly black. Some of those schools produce excellent students, some produce none. There are a lot more factors than just drugs and racism at hand there, and call me racist, but the "culture" of some districts, including several of the poorer white ones (blame the parents for this one), have higher tolerances for failure and not caring about school.

Bill Cosby had the best argument on this topic.

Is there inequality in the drug sentences? yes. But in terms of rectifying the situation, you'd be better off finding out why crack use is so prevalent among blacks relative to whites, and address that, than cry wolf.

Commute the sentences? fuck no. Send Lindsey Lohan to jail for 5 years.
________
SILVERSURFER REVIEWS (http://vaporizers.net/silver-surfer-vaporizer)

[Artha]

blame the parents for this one
I'll back this up. When I was working in a Title 1 school, helping first and second graders learn to read, the ones I was working with were the ones whose parents weren't as active as they should be. I remember at the beginning of the year, it was a struggle to get permission slips returned, and there were even a couple kids we just couldnt help because of it.

[Daniel]

I wasn't answer the question as stated. I was saying that my opinion was that we could not counteract this thinking in some individuals, it's like trying to tell some southern folk they lost the civil war. What we should be doing IMO, is addressing all the social issues Dev listed off, over worrying about releasing drug dealers back on the street.

Couldn't you read that from what I typed?

No. It's hard to understand what you say when you construct sentences in this manner: "I wasn't answer the question as stated".

English please.

Seriously. My question is what has been done to counteract this thinking in some individuals. Feel free to answer that.

[Daniel]

I'll back this up. When I was working in a Title 1 school, helping first and second graders learn to read, the ones I was working with were the ones whose parents weren't as active as they should be. I remember at the beginning of the year, it was a struggle to get permission slips returned, and there were even a couple kids we just couldnt help because of it.

And if dad is in jail?

[Gan]

Is this the natural segway into critically underfunded schools in poor areas?
No, thats me being sarcastic about the whole racial inequality. Especially when the inmates that I managed discussed in detail and with great accuracy what their sentences were, how they moved the ill-gotten gains into other areas so it could not be confiscated, how long to the day their sentences were and what they needed to do in order to achieve that date. Not one time did the mention of advantages of selling powder over crack come up. This is in the 3 years that I worked that unit as a correctional officer. Every inmate I talked with regarding their tenure as a ward of the state knew the risks getting into the game and every one evaluated how much their time was 'worth' in regards to the money they made on the outside. These were the sellers who did not use the product; ergo they were not held hostage to effects of the addiction.

Underfunded schools are NOT a racial problem btw. Its a political problem. In fact, I read a really great article in last week's economist about restructuring the public schools to revert power away from the school boards and into a single entity that not only has the power to evaluate poor performance with schools but use a structured program to encourage better performance, additionally that entity also can be judged based on his/her performance. (The article explains it better).


No, but neither are commuting drug sentences. Most secondary education institutions in South Korea, India, and Taiwan spend a mere fraction of what we do even for the most "destitute" of schools, and yet they seem to be doing just fine. As to even the most underfunded schools, they tend to be in rural areas in mississippi, nebraska, and Texas, and contain both districts that are predominantly white and ones that are predominantly black. Some of those schools produce excellent students, some produce none. There are a lot more factors than just drugs and racism at hand there, and call me racist, but the "culture" of some districts, including several of the poorer white ones (blame the parents for this one), have higher tolerances for failure and not caring about school.

Bill Cosby had the best argument on this topic.

Is there inequality in the drug sentences? yes. But in terms of rectifying the situation, you'd be better off finding out why crack use is so prevalent among blacks relative to whites, and address that, than cry wolf.

Commute the sentences? fuck no. Send Lindsey Lohan to jail for 5 years.

/agreed.

[Celephais]

No. It's hard to understand what you say when you construct sentences in this manner: "I wasn't answer the question as stated".

English please.

Seriously. My question is what has been done to counteract this thinking in some individuals. Feel free to answer that.
Sorry if that was confusing, I was making fun of you again... you asked me "What exactly have you done to make it so?" and then said "I wasn't asking for what *you* have done personally. As I was asking what you, a member of this nation, thought has been done to counteract this thinking. I.e. your opinion." It would have been quite a stretch for me to read into your first question that you wanted my opinion on what the nation should do... So I said my answer was actually the answer to your extrapolated question if you extrapolated my orginal answer. You "stated the question" asking me what *I* have done personally... so I answered it as stated.

Now you've changed the question again into what HAS been done, not what I THINK should be done. And I have no idea what has been done.

Make up your mind, ask a question if you really want an answer, and then expect the answer to be to that question. If you want to ask another question, feel free, but don't say your first question was your second question.

[Daniel]

Sorry if that was confusing, I was making fun of you again... you asked me "What exactly have you done to make it so?" and then said "I wasn't asking for what *you* have done personally. As I was asking what you, a member of this nation, thought has been done to counteract this thinking. I.e. your opinion." It would have been quite a stretch for me to read into your first question that you wanted my opinion on what the nation should do... So I said my answer was actually the answer to your extrapolated question if you extrapolated my orginal answer. You "stated the question" asking me what *I* have done personally... so I answered it as stated.

Now you've changed the question again into what HAS been done, not what I THINK should be done. And I have no idea what has been done.

Make up your mind, ask a question if you really want an answer, and then expect the answer to be to that question. If you want to ask another question, feel free, but don't say your first question was your second question.


The question always has been "has".

It's fairly obvious what I think should be apart of what is done.

You've passing universal condemnation on a group of people for not realizing that something is not true about the government. While the government has not enough to counteract that position itself.

Perception is a two way street.

[Crazy Bard]

Sorry to burst the bubble, but cocaine is used commonly by white people. It's the principle of supply, and demand. The black man sells the drugs ..The White man buys the drugs.

[Celephais]

You've passing universal condemnation on a group of people for not realizing that something is not true about the government. While the government has not enough to counteract that position itself.
Grammar aside, you're saying the entire group of African American people deal crack? Because if you're saying I'm passing universal condemnation on the entire group of African American drug dealers... then sure, yes I am, happily... next step would be universal condemnation on white drug dealers.

My position:
Drug dealers should get no reprieve, regardless of heritage.
Drugs are only a portion of the problem in the "troubled" African American communities.
Going easy on dealers will not improve the problem.

[oldanforgotten]

And if dad is in jail?

Then someone needs to find out why the fuck dad is in jail, and if many dads are in jail, people need to find out why it is that they feel that crime is the way. Commuting sentences is not the answer. Whether or not dad is physically in jail doesn't change the person. Still a shitty dad, and the chances of the son being shitty also have just gone up exponentially.

You want inequality? Here's inequality. A guy walks up to an investment bank with 10,000 dollars in cash, pays off someone to sign an approval for a loan he would have gotten anyway (move to the top of the pile). Investment bank guy gets caught.

Racketeering. 5 years minimum per offense, and cannot be served concurrently for multiple offenses.

Manslaughter: 18 months. Apparently, moving a loan to the top of the pile is about 3 times as bad as killing a human being.

We should fix that one while we're at it too, right?
________
Pot (http://www.youtube.com/dispensaries)

[Daniel]

Then someone needs to find out why the fuck dad is in jail,

Among other things: Dispropotionate drug sentenes.

[Daniel]

You want inequality? Here's inequality. A guy walks up to an investment bank with 10,000 dollars in cash, pays off someone to sign an approval for a loan he would have gotten anyway (move to the top of the pile). Investment bank guy gets caught.

Racketeering. 5 years minimum per offense, and cannot be served concurrently for multiple offenses.

Manslaughter: 18 months. Apparently, moving a loan to the top of the pile is about 3 times as bad as killing a human being.

We should fix that one while we're at it too, right?

Yep.

[Daniel]

[QUOTE=Celephais;654917] next step would be universal condemnation on white drug dealers.

