N.C. race bias law spares killer's life

N.C. race bias law spares killer's life

www.tampabay.com

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — Concluding that the racial bias played a significant factor in the sentencing of a man to death here 18 years ago, a judge Friday ordered that the man's sentence be changed to life in prison without parole, the first such decision under North Carolina's controversial Racial Justice Act.

The landmark ruling could be the first of many under the law, which allows defendants and death row inmates to present evidence, including statistics, that race played a major role in their being sentenced to death

(visit the link for the full news article)

Ok, racism exists. There is no doubt about that. But, is this the right way to deal with it? There was no question of guilt, only of punishment and whether the death penalty was the appropriate punishment. More murderers will get their sentences commuted with this law. I must admit I am very torn here. I would hate to be a member of the victim's family. Will people lose even more faith in the justice system knowing that whites can receive the death penalty, but now blacks might not? I think the qestion to ask yourself here is would you support death for a member of your own race/color/creed/religion whatever for the same crime? For this crime, my answer would be yes.

www.tampabay.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

You know, I've grown so tired of this over the years, I'm to the point of just saying that the states who cannot find the strength to enforce the Death Penalty ought to just outright drop them all to LWOP. The inmates are going to die of old age, not of the state needle in almost ALL the cases anyway...and they're going into old age suing, appealing and fighting every way but logically all the way. ALL at OUR expense.

An LWOP inmate doesn't get virtual free reign to just play the system and run the tab for the games into the mega millions. I'll bet many of the Death inmates see that part as a game. How hard can they screw the system before they eventually die themselves? Yikes..... Just commute them all to LWOP and let them die of old age WITHOUT Prima Donna status. Keep Texas, Florida, Missouri and a few others... Some states DO cycle the trash off "The Row" and it isn't by old age.

The rest though? It's too expensive just to give them the sentence title when it means nothing in reality, IMO.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


I'm in two minds about the death penalty.

On the one hand I have no objection to people who have murdered being executed.

On the other hand, the court system in every country is flawed. The one thing that often doesn't come out in court is the truth. Prisons are full of innocent men.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Thanks for your viewpoint. I do agree with you on the practical application of the punishment. However, if all but a few states outlaw it, it will soon be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" and moves would be made by the feds to outlaw it in all states.

reply to post by ollncasino


Thank you for your very valid point. Our justice system is corrupt, but is that a reason to single out one race for special protection from punishment? Is that "equal protection under the law"?

I agree with Ron Paul on the matter.

Allowing the Government to have the authority to take life is a disturbing precedent.

There was a time I simply stated that I supported the death penalty. Now my views are not so clearly defined. I do not support the federal death penalty, but constitutionally I cannot, as a federal official, interfere with the individual states that impose it. After years spent in Washington, I have become more aware than ever of the government's ineptness and the likelihood of its making mistakes. I no longer trust the U.S. government to invoke and carry out a death sentence under any condition. Too many convictions, not necessarily federal, have been found to be in error, but only after years of incarcerating innocent people who later were released on DNA evidence. Rich people when guilty are rarely found guilty and sentenced to death. For me it's much easier just to eliminate the ultimate penalty and incarcerate the guilty for life--in case later evidence proves a mistaken conviction.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

I think the qestion to ask yourself here is would you support death for a member of your own race/color/creed/religion whatever for the same crime? For this crime, my answer would be yes.

You seem to misunderstand the nature of the argument being made in the very article you cite.

reply to post by stanguilles7
As always, Ron Paul shows his wisdom. That is the most reasonable argument against the death penalty that I have ever read.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Thank you for your very valid point. Our justice system is corrupt, but is that a reason to single out one race for special protection from punishment? Is that "equal protection under the law"?

No it is not. Everyone should be equal before the law.

Minorities do not deserve better protection or to be treated in a special manner. Minorities deserve to be treated equally before the law.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

I think the question to ask yourself here is would you support death for a member of your own race/color/creed/religion whatever for the same crime? For this crime, my answer would be yes.

You seem to misunderstand the nature of the argument being made in the very article you cite.

No, I don't. I just disagree with part of their reasoning. I do not believe that there should be wholesale manumission for convicted murderers. I don't have an issue with case by case consideration based on the merits of the case. However, to excuse a murderer from justice just because too many of his race commit and get convicted of the same crimes makes a mockery of justice. Now we have affirmative action for the death penalty?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Thank you for your very valid point. Our justice system is corrupt, but is that a reason to single out one race for special protection from punishment? Is that "equal protection under the law"?