[QUOTE]

Then we are in agreement. I await your appeal to equalize prison sentences in America.

[Artha]

And if dad is in jail?
Dad was in jail for at least one of the kids I worked with. It's not an easy situation, but it seriously doesn't take much time to read with your kids, or at the very least sign a permission slip to let me read with your kids.

[Celephais]

Then we are in agreement. I await your appeal to equalize prison sentences in America.
We are. The thing is I already said it doesn't affect me personally... so I'm not doing shit :tumble: ... I'm too busy arguing on an internet message board. But hey, if you formulate some legislation and need some signatures to show public support so you can lobby it, well... mail me a signature form with return postage and I'll sign that for you (as long as I find a pen before I find the trash can).

[oldanforgotten]

Perception is a two way street.

Perception is only a two way street if two people perceive the same thing differently. Some people like to play the race card for anything they deem to be inequal.

For example:

1) Black people score lower on average than white people on standardized tests.

Racist View: Black people are stupid
Neutral View: there are underlying factors in where people are located, general wealth levels, overpopulation of schools, and a culture that is not as strong as a whole in believing in the foundation of education from the parents to the children that causes the discrepancy.
Cry wolf view: ZOMG ZOMG RACISM, THE TEST IS RACIST

2) The Barry Bonds issue

Racist View: All black athletes are dumb drug using idiots who can't read or write
Neutral View: Given one of the more sacred records, and the general fascination within the US of the man who set it, there will always be scrutiny for besting the acheivement. Given the fact that Barry Bonds has lied to the public already in denied that he ever used steroids (when in fact, Grand Jury testimony revealed he did KNOW that he had taken steroids, simply had never known "at the time" that he was until after the investigation), and that his trainer refuses to testify, has cast a doubt on his character. Other people who knew his trainer, both black AND white, have said under oath that the trainer did provide them with drugs, one of whom was black (Gary Sheffield) and said the trainer provided both he AND barry with drugs at the same time on one occasion, has further cast doubt on his honesty of the matter. Furthermore, for simply refusing to admit or deny steroid use, previously considered to be a lock for the Hall of Fame, Mark McGwire barely collected enough votes to stay on the ballot, so the issue itself clearly is not entirely motivated by racism, but rather at the disgust with general drug usage in sports. etc./ etc. etc. blah blah blah.
Cry Wolf View: ZOMG ZOMG RACISM, WITHCHUNT RACIST RACIST!
________
Buy Glass Bongs (http://glassbongs.org/)

[Daniel]

You have to sign a permission slip to let someone else read to your kids?

It's not an easy solution Artha, and I'm not implying it is. I just think the entire, "it's their own damn fault, we've done everything we could" argument is a bit thin in alot of regards.

[Daniel]

Perception is only a two way street if two people perceive the same thing differently.



People perceive things differently in the U.S. Particuarly in regards to race relations. Egads. Amazing I know.

[oldanforgotten]

You have to sign a permission slip to let someone else read to your kids?

It's not an easy solution Artha, and I'm not applying it is. I just think the entire, "it's their own damn fault, we've done everything we could" argument is a bit thin in alot of regards.

No one is arguing that inequalities don't continue to exist today. The average financial conditions are one that need improvement badly, and due to centralization of some communities that are predominantly black in highly populated urban areas, both schooling and medical care, which were already poor for the area, become perceived as being race-driven (and in some cases, seemingly are).

What we are arguing here, is that starting the process to equality off by commuting crack dealer sentences is quite possibly the shittiest and stupidest path we can possibly take.
________
195 S (http://www.ferrari-wiki.com/wiki/Ferrari_195_S)

[Daniel]

What we are arguing here, is that starting the process to equality off by commuting crack dealer sentences is quite possibly the shittiest and stupidest path we can possibly take.

Pretty sure I'm not arguing that.

[Celephais]

I'm not saying you can.

I'm saying the societal effects of crack cocaine go beyond the baking soda added to cocaine. In fact, I'd argue that a part of the societal problems of drug usage in African American communities lie in the imbalance of the judicial system.


Pretty sure I'm not arguing that.

You didn't say it was the "best starting point" but...

[Daniel]

You suck pretty hard with Semantics. I'd suggest you just give it up.

I said *a part* of. I did not say it was the first step, or the end all be all of equality.

Look at me. I can edit after the fact too. You're still reaching.

[Artha]

You have to sign a permission slip to let someone else read to your kids?
Yeah, the kid can't consent to enter the program and the teacher doesn't have the authority because it's outside of regular school activity.


I just think the entire, "it's their own damn fault, we've done everything we could" argument is a bit thin in alot of regards.
Oh, totally. I think the education system's is where everything begins...when kids don't learn to read and write, it's going to be hard for them to get even a basic job. And when you can't get any kind of job except selling illegal things, like I said before it's not a hard choice.

[Crazy Bard]

You guy's are complaining on how the sentencing for drug dealer's shouldn't be reprieved, whether white, or black. This is a small time deal, seeing how many larger problems are still present. What about the people that are bringing these drugs into the country? America doesn't give a shit about minorities. The only thing bringing this topic up is because these drug's are being sold to the white community, at a rate that's increasing. We all take the shortcut's in life, and selling drugs happens to be one of them so with that being said.
Drug dealer's ..Keep selling drugs, but just know that when the President's son/daughter is an addict. Drug sentencing is going to be maximized to the death sentence.

[Celephais]

You suck pretty hard with Semantics. I'd suggest you just give it up.

I said *a part* of. I did not say it was the first step, or the end all be all of equality.
As do you... the "you didn't say" part I said right after your quotes should have clarified that.

If it's a part of it as you feel, how big of a part would you say? So big that this is the proper step to take?

You haven't said you outright approve of what's happening (I don't' think you have), simply put the articles out there with a 'discuss', but really what is your opinion? This kind of legislation really seems like a step in the wrong direction. You did state you'd be fine with them just upping the sentences for whiter crimes (cocaine), which is also my opinion, but you didn't state that I saw that you disliked this current legislation. I don't recall an exact opinion of yours on the commuted sentence aspect.

You did however state that part of the drug use problems are caused by the judiciary imbalance... would balancing it by commuting the sentences of crack dealers cause any sort of positive effect on the drug use problem in your opinion?

[Daniel]

I believe I said that equalizing jail sentences (even downward) is a step in the right direction because it establishes equality. Which I think is essential for any society to be functional.

I also don't believe that low level drug dealers are the cause and consequence of the problems in the black community. Crack as a whole is. However, these people are merely filling a role to provide that would likely be filled regardless. As long as there is A) A demand, and B) a Supply for crack cocaine, you will have the same problems as before.

It's like getting pissed at Microsoft for bundling windows with microsoft outlook and instead of blaming Microsoft, you blame the guy at Best buy who sells it.

[Crazy Bard]

It's like getting pissed at Microsoft for bundling windows with microsoft outlook and instead of blaming Microsoft, you blame the guy at Best buy who sells it.

Couldn't have said it any better.:thanx:

[Celephais]

I believe I said that equalizing jail sentences (even downward) is a step in the right direction because it establishes equality. Which I think is essential for any society to be functional.
I'm of the opinion criminals (felony) are not functional in society. Jail itself is just a patch, as we don't really have a solid way to rehabilitate them... infact if we could have less equality, some sort of means to monitor their rehabilitation level and release them not based on crime commited, just only when they're ready to be productive.


I also don't believe that low level drug dealers are the cause and consequence of the problems in the black community. Crack as a whole is. However, these people are merely filling a role to provide that would likely be filled regardless. As long as there is A) A demand, and B) a Supply for crack cocaine, you will have the same problems as before.
That all might be true, but making it easier doesn't help, in any way.


It's like getting pissed at Microsoft for bundling windows with microsoft outlook and instead of blaming Microsoft, you blame the guy at Best buy who sells it.
This would work if Windows was illegal... I agree that targetting the source is how you solve problems, but sometimes the source can't be addressed for whatever reason... and the only way to attack the source is by slowly cutting off the lower branches (Plea bargains to rat come to mind).

[Artha]

That all might be true, but making it easier doesn't help, in any way.
Making it easier doesn't matter.

When the two options are sell crack or starve, it is never a hard choice.

Further, targetting the street-level dealers won't do shit, because there's always going to be someone new coming up, who'll take their customer base and all you have is one more person in jail and no disruption in the crack supply. Same's true all the way up to the people who are getting the powder off the plane or the boat, which is why the War on Drugs is hopelessly lost.

[Danical]

Neutral View: there are underlying factors in where people are located, general wealth levels, overpopulation of schools, and a culture that is not as strong as a whole in believing in the foundation of education from the parents to the children that causes the discrepancy.


Huh?

You've got proof of that, Champ?

Just curious as a person working for a college under the department of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Matriculation.

When we control for SES, standardized test scores, success, and retention rates are fairly similar between all races.

If you can cite research to demonstrate your statement about parental passing of educational importance, that'd be great. As far as I know, I haven't read anything that would support your claim.

[oldanforgotten]

I believe I said that equalizing jail sentences (even downward) is a step in the right direction because it establishes equality. Which I think is essential for any society to be functional.

I also don't believe that low level drug dealers are the cause and consequence of the problems in the black community. Crack as a whole is. However, these people are merely filling a role to provide that would likely be filled regardless. As long as there is A) A demand, and B) a Supply for crack cocaine, you will have the same problems as before.

It's like getting pissed at Microsoft for bundling windows with microsoft outlook and instead of blaming Microsoft, you blame the guy at Best buy who sells it.

Yes, but the fact always remains on the other hand, that those "low level dealers" can always commute the sentences themselves by helping to find the Microsofts, and no, they are a large part of the problem in that they allow the supply to reach the demand. Again, it's an underlying problem with perceived racial imbalance, yes. But it's part of a bigger problem to which race is not a major concern.

Stiffening up all drug penalties is likely the best solution, but short of that, commuting anything would be a huge crime to society.
________
Mazda Biante History (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_Biante)

[oldanforgotten]

Huh?

You've got proof of that, Champ?

Just curious as a person working for a college under the department of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Matriculation.

When we control for SES, standardized test scores, success, and retention rates are fairly similar between all races.

If you can cite research to demonstrate your statement about parental passing of educational importance, that'd be great. As far as I know, I haven't read anything that would support your claim.

proof of what? That when parents aren't as involved in kid's educations that it causes the kids to not do as well as a whole?

Statistically speaking, if you want to tell me that the average SAT score for a random white/black/asian/hispanic person is the same, go for it. Data supports the other way. There are rural and poor white communities that have the same damn problem. It just so happens that most of these issues arise in urban/poor areas, and a higher percentage of blacks and hispanics live in these areas than other races. It's not about race, it's about those areas as a whole.
________
Herbalaire Vaporizer Review (http://herbalairevaporizer.com/)

[Artha]

Stiffening up all drug penalties is likely the best solution
The thing to do is legalize things like small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, opium and all those other fun things that don't outright destroy you. Then, with all the money you save from not prosecuting those people and keeping them in jail, educate people about the harm caused by the drugs that are still illegal.

Not only will you drive down prices on the newly-legal drugs, killing any black market, you'll probably drive down prices on the still-illegal drugs, killing that black market too.

Stiffening penalties won't do a damn thing.

[Daniel]

Yes, but the fact always remains on the other hand, that those "low level dealers" can always commute the sentences themselves by helping to find the Microsofts, and no, they are a large part of the problem in that they allow the supply to reach the demand. Again, it's an underlying problem with perceived racial imbalance, yes. But it's part of a bigger problem to which race is not a major concern.

Stiffening up all drug penalties is likely the best solution, but short of that, commuting anything would be a huge crime to society.

How exactly does a low level drug dealer in Compton do anything to stop the supplier of drugs into the country?

[Danical]

proof of what? That when parents aren't as involved in kid's educations that it causes the kids to not do as well as a whole?

Statistically speaking, if you want to tell me that the average SAT score for a random white/black/asian/hispanic person is the same, go for it. Data supports the other way. There are rural and poor white communities that have the same damn problem. It just so happens that most of these issues arise in urban/poor areas, and a higher percentage of blacks and hispanics live in these areas than other races. It's not about race, it's about those areas as a whole.


When we control for SES, standardized test scores, success, and retention rates are fairly similar between all races.

HONEST QUESTION: ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?

In regards to why blacks score lower than whites on standarized test scores you said, "a culture that is not as strong as a whole in believing in the foundation of education from the parents to the children that causes the discrepancy." Note you didn't say this was a case by case event but rather, a cultural phenomena.

So, blacks score lower because they have a culture that doesn't pass this importance on education via parents?

You're dead fucking wrong.

The data supports me, since, you know, I'm actually getting the data.

[Daniel]

This would work if Windows was illegal... I agree that targetting the source is how you solve problems, but sometimes the source can't be addressed for whatever reason... and the only way to attack the source is by slowly cutting off the lower branches (Plea bargains to rat come to mind).

The bundling of windows and outlook was deemed illegal, FYI. The point still stands. You don't stop microsoft from illegially bundling software by going after employees at best buy.

and no, that is not the best way to target the scource.

We know damn well where the drugs come from. You don't need some low level street dealer in Columbia Heights to tell you that.

[ElanthianSiren]

Yes, but the fact always remains on the other hand, that those "low level dealers" can always commute the sentences themselves by helping to find the Microsofts, and no, they are a large part of the problem in that they allow the supply to reach the demand. Again, it's an underlying problem with perceived racial imbalance, yes. But it's part of a bigger problem to which race is not a major concern.

Stiffening up all drug penalties is likely the best solution, but short of that, commuting anything would be a huge crime to society.

As far as I'm aware, three strikes is a miserable failure in california. I can't conceive of a bigger non-violent punishment than life in prison. You don't get to commute sentences, and the judge doesn't get to judge. As a result, California's already overcrowded system is MORE overcrowded AND with a large proportion of non violent offenders. Are pot dealers/consumers really the ones we want to put in jail, over people guilty of assault or rape?

As others said, when the choice is sell drugs or starve, self preservation is going to kick in in most cases. I've always supported more than threatening programs, ones that give individuals in high and low risk areas other things to occupy their time. Like in grand rapids, I read to kids as part of our library outreach. You may say BFD, but if you had a whole slew of such programs, available to all, it seems like you could 1. get people away from the environment of dealing drugs for several hours 2. get potential consumers away from drug offerings.

edit: I want to add that you won't save everyone with such measures, but no program has 100% efficiency, not the punitive ones we currently have and not ones that threaten death in other countries.

[oldanforgotten]

HONEST QUESTION: ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?

In regards to why blacks score lower than whites on standarized test scores you said, "a culture that is not as strong as a whole in believing in the foundation of education from the parents to the children that causes the discrepancy." Note you didn't say this was a case by case event but rather, a cultural phenomena.

So, blacks score lower because they have a culture that doesn't pass this importance on education via parents?

You're dead fucking wrong.

The data supports me, since, you know, I'm actually getting the data.


HONEST QUESTION: CAN YOU FUCKING READ?

That cultural phenomenon is NOT referring to blacks, but rather manyl of the inner city, and some rural poor school districts. Those encompass everyone, white, hispanic, asian AND black. That a higher percentage of black and latinos live in those areas relative to the total population of blacks/latinos than whites and asians contributes to the national disparity, Dumb fuck.
________
Gnosticism Dicussion (http://www.religionboard.org/gnosticism/)

[Danical]

HONEST QUESTION: CAN YOU FUCKING READ?