No it is not. Everyone should be equal before the law.

Minorities do not deserve better protection or to be treated in a special manner. Minorities deserve to be treated equally before the law.

Everybody should be treated equally under the law. If any one group especially gets away with "murder", meaning any crime in this case, it is the rich.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
However, to excuse a murderer from justice just because too many of his race commit and get convicted of the same crimes makes a mockery of justice.

But that isnt what the info shows at all.

It isnt saying "too many of his race commit and get convicted "

It's saying, from the first line in your article, nonetheless,

"Concluding that the racial bias played a significant factor in the sentencing"


Do you see how much you are misconstruing the information?

But a statistical study of racial disparities during jury selection revealed strong enough findings "to support a conclusion of intentional discrimination" at every level, Weeks said in his 167-page ruling

This is the part I disagree with. IMO, more blacks get the death penalty because more blacks commit murders. If there is a problem during jury selection, then they need to address that issue. He was sentenced to death for a horrific crime. There is no doubt or debate about his guilt. He is being spared the punishment solely because someone believes too many blacks get executed.

reply to post by stanguilles7


Your statement would have bearing if you hadn't failed to account for the fact that statistics are allowed to be submitted as evidence of racial bias.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of minority groups have higher rates of crime among them. That's just the way the statistics work out. When you have the gangs of blacks, the gangs of Chinese, the gangs of Mexicans, and other such constructs devised from the lifestyles associated with lower income... violent crimes are going to be committed by a much higher percentage of your racial demographic.

Don't get what I'm talking about? Go to a trailer park or a slum and compare the population to a subdivision or a decently maintained city apartment complex. Compare the mentalities, goals, and lifestyle of those people.

It's like anti-harassment legislation. If you get brought up on a speeding ticket or DUI, then a week or two later get brought up on charges of dealing meth - the meth charge is thrown out because legislation establishes that the individual was being harassed by law enforcement, and the subsequent charge invalid.

What the laws actually due is inconsistent with their intent.

reply to post by Aim64C

The fact of the matter is that a lot of minority groups have higher rates of crime among them. That's just the way the statistics work out. When you have the gangs of blacks, the gangs of Chinese, the gangs of Mexicans, and other such constructs devised from the lifestyles associated with lower income... violent crimes are going to be committed by a much higher percentage of your racial demographic. Don't get what I'm talking about? Go to a trailer park or a slum and compare the population to a subdivision or a decently maintained city apartment complex. Compare the mentalities, goals, and lifestyle of those people.

Oh sweet god.

They arent saying 'too many blacks are convicted' FFS.

From the article you clearly didnt understand:

a statistical study of racial disparities during jury selection revealed strong enough findings "to support a conclusion of intentional discrimination"

Statistical studies, much like polls, cannot be trusted to give accurate results. Statistics can be skewed to give whatever answer you want to find.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Statistical studies, much like polls, cannot be trusted to give accurate results. Statistics can be skewed to give whatever answer you want to find.

And be that as it may, that wasn't your initial argument.

You have claimed this is because someone thought 'too many blacks are convicted', which is false.

Read. Your. Article.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Statistical studies, much like polls, cannot be trusted to give accurate results. Statistics can be skewed to give whatever answer you want to find.

And be that as it may, that wasn't your initial argument.

You have claimed this is because someone thought 'too many blacks are convicted', which is false.

Read. Your. Article.

Use your mind. Someone thought too many blacks were being executed so they found statistics to back up their belief. I maintain that more blacks are executed because more blacks commit murders. Statistics would also back up that assertion. Laws should not be made based solely on statistics. The only question should be "does the punishment fit the crime". In this case, it is a resounding yes.

reply to post by stanguilles7

They arent saying 'too many blacks are convicted' FFS.

The law doesn't specify.

However, in this specific case (which I was not really commenting on); the conclusion was: "Not enough blacks were on the Jury."

Which... if you want to get into it - blacks are statistically more likely to be ineligible for jury duty, to begin with, while also being a minority (meaning fewer of them per capita in comparison to other racial groups).

Close mouth. Engage brain.