That cultural phenomenon is NOT referring to blacks, but rather manyl of the inner city, and some rural poor school districts. Those encompass everyone, white, hispanic, asian AND black. That a higher percentage of black and latinos live in those areas relative to the total population of blacks/latinos than whites and asians contributes to the national disparity, Dumb fuck.

Do you know what SES means? No, you don't. If you did you wouldn't have said the above. YOU LOSE AT LIFE.

EDIT: It's also retarded to state the question of a black/white distinction THEN use a global cultural phenomena in your answer. You can't form a fucking argument to save your life. Jesus Christ you lose on so many levels.

EDIT2:



For example:

1) Black people score lower on average than white people on standardized tests.

Racist View: Black people are stupid
Neutral View: there are underlying factors in where people are located, general wealth levels, overpopulation of schools, and a culture that is not as strong as a whole in believing in the foundation of education from the parents to the children that causes the discrepancy.
Cry wolf view: ZOMG ZOMG RACISM, THE TEST IS RACIST

[Stanley Burrell]

I dunno about any of this but I will say that I can think of one distinct line being drawn as far as any punishment goes, non-related to whatever it is that gets peddled -- And that would probably be enforcing the law to its fullest for those found guilty of selling in a school district, with complete disregard as to whether substance X = substance Y, and so on.

[Danical]

I dunno about any of this but I will say that I can think of one distinct line being drawn as far as any punishment goes, non-related to whatever it is that gets peddled -- And that would probably be enforcing the law to its fullest for those found guilty of selling in a school district, with complete disregard as to whether substance X = substance Y, and so on.

I thought proximity to schools was already a factor.

If not, make it so.

[Stanley Burrell]

I thought proximity to schools was already a factor.

If not, make it so.

I am definitely certain that it is, but what I'm gathering from not having read a lot of this thread is that convicted peddlers will be getting a Get Out of Jail Free Card (or at the very least have their cases reviewed.) And that I think if you sold to the kids, you should rot in prison for a non-reviewable/debatable/re-debatable amount of time.

[Hulkein]

essentially, the *same* drug.

Percocet and OxyContin are essentially the *same* druge too: Oxycodone.

I have no problem with stiffer penalties for people getting busted with OxyContin because of the harsher end result of doing one over the other. If the social impact of crack is 100x worse than cocaine then I have no problem with 100x stiffer penalties.

As Artha pointed out, 100x may be a little over the top, but I don't think having stiffer penalties because of the societal end result is a bad thing.

[Hulkein]

By the way I don't know if the sentences for OxyContin are actually harsher than Percocet, just saying I would agree with the logic behind it.

[Davenshire]

I've had the pleasure of visiting one in action before on accident. FAR WORSE then any drug scene I've EVER seen.

How did you visit one on "accident?"

[Sean of the Thread]

How did you visit one on "accident?"

Gave a co-worker/friend a ride to "pick something up" on pay day.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

IN MY OPINION

Any victimless (as in no holdups, no robberies to pay for the drug, no beatdowns, stealing, etc) drug crime should be treated like a DIU. I'm ok with folks doing drugs, do em at home. Don't lets kids get into them, don't sell them. Don't drive while on them.

Keep a little common sense, and destroy your brain/body/life all you want.

[Kyra231]

And if dad is in jail?

Are you fucking SERIOUS? That has got to be the lamest reply in the entire thread.

There are innumerable single parents out there who manage to get their kids through school WITH permission slips signed, concerts attended, school carnivals to volunteer at and so forth and work 1 or more jobs while doing it.

Is it easy, fuck no. If you CARE about your kids you won't stoop to some retarded whiny ass copout like 'But the baby daddy is gone/in jail/sucking a crack pipe/i.e. I'm too fucking self centered & small minded to suck it up and go on for the sake of my kid"



~K.

[ElanthianSiren]

IN MY OPINION

Any victimless (as in no holdups, no robberies to pay for the drug, no beatdowns, stealing, etc) drug crime should be treated like a DIU. I'm ok with folks doing drugs, do em at home. Don't lets kids get into them, don't sell them. Don't drive while on them.

Keep a little common sense, and destroy your brain/body/life all you want.

x2. I don't have issue with people drinking excessively, for instance, as long as they're not drinking around me where I have to deal with them.




There are innumerable single parents out there who manage to get their kids through school WITH permission slips signed, concerts attended, school carnivals to volunteer at and so forth and work 1 or more jobs while doing it.

Is it easy, fuck no. If you CARE about your kids you won't stoop to some retarded whiny ass copout like 'But the baby daddy is gone/in jail/sucking a crack pipe/i.e. I'm too fucking self centered & small minded to suck it up and go on for the sake of my kid"



~K.


Do you realize the percentage of the male black population currently incarcerated?

I agree with you that single females can raise kids on their own (RHAR!), but when you start straining entire communities because half of a major family unit is in prison, you better believe there will be societal ramifications for that community. I agree when you focus solely on *A* family, this may not be as apparent; when you start focusing on the impact of mass incarceration on entire communities, it becomes more apparent.

Read some things by Eric Sterling, who helped write the min max doctorine and now calls it the greatest failure of his career because of its social ramifications.

[Daniel]

Are you fucking SERIOUS? That has got to be the lamest reply in the entire thread.

There are innumerable single parents out there who manage to get their kids through school WITH permission slips signed, concerts attended, school carnivals to volunteer at and so forth and work 1 or more jobs while doing it.

Is it easy, fuck no. If you CARE about your kids you won't stoop to some retarded whiny ass copout like 'But the baby daddy is gone/in jail/sucking a crack pipe/i.e. I'm too fucking self centered & small minded to suck it up and go on for the sake of my kid"



~K.

So you just punish the kid? great solution.

[875000]

So you just punish the kid? great solution.

Dude, the only two things I am doing to those kids are "jack" and "squat." Punishment does not even factor into the equation.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that either I, or a government institution that my tax dollars fund, are somehow liable for other peoples' children should they decide to abdicate their responsibilities.

I'm not.

And I have yet to see a system that works that tries to enable such irresponsible behavior.

[Daniel]

Dude, the only two things I am doing to those kids are "jack" and "squat." Punishment does not even factor into the equation.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that either I, or a government institution that my tax dollars fund, are somehow liable for other peoples' children should they decide to abdicate their responsibilities.

I'm not.

And I have yet to see a system that works that tries to enable such irresponsible behavior.

I guess you aren't familiar with the history of social policy in America then. It's one of the things that makes this country what it is. So sorry you seem to be so ignorant.

[Kyra231]

So you just punish the kid? great solution.

And showing the kid that you can work & take care of things without stooping to selling crack or using it is punishing them somehow? Wtf?

I can't imagine if their father is a crack user/dealer these kids are that much worse off without them. Certainly not the type of person you want as a role model.

~K

[Daniel]

And showing the kid that you can work & take care of things without stooping to selling crack or using it is punishing them somehow? Wtf?

I can't imagine if their father is a crack user/dealer these kids are that much worse off without them. Certainly not the type of person you want as a role model.

~K

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that telling these kids to go suck it isn't exactly condusive to changing the situation.

[875000]

A few times on these boards we have gotten into discussions over whether or not there is an inherent racism in the judicial system. This stems from the fact that the vast majority of inhabitants of the federal judicial system are black, despite being a minority population. I've heard such things as "black people commit more crimes, etc etc."

Well..apparently, the U.S. Sentencing committee and several other legal entities disagree.

Actually, the US Sentencing Commission doesn’t agree with what you have been claiming the last few days.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission’s (not "Committee") "recent" recommendations regarding crack sentencing are actually just updates to the same recommendations made by them in 2002 (which in turn were revised recommendations from what was proposed in 1995 and 1997 – although they too recommended a reduction in the disparate sentences). In other words, new testimony was collected and statistics were updated to bolster a resubmission of similar recommendations made in 2002.

Contrary to what you are asserting, the U.S. Sentencing Commission never concluded in 2002 or 2007 that sentencing guidelines were created with "racist" intent. Sure, some of the people who testified in front of them claimed that -- although conveniently enough, they were not able to show intent. And they also acknowledged that some perceive the guidelines to be racist, regardless of whether such perceptions were true or not. However, the Commission itself never validated claims of inherent racism in the justice system. In fact, in 2002 they flatly pointed out that "this assertion cannot be scientifically evaluated."

Additionally, part of your assertions seems to be that “it’s the same drug” so the sentences should be the same. The U.S. Sentencing Commission, however, did not reach the same conclusion. Rather,” the Sentencing Commission unanimously concluded that while greater punishment for crack cocaine than for powder cocaine is clearly warranted, specifically in cases involving violence, the current 100-to-1 drug quantity ratio between the two forms of cocaine is not appropriate.” Basically, they are arguing crack merits harsher sentancing than cocaine, but the sentencing ratios need to be reduced (very similar to Sean2’s position).

http://www.ussc.gov/reports.htm

So, in sum:
1. The U.S. Sentencing Commission does not agree with your claim that crack sentencing guidelines were created to oppress a certain race.
2. The U.S. Sentencing Commission does not agree with your opinion that crack and regular cocaine sentencing should be the same.
3. The U.S. Sentencing Commission does think that the 100-1 ratio is skewed, and that the sentencing disparity should be lessened
4. This tends to be discussed every 5 years or so and then ignored by most legislative bodies. Retroactive sentancing admittedly is a new twist on things, but if past history is of any indication, it is also likely to go nowhere.

In the future, before throwing around terms like “racism” and then claiming that a reputable body has issued a report that substantiates this, you should A) actually read the report and B) gain a full understanding of what it was really recommending.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that telling these kids to go suck it isn't exactly condusive to changing the situation.

And I'm saying that painting Black Americans as a victim in every single circumstance instead of actually looking at the problems isn't conducive to changing the situation either.

Self Responsibility. Try it sometime.

[TheEschaton]

These threads make me very NOT thankful, because it makes people seem retardedly ignorant. I'm kind of glad my parents' internet has been out for the past two days and I've missed this one.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

Actually, the US Sentencing Commission doesn’t agree with what you have been claiming the last few days.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission’s (not "Committee") "recent" recommendations regarding crack sentencing are actually just updates to the same recommendations made by them in 2002 (which in turn were revised recommendations from what was proposed in 1995 and 1997 – although they too recommended a reduction in the disparate sentences). In other words, new testimony was collected and statistics were updated to bolster a resubmission of similar recommendations made in 2002.

Contrary to what you are asserting, the U.S. Sentencing Commission never concluded in 2002 or 2007 that sentencing guidelines were created with "racist" intent. Sure, some of the people who testified in front of them claimed that -- although conveniently enough, they were not able to show intent. And they also acknowledged that some perceive the guidelines to be racist, regardless of whether such perceptions were true or not. However, the Commission itself never validated claims of inherent racism in the justice system. In fact, in 2002 they flatly pointed out that "this assertion cannot be scientifically evaluated."
.

Your inability to read between the lines is astounding. The very fact that they allowed people to posit these fews and took them into consideration shows that there is a obvious racial bias to the disparity.

The fact that it is unable to be scientifically evaluated "Hey, sir can we measure your racism", means that they can not put forth that position.

[Daniel]

And I'm saying that painting Black Americans as a victim in every single circumstance instead of actually looking at the problems isn't conducive to changing the situation either.

Self Responsibility. Try it sometime.

I'm looking at the problem. The problem is that Blacks are being dispropotionately targeted sentences. As I told Sean2, I'm not saying that all blacks are victims or that all whites are racist. I'm saying that it is enough to be a problem.

[Daniel]

Since you spent all of that time. Here are some more bits from the report:


As explained in Chapter 1, the legislative history of the 1986 Act is ambiguous as to
whether Congress intended the penalties for crack cocaine offenses to fit within the general two-
tiered, five and ten-year penalty structure for serious and major traffickers. However, using the
evidence then available, Congress clearly concluded that crack cocaine was a more dangerous
form of cocaine than powder cocaine and that conclusion formed a significant basis for the
establishment of the 100-to-1 drug quantity ratio. Assessing the relative dangers posed by any
two drugs is a difficult and inexact task, but recent research indicates that the current penalty
structure – which yields a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for ten to fifty doses of crack
cocaine compared to 2,500 to 5,000 doses of powder cocaine – greatly overstates the relative
harmfulness of crack cocaine.


In sum, instead of targeting serious and major traffickers in a manner similar to the
articulated congressional design of penalties for other major drugs of abuse, crack cocaine
mandatory minimum penalties currently apply most often to offenders who perform low-level
trafficking functions, wield little decision-making authority, and have limited responsibility.
Based solely on trafficking functions, the penalties appear to overstate the culpability of most
crack cocaine offenders.


In short, although the harmful conduct described above does occur more often in crack
cocaine offenses than in powder cocaine offenses, it occurs in only a relatively small minority of
crack cocaine offenses. This finding raises two principal concerns. First, to the extent that the
100-to-1 drug ratio was designed to account for the harmful conduct examined in this section, it
sweeps too broadly by treating all crack cocaine offenders as if they committed these various
harmful acts, even though most crack cocaine offenders in fact had not. In other words, the
offense seriousness of most crack cocaine offenders is overstated by the 100-to-1 drug quantity
ratio, suggesting that a differential this extreme is unjust.



One of the key issues surrounding the debate concerning the different penalty structures
for crack cocaine offenses and powder cocaine offenses relates to the racial composition of
federal crack cocaine offenders. The overwhelming majority of offenders subject to the
heightened crack cocaine penalties are black, about 85 percent in 2000. This has contributed to a widely-held perception that the current penalty structure for federal cocaine offenses promotes
unwarranted disparity based on race.
In order to evaluate whether the crack cocaine penalties disproportionately impact blacks,
data regarding the racial composition of the entire population of crack cocaine traffickers would
be required. For example, if 85 percent of federally convicted and sentenced crack cocaine
traffickers are black, the fact that the same percentage of all crack cocaine traffickers are black
would tend to undermine the assertion of unwarranted disparity based on race. On the other
hand, if 85 percent of federally convicted and sentenced crack cocaine traffickers are black, the
fact that some lower percentage of all crack cocaine traffickers are black would tend to support
the assertion of unwarranted disparity based on race. Although data regarding the racial
composition of crack cocaine users are available, such data do not exist for crack cocaine
traffickers generally. As a result, this assertion cannot be evaluated scientifically.
Nevertheless, the Commission finds even the perception of racial disparity to be
problematic. Perceived improper racial disparity fosters disrespect for and lack of confidence in
the criminal justice system among those very groups that Congress intended would benefit from
the heightened penalties for crack cocaine. The legislative history surrounding the 1986 Act
indicates that one of Congress’s primary concerns was to protect poor and minority
neighborhoods that were most afflicted by crack cocaine trafficking and its associated secondary
harms. The fact that those same communities and many of their representatives now seek
change in the federal cocaine penalty structure suggests a critical re-examination of the current
penalty structure may be warranted.
Furthermore, to the extent that the preceding analysis has shown that the 100-to-1 drug
quantity ratio results in unduly severe penalties for most crack cocaine offenders, the effects of
that severity fall primarily upon black offenders.

To sum:
1. The current penalties for crack cocaine are arbitrary and do not accurately reflect the nature and severity of crack cocaine dealing.
2. The impact of crack cocaine sales on communities are vastly overstated and are not in line with the rationale for a 100-1 ratio.
3. These laws do not target the intended targets of the crack cocaine laws of 1986 and instead focus almost entirely on low level dealers, which in turn leads to a gross differential in those convicted for long terms. This does not take into account such things as non existence of violence and various other factors that ontribute to the 100-1 rationale.
4. Blacks are disproportionately effected by these laws and although it is scientifically impossible to verify, it is a cause of major concern to the sentencing commission.
5. You are a tard.

[Parkbandit]

I'm looking at the problem. The problem is that Blacks are being dispropotionately targeted sentences. As I told Sean2, I'm not saying that all blacks are victims or that all whites are racist. I'm saying that it is enough to be a problem.


BUT.. have you EVER addressed any other reason why Blacks are disproportionately sentenced.. or is it ALL due to white racism. Could it actually be that blacks disproportionately commit crimes? Is that even a possibility, or is it just because all whites are racists?

[875000]

Your inability to read between the lines is astounding. The very fact that they allowed people to posit these fews and took them into consideration shows that there is a obvious racial bias to the disparity.

The fact that it is unable to be scientifically evaluated "Hey, sir can we measure your racism", means that they can not put forth that position.

I have to admit, watching you flail around like this now is amusing. You either have no understanding of what you are read/writing or have just begin to realize that you are now wrong – at least, insofar as the reports are concerned. Let’s address your points:


The very fact that they allowed people to posit these fews and took them into consideration shows that there is a obvious racial bias to the disparity.

It does nothing of the sort.

Since you quoted the report in your most recent post, that means you had to visit the US Sentencing Commission’s website. If you did, it would have been impossible to not notice the Federal Register Notices of Public Hearing – the forums where they solicit some of the testimony that they use in the report.
The purposes of these public hearings is to provide the public a forum to voice their own views. Different witnesses’ testimony may contract one another (i.e., the witnesses who recommend a reduction in the sentencing and the ones who claimed it was appropriate and should not change). The US Sentencing Commission may ultimately agree with what some of the people say. Or they may not. Their bias does not really factor into it much at this stage. They are merely following a process, which is to allow people to voice their views and then record these in any report the Commission eventually releases.

Since you may have a problem with reading comprehension, I’ll make this simpler for you.
1. The Commission allows people to voice their own opinions on matter before them.
2. The Commission shows that these opinions are independent of theirs by placing them in appropriately titled sections like “Summary of Written Public Comment on Cocaine Sentencing Policy” and “Summary of Public Hearings on Cocaine Sentencing Policy.”
3. The Commission issues its own opinions in appropriately titled sections like “Executive Summary” and “FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.”
4. Just because someone speaks at a public hearing does not mean the Commission agrees with, endorses, or secretly harbors these views. Otherwise, the Commission would hold the implausible position of both agreed and disagreeing with something at the same time.


The fact that it is unable to be scientifically evaluated "Hey, sir can we measure your racism", means that they can not put forth that position.

Exactly. Which means the following statement – “A few times on these boards we have gotten into discussions over whether or not there is an inherent racism in the judicial system … Well..apparently, the U.S. Sentencing committee and several other legal entities disagree.” – is wrong . The US Sentencing Commission is not arguing that the laws were passed with racist intent. Focusing on the motivations behind the sentencing – as you started this thread doing – never were part of their report. They acknowledge that upfront, and then focused their analysis on whether the sentencing is appropriate.

Again, to make this simple for you to understand: your claims that the report proved racial intent are wrong


Now let’s go to your most recent post’s assertions:


1. The current penalties for crack cocaine are arbitrary and do not accurately reflect the nature and severity of crack cocaine dealing.

No disagreement with that. In fact, I explained that the report said this in my prior post.


2. The impact of crack cocaine sales on communities are vastly overstated and are not in line with the rationale for a 100-1 ratio.

Again, no disagreement with that. More or less goes to the point that the 100-1 ratio needs to be changed.

However, as I also pointed out, the Commission did not agree with your assertion that the penalties for crack and regular cocaine should be the same. Rather, the Commission specifically admitted that crack sentencing should be harsher.



3. These laws do not target the intended targets of the crack cocaine laws of 1986 and instead focus almost entirely on low level dealers, which in turn leads to a gross differential in those convicted for long terms. This does not take into account such things as non existence of violence and various other factors that ontribute to the 100-1 rationale.

Now you are just copying and pasting without providing any analysis or thought of what that means. If you are implying this somehow shows racism, though, see my prior comments about you being wrong.


4. Blacks are disproportionately effected by these laws and although it is scientifically impossible to verify, it is a cause of major concern to the sentencing commission.

Actually, impact is possible to measure using empirical means. Constructed properly, a statistical analysis should be enough to show impact.

What the Sentencing Commission was claiming that they were not able to verify using scientific methodologies is “intent.” Intent and impact are not the same thing.

Racism – particularly your claims of a systemic oppression based on racial bias -- requires intent. That too, can eventually be proven -- although it requires a great deal more effort and investigation.

The US Sentencing Commission was specifically concerned about the perception of racism. And, as many of us are well aware, perception and reality can be two different things. In other words, one’s perception of something is a poor indication of proof.


5. You are a tard.

Maybe. However, if this is true, despite being retarded I have managed to master functional literacy, reading comprehension, critical thinking, and internet research skills. You have been unable to demonstrate any of these skills. That makes you an idiot savant, with splinter skills of finding nonexistent racist conspiracies and spouting pablum.

[Daniel]

BUT.. have you EVER addressed any other reason why Blacks are disproportionately sentenced..

Yes. I've brought up some of the htings I have done on these boards. Not my fault you ignore it.

[quote]
Could it actually be that blacks disproportionately commit crimes?

Could it be that the system is not biased in some way?

I mean, it's not like there is a legacy of that or anything...

[Daniel]

Exactly. Which means the following statement – “A few times on these boards we have gotten into discussions over whether or not there is an inherent racism in the judicial system … Well..apparently, the U.S. Sentencing committee and several other legal entities disagree.” – is wrong . The US Sentencing Commission is not arguing that the laws were passed with racist intent. Focusing on the motivations behind the sentencing – as you started this thread doing – never were part of their report. They acknowledge that upfront, and then focused their analysis on whether the sentencing is appropriate.

Again, to make this simple for you to understand: your claims that the report proved racial intent are wrong


My claims that there is an inherent racial bias in the judicial system is *true*. As per the claims in the report.

You can chalk that up to whatever you want.



However, as I also pointed out, the Commission did not agree with your assertion that the penalties for crack and regular cocaine should be the same. Rather, the Commission specifically admitted that crack sentencing should be harsher.


Actually, this is not true at all. The report says that if several factors are to be consider true, then there is a legal justification for having a different ratio. However, it then goes on to debunk most of those assertations. Feel free to actually read what I posted.


Now you are just copying and pasting without providing any analysis or thought of what that means. If you are implying this somehow shows racism, though, see my prior comments about you being wrong.


Actually no. That's not what I'm implying. That particular point was to counter the argument that the black community is better off with the people poisoning their children off the street.


Actually, impact is possible to measure using empirical means

Stop there. I was refering to their ability to verify racism. They unequivocally stated that blacks *are* disproportionately effected by these laws. Which would be the impact you are speaking of.


That makes you an idiot savant, with splinter skills of finding nonexistent racist conspiracies and spouting pablum.

Obviously.

[Daniel]

Sorry. Misread your other post and PC won't let me edit.


BUT.. have you EVER addressed any other reason why Blacks are disproportionately sentenced..

Why would blacks be disproportionately SENTENCED? If a black man commits a crime, then he should get the same sentence as any other individual who committed a similar crime.




Could it actually be that blacks disproportionately commit crimes?

Could it be that the system is not biased in some way?

I mean, it's not like there is a legacy of that or anything...

[875000]

My claims that there is an inherent racial bias in the judicial system is *true*. As per the claims in the report.

You can chalk that up to whatever you want.

Ah. How quickly they forget -- or try to distance themselves from their prior comments.


Throughout this thread, you have been claiming that the report substantiated racial intent. In case you forgot, let me remind you:

A few times on these boards we have gotten into discussions over whether or not there is an inherent racism in the judicial system. This stems from the fact that the vast majority of inhabitants of the federal judicial system are black, despite being a minority population. I've heard such things as "black people commit more crimes, etc etc."

Well..apparently, the U.S. Sentencing committee and several other legal entities disagree.





So.. the whole penalties imposed on crack convictions are there, just because they are black and all legislators are white.

Yea...

Yea. Imagine that. Marginalized based on color exists in America. Crazy notion.



I just find you amusing how you make all black people victims and how all white people are obvious racists.

Man, you must hate Bill Cosby for telling it like it really is.


Actually I'm a huge fan of Bill Cosby and the things he has said. That however, does not change the reality that blacks are systematicly marginalized in the American Judicial system. Feel free to keep sticking your head in the sand.




Actually, this is not true at all. The report says that if several factors are to be consider true, then there is a legal justification for having a different ratio. However, it then goes on to debunk most of those assertations. Feel free to actually read what I posted.

Actually, it is true. Please reread -- or in your case simply read -- the 2002 report's Executive Summary or the press release on their findings, which specifically said "The recommendations, if adopted, would narrow the difference between average sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses from 44 months to approximately one year. Specifically, the Commission estimates that the average sentence for crack cocaine offenses would decrease from 118 months to 95 months, and the average sentence for powder cocaine offenses would increase from 74 months to 83 months. Importantly, the guideline sentencing range based solely on drug quantity for crack cocaine offenses still would be significantly longer (approximately two-to-four times longer) than powder cocaine offenses involving equivalent drug quantities. . And then remember: the 2007 report is just an update on the original proposal, with more recent testimony and statistics."

And, after finding that again, you remember one of your assertions: "What people are asking for is that they BE THE SAME."


Actually no. That's not what I'm implying. That particular point was to counter the argument that the black community is better off with the people poisoning their children off the street.

Which is a point I never raised, or for that matter bothered with. I'll just assume it was directed at someone else then, and let it drop.



Stop there. I was refering to their ability to verify racism. They unequivocally stated that blacks *are* disproportionately effected by these laws. Which would be the impact you are speaking of.

Two points here.

1. To quote what some other person wrote:


No. It's hard to understand what you say when you construct sentences in this manner: "Blacks are disproportionately effected by these laws and although it is scientifically impossible to verify, it is a cause of major concern to the sentencing commission."

English please.

Note: edited to use a quote from Daniel

2. No one is disputing that there are more African American's incarcerated as a percentage of their overall demographic population in the US (this is "impact"). No one is disputing that they serve longer sentances as the minimum sentances are higher for the crimes they commit -- most specifically trafficking crack cocaine (also "impact"). And, by and large , no one is disagreeing that the disparity between the two sentances should be narrowed.

What people have been disputing is that the reason this situation exists is because a group of people got together and decided to penalize another group of people specifically because of their race (this would be "racist intent").

You started off this thread claiming that the US Commission on Sentencing issued a report substantiating this claim. As the report clearly states, it didn't. If the Commission endorses this view, please provide documentation that they did so. And note: reports of public comments from others, concerns raised about other peoples' perceptions, and statistics of impact without causal links to intent fail to live up to a level of proof. That is hearsay in the first two cases, misuse of statistics in the latter.

If documentation exists, stop making stuff up and cite it. If it doesn't, stop wasting our time.

[Daniel]

I'm sorry. What does Racist mean again?

I'll spell it out for you:

My original text, which you seem to think you are throwing back into my face: a few times on these boards we have gotten into discussions over whether or not there is an inherent racism in the judicial system.

Notice, the bolding of the word "Inherent". I'll let you look up the meaning of that word.

The U.S. sentencing committee validated that there is an inherent bias in the judicial system that adversely effects blacks over whites. That would be called latent racism. I never stated or implied that there is a secret white cabal of people who are entited "the man" that are systematicly trying to keep the black man down. . I never discussed the impetuous of this bias, but merely the fact that it exists. Something that *has* been debated on these boards. Believe it or not.


Thank you. Come again.

[Parkbandit]

I give up on Daniel. He's a prime example of what is wrong in America. Instead of having some self responsibility, people like him make up excuses for why they can't do something and then look for someone to blame.

[Gan]

You're all fucking racist...

[TheEschaton]

I give up on Daniel. He's a prime example of what is wrong in America. Instead of having some self responsibility, people like him make up excuses for why they can't do something and then look for someone to blame.

Funny, wasn't he in the miltary?










Wait, were you ever in the military?


-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Funny, wasn't he in the miltary?










Wait, were you ever in the military?


-TheE-

Jesus Christ.. what the fuck does this have to do with anything even being discussed here?

It's like you just throw out stupid shit and hope something sticks.

[Daniel]

Kinda throws out that whole "self responsibility" bullshit for one.

[TheEschaton]

now now, Daniel, one can't expect PB to A) look at the inane BS of his I bothered to quote, B) read and comprehend what I wrote in reply to that quote, and C) analyze how my reply stems in response to his quote.

-TheE-

[Skeeter]

Where is Ben to really make this thread entertaining.

[Parkbandit]

Kinda throws out that whole "self responsibility" bullshit for one.

I had not realized that anyone who serves automatically becomes self responsible.. and everyone that hasn't automatically doesn't.

Seriously, this probably makes about as much sense as the other 'conclusions' you've posted here.

[Parkbandit]

now now, Daniel, one can't expect PB to A) look at the inane BS of his I bothered to quote, B) read and comprehend what I wrote in reply to that quote, and C) analyze how my reply stems in response to his quote.

-TheE-


You should go back to your fantasy world... where I wouldn't be unjustly causing you a raging idiot. There, you are king and not stupid.

Then again, that's just a fantasy world.. isn't it.

[Gan]

Funny, wasn't he in the miltary?

Wait, were you ever in the military?


-TheE-
Grats on posting what probably is the stupidest thing in this thread to date.

:clap:

[Parkbandit]

Grats on posting what probably is the stupidest thing in this thread to date.

:clap:

And after all of Daniel's post.. I would have thought this to be impossible.

TheE.. coming through in the clutch!

[Daniel]

I had not realized that anyone who serves automatically becomes self responsible.. and everyone that hasn't automatically doesn't.

Seriously, this probably makes about as much sense as the other 'conclusions' you've posted here.

It shows that I know about a type of hard work and self sacrifice that you can only imagine.

Besides, it's a lot more a sensible to assume that someone in the military knows a bit about self responsibility than to believe that someone who acknowledges problems in the American system doesn't.

But to each their own I guess.

P.s. Good job on coming through with the Pom-Poms Gan.

[Gan]

It shows that I know about a type of hard work and self sacrifice that you can only imagine.

Besides, it's a lot more a sensible to assume that someone in the military knows a bit about self responsibility than to believe that someone who acknowledges problems in the American system doesn't.

But to each their own I guess.

P.s. Good job on coming through with the Pom-Poms Gan.

You can say that when you get TheE off your dick.

[Gan]

Besides, it's a lot more a sensible to assume that someone in the military knows a bit about self responsibility than to believe that someone who acknowledges problems in the American system doesn't.

Sorry, I know quite a few who have been in the military who are as far from being self responsible as you could imagine. In fact, out in the real world they are lost unless they have someone standing right beside them telling them what to do and when to do it 24/7.

Funny how you hate some stereotypes and yet fall back on others every chance you get in support of your arguments. ;)

[Daniel]

Sorry, I know quite a few who have been in the military who are as far from being self responsible as you could imagine. In fact, out in the real world they are lost unless they have someone standing right beside them telling them what to do and when to do it 24/7.

Funny how you hate some stereotypes and yet fall back on others every chance you get in support of your arguments. ;)

I know quite a bit myself. That wasn't quite the point I was trying to make. The point was, that it is pretty ridiculous for someone who hasn't served to call someone who has irresponsible and "what is wrong with this nation" because while "serving" you not only take responsibility for your self but the entire nation in your hands.

Of course, it would be pretty easy to go the whole "you don't know me route", and tell you bits and pieces of my life that would blow that out of the water. But where's the fun in that?

[Gan]

I know quite a bit myself. That wasn't quite the point I was trying to make.
You made your point, and it was refuted.


The point was, that it is pretty ridiculous for someone who hasn't served to call someone who has irresponsible and "what is wrong with this nation" because while "serving" you not only take responsibility for your self but the entire nation in your hands.
Sorry, while I have the utmost respect for the act of serving in our nation's military, I'm not hung up on the fact that everyone who goes into the military are heros, and not everyone who leaves the military are heros. And I use heros in respect to being of decent moral fiber, fine upstanding citizens, and as you put it - self responsible. You simply used a blanket statement and are now being called out on it. Grats.


Of course, it would be pretty easy to go the whole "you don't know me route", and tell you bits and pieces of my life that would blow that out of the water. But where's the fun in that?
So we should all start genuflecting towards you now?

ROFL

[Daniel]

Blanket statements? Like Blacks commit more crimes than whites?

Interesting.

Also, I'd rather you not genuflecting towards me. I don't swing that way. Sorry

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Blanket statements? Like Blacks commit more crimes than whites?

Interesting.


Or he defends Tsin, so any opinion on character he has is invalid?

Interesting.

[Daniel]

Or he defends Tsin, so any opinion on character he has is invalid?

Interesting.

Nope, but any defense of his friends is suspect.

[Gan]

Blanket statements? Like Blacks commit more crimes than whites?
See below. It helps to understand what exactly it is that you write.

Besides, it's a lot more a sensible to assume that someone in the military knows a bit about self responsibility than to believe that someone who acknowledges problems in the American system doesn't.


Interesting.
Too bad your posts arent.


Also, I'd rather you not genuflecting towards me. I don't swing that way. Sorry
Sarchasm. Next time take a parachute with you before you jump.

[Gan]

Nope, but any defense of his friends is suspect.

haha, thats ok. All of your posts are suspect, friends or no.

[Daniel]

As I said:i t's a lot more a sensible to assume that someone in the military knows a bit about self responsibility than to believe that someone who acknowledges problems in the American system doesn't.


Apparently your comprehension is a bit lacking if you read that to mean everyone in the military has a good sense of personal responsibiity.

The Rest of your dumb shit: Oooooh Burn

[Gan]

As I said:i t's a lot more a sensible to assume that someone in the military knows a bit about self responsibility than to believe that someone who acknowledges problems in the American system doesn't.


Apparently your comprehension is a bit lacking if you read that to mean everyone in the military has a good sense of personal responsibiity.

The Rest of your dumb shit: Oooooh Burn

ASSUME... such an awsome word to use backing up the relevance and depth of your post.

:lol:

People are people, regardless of affiliation with a service branch (military, community, governmental, or otherwise). Your assumption falls way short of being accurate and is more reflective of being a blanket statement.

Now that we've established that, please continue on with your drivel. I'm sure there are more social, economic, and judicial inequalities that exist in American society that are purely racist. You just have not looked hard enough. Please feel free to continue to blame individual shortcomings on other people instead of focusing it where it needs to be focused. Hint: On that individual. But of course we all know its whitey's fault anyways. ;)

[Daniel]

Of course it is ;)

[Parkbandit]

It shows that I know about a type of hard work and self sacrifice that you can only imagine.

Besides, it's a lot more a sensible to assume that someone in the military knows a bit about self responsibility than to believe that someone who acknowledges problems in the American system doesn't.

But to each their own I guess.

P.s. Good job on coming through with the Pom-Poms Gan.


So.. anyone who joins the military is a hard worker.. and anyone who doesn't has no idea what hard work is.

LOL.

I know P L E N T Y of people who joined the military. Hell, I've probably fired a half dozen or so over my professional career due to their laziness. Service to your country.. while commendable.. doesn't automatically make you a hard worker.

And pal.. I'll pit my hard work against yours ANYDAY. Oh wait.. will your next stereotype be that white people just got lucky for having their wealth?

:rofl:

[Parkbandit]

I know quite a bit myself. That wasn't quite the point I was trying to make. The point was, that it is pretty ridiculous for someone who hasn't served to call someone who has irresponsible and "what is wrong with this nation" because while "serving" you not only take responsibility for your self but the entire nation in your hands.

Of course, it would be pretty easy to go the whole "you don't know me route", and tell you bits and pieces of my life that would blow that out of the water. But where's the fun in that?



Oh wait.. now the only people who can comment on the country's problems are those that have served in the military? Like the people who join the military are today's brightest people?

Too fucking funny.

[Daniel]

And pal.. I'll pit my hard work against yours ANYDAY. Oh wait.. will your next stereotype be that white people just got lucky for having their wealth?

:rofl:

You'd lose.

[Daniel]

Like the people who join the military are today's brightest people?

Too fucking funny.

Way to go Mr. Kerry ;)

[Parkbandit]

You'd lose.


:rofl:

Extremely unlikely.

[Parkbandit]

Way to go Mr. Kerry ;)

Do you really need me to explain this to you... or do you want to just blame the white man for you being this dumb?

[Daniel]

:rofl:

Extremely unlikely.

I'll take that wager ;)

[Shifted]

And I've met quite a few homeless people, here in Richmond...

Which Richmond?

[Artha]

Cap City, the one in Virginia.

[Warriorbird]

I'm glad to have mostly missed this trainwreck.

[Shifted]

Cap City, the one in Virginia.

If you think that's bad, take a trip to Petersburg.

[Artha]

I went to high school in Petersburg...they got shit on Jackson Ward.

[chillmonster]

I'm glad to have mostly missed this trainwreck.

Yup. I almost posted, but it had already deteriorated into a name calling fest. I've had enough of those for a while.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Yup. I almost posted, but it had already deteriorated into a name calling fest. I've had enough of those for a while.

For once in my span of time here on the PC.. Parkbandit did little to provoke it.

Though I must admit the other thread posted by Daniel about so-called "hypocrisy" made me repolish my rofliron quite a bit.

[Shifted]

I went to high school in Petersburg...they got shit on Jackson Ward.

I think you kicked out ass in football a lot. Go PG

[Artha]

I think you kicked out ass in football a lot. Go PG
Heh, nah, I went to the Governor's School. Some kids tried to start a football team, but the administration basically told them a school full of nerds in a division full of Petersburg and Surry county would never do such a thing.

[DeV]

Yup. I almost posted, but it had already deteriorated into a name calling fest. I've had enough of those for a while.
Yeah, it was actually a pretty good discussion until all the bullshit started to fly. It's getting old here and it's certainly not worth posting when that happens.

[Sean of the Thread]

Yeah I wanted to be involved in this thread but quickly decided to say fuck it.

[Parkbandit]

For once in my span of time here on the PC.. Parkbandit did little to provoke it.

Though I must admit the other thread posted by Daniel about so-called "hypocrisy" made me repolish my rofliron quite a bit.


I'm certain I can find plenty of instances where Parkbandit is an innocent target of the neo-leftist freaks.

:cry:

[Gan]

I'm certain I can find plenty of instances where Parkbandit is an innocent target of the neo-leftist freaks.

:cry:

:rofl: