Richard Quinney, Class State and Crime, (New York: David McKay Company, 1977). p. 86.




4. Coramae Richey Mann, Unequal Justice, (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993); Quoted in Mann, Unequal Justice p. 21.


QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE

1) Is the first statement accurate? Why or why not?

2) Is the second statement accurate? Why or why not?

3) Is it fair to say that violent crime or street crime should be controlled more than white collar crime or crime that is not easily detected?

4) Do you personally feel more threatened by streetwalkers or by call girls?; or by drug dealers on a street corner or by a drug dealer in a high rise office building?

5) Do the poor, of whatever race, have more difficulty in the criminal justice system than those with more means? Is it possible, or even desirable, to address giving the rich and the poor exactly equal treatment before the bench?

6) Is there a legal system you can point to in a major, multi-racial nation (over 50 million citizens) that is exemplary in its handling of race and income levels for defendants? If so, identify it and give us details.

1) I won't deny the existance of racism in America. I don't think racism will ever be eliminated from our society. I do however have a hard time understanding why race is the excuse for so many that fail early in life. I don't understand how a poor black kid had any harder a time studying and graduating from highschool as this poor white kid did. I didn't come from a wealthy family, I lived in a low income area of town and now I am persuing my Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, own my own business, creating jobs in the community and live in a upper middle class part of town. I was not handed any of this. I earned it, without crime. I think race is too easy an answer. It is easy to come up with and easy to write off. What other factors could there be? Has anyone evaluated the parenting of those that are criminals? Has anyone evaluated the environment that they are in? Has anyone evaluated the effort put forth by those that are in question to excell at anything besides crime? It is my opinion that this problem is much more complex than "The white man keeping the minority down".

2)See Above

3) By white collar crime I assume you mean the Enrons of the world. In a word, yes. Violent crime has a much more dramatic and immediate affect on society than white collar crime. I am not saying white collar crime can be ignored, there are thousands of people that are victims just from the Enron case, but the judicial system needs to be re-looked at in that area. I think both types of crimes need the attention of the appropriate law enforcement agencies, but as far as controlled, street crime or violent crimes have a greater impact on people's lives. Ask anyone that has been raped or have lost a loved one to murder and see if they would rather lose their life savings, or be the victim of any violent crime.

4) As far as streetwalkers are concerned, I assume you mean the homeless and call girls you mean prostitutes. Neither really bother me. I don't see them as violent criminals, maybe I misunderstand you. When comparing drug dealers on street corners and drug dealers in a high rise, I would have to say that drug dealers on street corners play by very different rules than those in corporate offices. Both are capable of violence, but those standing on the street corners are more likely to committ violent crimes than those in corporate offices.

5) In theory, the rich and poor are equal in the justice system's eyes. Not neccessarily true in reality. I don't think there is any possible solution to the issue since you will never be able to eliminate the human element from the equation. Humans are biased by nature. Even the most open minded person has some bias towards someone or some group. Anyone that tells you that they can be impartial no matter what is lying to you.

6) Can't say that I can.

1) Is the first statement accurate? Why or why not?

Inaccurate, insofar as it's premised on the notion that capitalism (i.e., a system of private ownership of goods that may be traded freely) is about elevating one class over another. In fact, capitalism is an extremely effective tool for breaking down class barriers.

2) Is the second statement accurate? Why or why not?

The second statement couldn't be more false. Crime, not the suppression of crime, has been the biggest oppressor of minorities today. Minorities are overwhelmingly the victims, and no one would be more helped than they by policies that aggressively go after it.

3) Is it fair to say that violent crime or street crime should be controlled more than white collar crime or crime that is not easily detected?

I don't really know how to answer this. All crime, by definition, is unacceptable. Where the most resources, in terms of dollars, should be spent is a question whose correct answer would probably change on a daily basis in response to a great variety of factors.

4) Do you personally feel more threatened by streetwalkers or by call girls?; or by drug dealers on a street corner or by a drug dealer in a high rise office building?

I'd say it's the former in both cases.

5) Do the poor, of whatever race, have more difficulty in the criminal justice system than those with more means? Is it possible, or even desirable, to address giving the rich and the poor exactly equal treatment before the bench?

Yes to the first. As to the second, it's certainly desirable to make it much more equal than it currently is, though I don't know how you'd make it exactly equal without actually prohibiting the rich from spending money to help their case. I wouldn't be willing to take that last step.

6) Is there a legal system you can point to in a major, multi-racial nation (over 50 million citizens) that is exemplary in its handling of race and income levels for defendants? If so, identify it and give us details.

None that I'm aware of.

Interesting premise, Blackstone. In what context do you mean this? While it is generally true that citizens in the US receive equal treatment, what about their standing on a world scale? Ask anyone—US citizens are the new “upper crust” of the world. Foreigners have to speak our language, learn our customs, and, particularly in the state of California, do our manual labor. IDK, that sounds quite a bit like a class barrier, albeit an international one.

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE

Is the first statement accurate? Why or why not?

Oh yes. Capitalism, as much as we would like to extol it as a meritocracy, is all about maintaining a “status quo”, so to speak, of a minority of prosperous individuals over a majority of less-prosperous ones (to put it lightly!). Whether they earned it doesn’t matter; so long as this country possesses a wealthy minority that holds the power to regulate and dictate the living style of a penniless majority, there’s a class barrier. And hey! There’s nothing wrong with that! It works, doesn’t it?

Do the poor, of whatever race, have more difficulty in the criminal justice system than those with more means? Is it possible, or even desirable, to address giving the rich and the poor exactly equal treatment before the bench?

Oooh…hard to say… If I had to generalize, I would probably state that the American justice system is generally skewed in favor of the rich. I’m not sure whether whiteness has anything to do with that. Talented attorneys are always pricey, whereas state-appointed ones are, let’s face it, not quite as apt as their peers. And for those who like to scream “PRO BONO!”, allow me to remind you that pro-bono cases make up a very small percentage of any attorney’s repertoire, perhaps a few cases in every hundred, if not more.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Wealth allows exceptions; what else is money for? As long as we accept this system for what it is, we cannot complain about its inevitable caveats.

Is it fair to say that violent crime or street crime should be controlled more than white collar crime or crime that is not easily detected?

Capitalism can survive the loss of a few overlooked dead minorities. What it cannot survive, is the stoppage of its cashflow; the lifeblood any powerful country. I believe that those who commit fraud, especially on a large scale, (Enron, anyone?) should be treated even more harshly than their raping, murdering peers. Lives are expendable. Money? Not so much.

Do you personally feel more threatened by streetwalkers or call girls, or by drug dealers on a street corner or by a drug dealer in a high rise office building?

Ah… Scubatim? A streetwalker is a street prostitute, not a hobo. Don’t ask me how I know that.

First of all, why would I feel threatened by streetwalkers or call girls? Are they not both equally acceptable outlets for sexual frustration----oh dear god, I’m going off topic. Suffice it to say, that though a model citizen like Quick might abhor the very notion of prostitutes on the streets, I see no reason to condemn them, provided they do not get in anyone’s way. Drug dealers, of course, are a wholly different case, since any way you look at it, a drug dealer is going to hurt someone, just by traveling his twisted path of drug-dealery (is that a word?). Corporate drug dealers are just as bad; they detract from the efficiency of a workforce, and irreparably damage industry. Kill the dealers, spare the call girls.

Is there a legal system you can point to in a major, multi-racial nation (over 50 million citizens) that is exemplary in its handling of race and income levels for defendants? If so, identify if and give us details.

Yes. Its called Utopia, and it DOESN’T EXIST.

Yes, capitalist societies are generally more prosperous than non-capitalist ones. That has nothing to do with enforcing class barriers. Being successful doesn't mean you want to hold others down. That's where the first question goes wrong. It assumes that because inequalities can result from capitalism, therefore the goal of capitalism must be to keep people oppressed. That's simply not true.

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE

1) Is the first statement accurate? Why or why not?
The usual far left wing nonsense. The idea that “capitalism” suppresses any particular group in order to “maintain control” is just Socialist drivel – likely to come out of the mouth of people like Chupski.

2) Is the second statement accurate? Why or why not?

What exactly is “their continuing opposition to the hegemony of white racist ideology.”


3) Is it fair to say that violent crime or street crime should be controlled more than white collar crime or crime that is not easily detected?

They both need control but since no one wants to be gunned down in the street violent crime sucks far too much of our enforcement energy.



5) Do the poor, of whatever race, have more difficulty in the criminal justice system than those with more means? Is it possible, or even desirable, to address giving the rich and the poor exactly equal treatment before the bench?

Obviously the very rich of all races get better lawyers and better “treatment”. OJ gets off when any other criminal of any race would be in jail. Certainly the very “poor” of all races get the worst of the criminal justice system.

Nonetheless Blackstone, inequalities do occur, do they not? Consistently, I might add. Though it may not be our goal to oppress others, we seem to do so anyways. Ideally, we don't want to hurt anyone! THe problem is, we do.

Isn't that just the facts of life? Work hard, stay out of trouble, set goals and succeed. Drop out of school, get into drugs and other crime, look for the easy life and not succeed. The thing about capitalism is that those that put forth the effort to be successful, will be. Maybe not as everyone else, but they will be more successful than those that think society should give them financial freedom and all necessities of life. Nothing in life comes easy, you have to work for it. So in this discussion, there will always be a seperation of social classes. There will be the poor, the middle class, the rich and the ultra rich. That is capitalism, at least the way I view it.

I don't quite grasp your thesis, Scubatim. Are you tring to say that the poor are poor because they were lazy? That abject poverty is simply some sort of...social punishment for sloth? And alternatively, are you trying to imply that the rich are rich because they worked hard, and recieved their just rewards?

Your idea works well in the middle class, where hard work generally pays off in the end. It unravels at the high, and low ends of the fiscal spectrum.

Do not confuse capitalism with meritocracy. They are two, wholly different things.

Without being able to go into specific individuals in our society, akalae, this discussion is about the general oppression of the poor by the rich because we have a capitalist form of economics. Maybe I am completely wrong on the premise of this. Somehow we got on the discussion of whether or not capitalism oppresses minorities and poor when the original discussion relates to their disadvantages in the criminal court system.

To respond to your post, I am saying that in general, those that work hard and take the neccessary steps to be successful will be. Those that decide to make poor decisions by not getting educated, not working hard and expecting someone else to take care of them will live in poverty. I know there are many reasons people are poor. I know that my generalization doesn't cover everyone, but for the majority of those in poverty, it is true. There are many people that have the potential to be successful that choose not to. Don't confuse success with wealth. I am not saying that success equals wealth, I am saying that by applying oneself, one won't have to live in poverty.

I also admit that many people are rich without doing more than being born. Their wealth came from somewhere. Someone in their ancestory built wealth and the succeding generations maintained or grew that wealth.

How does my thesis, as you put it, unravel "at the high, and low ends of the fiscal spectrum"?

Yes, I am saying that the poor, in general, are poor because they didn't apply themselves to their fullest potential. I know this is a generalization, but so is the topic.

To your point about meritocracy vs. capitalism; no one chooses individuals to be moved ahead in society. According to Webster:
meritocracy
Main Entry: mer·i·toc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \ˌmer-ə-ˈtä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mer·i·toc·ra·cies
Etymology: 1merit + -o- + -cracy
Date: 1958
1 : a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement
2 : leadership selected on the basis of intellectual criteria
— mer·it·o·crat·ic \ˌmer-ə-tə-ˈkra-tik\ adjective
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...;va=meritocracy

This system works well in private industry, but as a society, I have yet to see someone selected to move into the rich part of town without earning it. By earning it, I mean working hard, becoming successful and earning the means to move up on the social class ladder. It may be a harsh reality for some, but it's a fact of life, with exceptions.

"Earning it?"

There are a few self-made millionaires out there, who became what they are, through "hard work". But let's face it, how many of them really "worked hard"?

Capitalism will reward intelligence and patience both, at times, but what it values most is neither. Generally, those who succeed (and i mean on a multi-million- to multi-billion dollar level) do so through a volatile combination of guts, street-smarts, and sheer dumb luck, from the outset anyways. After the initial, risky venture, it is easy to sit back and watch your assets exapand exponentially. From there, prosperity is pretty much cemented, provided you take no risks, and make convservative financial choices. It is much easier to become richer if you are already rich; for those below the poverty line, there might as well be an iron wall.

But you're right; we're digressing. The subject was the Justice system in this country, not the class divisions. My problem is, I really can't tell the difference between the two. The rich are always at an advantage when facing the poor, be it in the courts, or in the world of business.

And you're right again on another score; self-application is the best route out of poverty. But think about it, when was the last time anyone expected or encouraged self application from the children of the poor? There is no outright oppression between the classes, Scubatim, but sometimes blows of ideaology and preconcieved notions strike far more painfully than any fist.

Why must success be based soley on how many millions you have? Wouldn't you consider a family that makes four times the poverty level that owns a house, has nice things and a decent job with the ability to every once in a while take a vacation with the family to be successful, or does someone have to be a millionare?

In a country possessed of, and ruled by capital, the only reliable measure of value is capital. hence the name; capitalism.

You asked me about how your theory unraveled at the high and low ends of the fiscal spectrum. I answered; you have not taken enough factors into account.

Success is not money. Nor is success happiness. But like most things, they generally go hand in hand.

I honestly missed your answer to the unraveling issue, can you bring the other fators into light for me?

I guess I am missing you pointing out your differences relating to my position.

Your definition of poverty, (or to exact, the majority thereof), is that of the typical hardworking middle-class citizen. Effort, effort effort. Those who do not work deserve to starve.

The factors that I speak of are these; the "ideological glass ceiling", that the poor must contend with. They are constantly underestimated, and pre-judged. The majority of them grow up in broken homes. Many do not even receive the opportunity to better themselves. This is what you have failed to account for; its not just hard work, not in this world. The poor stay poor. Not because they are pushed down, but because they are ignored. You have ignored these. Or rather, you have stated them, but over-generalized. That is my argument.

I would say that the typical hardworking middle-class citizen is building success. I don't think I have defined poverty as typical harworking middle-class. How do you conclude that I have?

You mention that the poor are being ignored. Who is ignoring them?

My point of view is that broken homes and not recieving the opportunity to better themselves is simply an excuse. I didn't come from any amount of wealth and I had every opportunity as the next guy. I know that Paris Hilton has more opportunity just by being born, but as I have said in previous posts, there are exceptions to every rule. Broken home? My wife came from a family of nine kids, divorced parents, poverty and small town. She now has a high paying job, getting her masters degree and we own a nice home in a nice neighborhood. Blaming things like broken home and being poor are just excuses. Every able sould should work. Only an individual can change his or her life and break the cycle.

You are preaching scubatim. When you say "evey able 'sould,'" whatever sould is, should work, do you mean kids and the parent, male of female, who may home and takes care of kids? How do you define work?

You havd given us a generalization. One size does not fit all and there are times when people can't find work.

"Many do not even receive the opportunity to better themselves." Now that is an interesting quote, spoken by someone who clearly is an heir to Das Kapital, whether they know it or not.

The underpriviledged clearly have a harder time digging out of poverty and problems than those born into a better situation--no question about it; it can be done, and if anyone waits to "receive" an opportunity, they will still be standing on the platform after the train has left the station.

"Opportunity" exits if you make it happen. The problem today is people want to avoid compromises and still get what they want. This is a recipe for burnt cake.

If you are really downtrodden but want to get out of that condition, you should try in every respect to emulate those that are successful--in dress, in grooming, in speech, in hobbies, in church attendance, in where you live, in clubs and organizations joined, in buying habits when you have any discretionary funds, in everything you can think of. At the beginning, about all you will be able to control is the little things, but these things mean a lot.

Show me someone who shows up for an interview and gives the interviewer what they want to see, and I'll show you someone who gets hired. Show me someone who doesn't want to play the game the way those who make the rules want, and I'll show you someone who loses. Show me someone who buys an MP3 player from cash he got scalping tickets rather than buying a decent looking (by the rulemaker's standards) suit of clothes and a haircut so he can interview well, and I'll show you a loser. Show me someone who insists on speaking urban gibberish instead of solid, correct English, and I'll show you someone who will not do well. Show me someone who'd rather go to the playground than go to school, and I'll show you someone who's about to land hard.

These things are not complicated and do not require brilliance--imitate what is sucessful. Any kid who wants to be a good basketball player tries to "Be like Mike", right? Well, there you go.

Instead, people want to be in your face and stick it to the man, etc., and they lose. They often lose and end up in jail. And not only them, but their families suffer.

Again, most of this is common sense, really. Anyone without brain damage should be able to figure this out, regardless of their level of formal schooling. But, alas, we have lots of people in our midst who are long on the common, but short on the sense, or simply think they are "above" playing the game--all to their detriment.

America provides almost unlimited upward mobility to everyone, but--you must play by the rules.

That is a fine state of mind, Quick. Let me ask you something; Who gave it to you?

Ambition is not something you are born with. Nor is the drive to improve oneself. There is, of course, the socially ingrained imperitive to eat, and sleep, and copulate, but theat is as far as our instincts go. What we label as "ambition" is usually given to us, as you say, by "mimicking" the behaviors of our first successful role-models; the rich, our, more commonly, our nearest authority figures.

You might see now why i put emphasis on that. How many below-the-poverty line-children have those kinds of models? How many ghettho-kids have the means to teach themselves proper english? How many of the urban scum have enough money to but proper business suits for interviews?

How does emulating Donald Trump's aggressive takeover practices help an individual who is without food, much less shares? How does playing basketball "like mike" assist children whose high-schools can barely educate them, much less start sports programs?

In order to spark self-improvement, the seed of ambition must first be sown. What we take for granted--the sense of "upwards mobility", as you put it, is hard to come by in the streets.

Do not be too Quick to overgeneralize.

No, you don't make typos "male of female", "who may home and takes care of kids", whatever those statements mean....

You really like to avoid discussing the topic and just pick apart wording, don't you? Not sure if I have read any actual ideas on the topic from you, but I will entertain your post just for fun. Every able SOUL refers to those that can legally work, and are physically able to work, should work. I know there are those out there that spend a lot of time that try to find reasons that they can't work so they live on tax handouts. If they put as much effort into actually contributing to society as they do getting out of contributing, this nation would prosper beyond my imagination. I know that some people are not capable of doing the jobs that they would love to do, but there are jobs that they can do. People can find work if they choose to do so. Yes, I do mean male and female. Why would there be any difference?


What evidence do you have to offer supporting your claim that ambition and drive to improve oneself is not something you are born with?

Simple application of logical thought, Scubatim If child A, is brought up by parents who expect nothing but the best, in an environment that constantly pushes him to succeed, he will probably do a good deal better than Child B, brought up by a series of foster parents and street hobos, who expect nothing. What, do you think Napoleon burst from the womb, ready to conquer europe? Did he extend martial dominion over the local boys and girls? Build his own private empire in the playroom?

We start with a relatively similar mental template, Scubatim. We burble, puke, and coo.

Well, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you were born with your sense of work ethic.

And just think. The above was posted by someone who likes to preach and who has posted nine times today, casual conversation excluded, without providing a single source to back up his opinions.

In order to be substantive, I will argue that people have to have bootstraps before they can pull themselves up.

You didn't define work. Does a stay-at-home-mom - or dad - work?

What does one do when the economy is tight and jobs are not readily available?

Saying "people can find work if they choose" is a blanket statement, you haven't bothered to back up.

Didn't know sources were required for opinions....



If one of the two parents are able to go to work and support the familly without relying on federal and state funds to pay for their necessities, I think it is outstanding that the other parent stays home to raise the children. Yes, stay-at-home parents I would consider full time work. If the family isn't able to afford to have one parent stay at home, then there are many high quality alternatives available. I would suggest shopping around and getting references before choosing a childcare facility because there are many that I wouldn't leave my dogs at, let alone a child.

Definition of work? Really, you need a definition of work? If someone is of legal status to work (if you need this defined, refer to your own state's laws) and are able bodied, then they should get a job. Any job. Sack grocieries, work in a call center, work at the mall. There are plenty of jobs out there, everyone that can, should work. If you are one that is going to school to better yourself, then by all means, devote as much time, attention and effort to that so that you can excell in the workplace after graduation. I, for one, am doing both.



There are always jobs available. They might not be jobs that you want or desire, but there is always work available somewhere. I would rather work two part time jobs and pay my bills than take government handouts. Just MHO.


http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248

http://jobsearch.monster.com/Search.aspx?q...&JSNONREG=1

Unemployment rate as of September 2007: 4.7%

The second url goes to just one search engine listing available jobs. When I did the search, there were over 1400 jobs listed. That's just one job search site. I know as a business owner not all jobs are posted on all job search engines, so it would appear to me that there are more than just what this site provides. Yes, there are jobs out there. Maybe they aren't the dream job, but they provide employment and income. Are you going to tell me that someone isn't going to be able to find a job out there?

Perhaps you should read this from the board's "Survival Guide."



http://www.americasdebate.com/?page=guide

What I find more interesting is that you have not made any substansive posts regarding the topic of this thread. You have only attacked my posts, and it seems that you have singled me out. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this, maybe I am just reading too much into it. I do have a feeling that no matter what I say or what stance I take, you will find reason to tear my posts apart. Just my opinion. I think I recall two posts from you, neither of which relate to the criminal court system and the fairness between the treatment of the wealthy vs. poor.

This is a debate board scubatim. There's very little personal in what is written here and different people have different debating styles. So, there is no reason to think you are being picked on - no reason to feel paranoid. Further, as a friend on the board recently reminded me, very little anybody writes here is important to the outside world - the world beyond what we call .

Define substantive.

Are blanket statements with nothing to back them up substantive?

So, you think jobs are always available. Have you ever read John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. It might just change your tune.
A job by itself is not a solution. Do you realize that the minimum wage was frozen for the six years that Bush had a Republican Congress? Even then "conservatives," some of them on this board, opposed an increase. How does anyone live on that? Should we be trying to create jobs with meaning - jobs that are not dead-end? Do you realize that even some of the conservative, business types on CNBC, think that the difference in income between the rich and poor presents a danger to the economy?

Edited to add:

Let's talk about crime, since this is part of the thread.

Did you see Ted Koppel's Discovery Channel special, "Breaking Point" about the California prison system?

http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4004

California prisons have become warehouses with little in the way of vocational programs to help inmates go straight when they are released. Inmates reoffend. After three strikes they get 25-to-life in a place with triple bunks. It costs taxpayers about the same, according to one of the California prison officials to lock someone up as it does to send them to Harvard - about $43,000.00. It seems we are creating our own hell.

According to Koppel's report, this is spreading to other state prison systems. With a large minority prison population, the implications are obvious and enormous.

Ambition is as close as hunger pangs and a newspaper.






School is free; hustle papers or scalp tickets and you can by a suit---I bought a nice blue suit at Salvation Army for a skit I was in for $5.00--no misprint--last year.

We have TV, mags, video, etc.--examples of upward mobility are everywhere.




Schools have never educated anyone--you educate yourself. School is just a tool you use. Abraham Lincoln hardly set foot in a school and wrote perhaps the most famous speech ever given by an American; Edison never made it our of elem school; heck, even Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.






I never said it was easy. Nothing worth having is ever easy. Unlike poor white culture, poor black culture often teaches kids intentionally not to do what is required to be successful in "white culture" and that is a problem, but one I cannot fix. Go ask Nightimer--he can tell you about it.

Going back to the 1930s to show that jobs can disappear I think is a bit of a stretch. I know that dead-end jobs are not the best situation for everyone, but wouldn't you agree that it would be better than not working at all? The minimum wage increase is a completly different topic, and if there is a thread already formed on that, I would be happy to put my two cents worth in.

In regards to your implication that I am paranoid, who else have you debated with in this thread? Have you quoted anyone else besides me? I was just pointing out the obvious that you have only debated me and no one else that disagrees with your position.


I am in agreement that we need to offer vocational programs to the inmates of our prison system. Unfortunately these programs can be very expensive if you take into account the additional staff and equipment that is involved.

As far as inmate demographics are considered:


Link

Main articles: Racial demographics of the United States and Hyphenated American
According to the Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey the US population is as follows:[12]

White alone, 74.7%, or about 215.3 million
Black American 12.1% or 34.9 million
Asian American (Includes people from the subcontinent and southeast Asia) 4.3% or 12.5 million,
American Indian 0.8% or 2.4 million
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.1% or 0.4 million
Some other race 6% or 17.3 million
Two or more races 1.9% or 5.6 million
Each of the above categories includes people who identify their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino.[13] U.S. federal law defines Hispanic to indicate any person with ancestry from a Latin American country or Spain.[14]

Hispanics of any race: 14.5% or about 41.9 million.[15]

Link!

A more potent argument might be that, regardless of cost, we cannot afford the ills created by the current prison system[s].

Liberals have a favorite comeback. There seems to be plenty of money for Iraq. That too is expensive.

The threads on miimum wage are rather old. It may be time for a new one.

Keep in mind that the prison systems that have been brought up are state systems. Comparing them to Iraq is comparing apples and oranges. In my experience with the correctional system, federal inmates seem to get better treatment (aside from supermax inmates) than state prisons.

Why in hell, scubatim, do you think I wrote prison system[s].

The funding issue isn't that simple.



http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm

Additionally, the feds do have some say in prison conditions.



http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/...Correcting.html

The Ruiz case was the catalyst for prison expansion in Texas, especially after Kenneth Allen McDuff was paroled and resumed his pattern of murder.

http://www.geocities.com/verbal_plainfield/i-p/mcduff.html

Okay- Quick- do you understand that wealth is FINITE- and not infinite? Because, that means, in some cases, no matter how hard you work, no matter if you do EVERYTHING right- you can still starve to death in our society.

You may say "you can always find a job"- but that job may not be even enough to survive, without stooping to some illegal means. Those that have no family outside a depressed area have hard choices, and sometimes, that is no choice at all.

For instance- you may be not even called back- just because you SOUND black:

http://news-info.wustl.edu/sb/page/normal/691.html

(that would be known as a backing up reference scubatim)

You can't survive on McDonald's wages- they aren't meant to be high enough to do that. You can move out of your neighborhood- but then again, if you are a stranger in a white nieghborhood- you will be harrased for "driving while black"

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m136...34/ai_112647828

It has been sort of a prevalent view of policy makers and the general public that discrimination in the labor market is no longer a barrier to opportunity. In fact, a Gallup poll revealed that when people were asked "Do you feel racial minorities in this country have equal job opportunities as whites or not?" whites respond ed "yes" 55% of the time although blacks replied "yes" 17% of the time.

But according to recent studies, race remains a key factor in hiring decisions. An experiment conducted by Devah Pager, a sociologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, had students with fictitious resumes apply for work with 350 employers, for mainly low-wage, entry-level jobs.

A key part of the study was to discover how employers would respond to white applicants with conviction records, including drug busts, and black applicants who had no criminal background. The findings: White ex-cons were called back for interviews 17% of the time compared to 14% for crime-free black applicants.
Beyond race, a white-sounding name on an application is worth as much as an extra eight years of work experience, notes Marianne Bertrand, an economist at the University of Chicago. Last year, researchers at the UC Graduate School of Business and Massachusetts Institute of Technology sent out 5,000 fake resumes in response to random help-wanted ads in The Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune.


above shows how simply having a black name may keep you from getting a job- even if you have a clean job history- and the white sounding name has a criminal history.

So- you can't get a job, because your name is Lamar and you have an accent- even when speaking perfect english, that suggests you are black- so what choices do you have? Well, most of the time- there is only one job with some good wages- and no taxes- and that would be dealing drugs.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Now- that doesn't mean I don't condone the idea of being able to "get away with crimes because I had an ancestor that was a slave or was lynched"- that doesn't wash either.

But once again- if we are going to have some actual justice in this country- we need to address THE WHY we have so many more blacks in jail than whites- with this level- it is obviously a societal problem, not an individual one.

Lets be clear here- if you are white, with a criminal record, you have a much better chance of turning your life around and being employed than you do if you are black and never had a spot on your record.

I wonder how the racism deniers here will spin this one?

Everyone that has denied racism, please speak up!

Statistics do show a higher percentage of monorities live in poverty, agreed. Is that the only reason for being impoverished? Is race the sole reason is what I have been asking all along? No matter what we do in this country, those with more wealth and the ability to hire a private attorney will have more advantages in most aspects of life than those from modest means. Fair? Maybe not. Is life fair? Definately not. I simply don't think that because it is unfair for one group we need to change the way America operates to accomodate that group.

Um- there are lots of black poeple that live in poverty- perhaps, because folks won't give them a job just because they are black? And, those that say "start your own business"- well, large groups of impoverished poeple with no training are going to have a hard time starting a business, aren't they?

1) You can't move into a nicer nieghborhood, because your name sounds black, and on top of that, once they see you, they won't rent to you anyway.

2) Can't get a better job outside your (impoverished) nieghborhood, because they don't like to hire black poeple, won't even call them back if thier name SOUNDS black- regardless of your criminal record- seems lots of employers would rather take a pior felon that is white than a black with a spotless record- and even 8 years more experiance (kinda puts the lie to the idea of the "quota hire", don't ya think?

White poeple in America still tend to discriminate against blacks, for no logical reason, even if it costs them money and business. White poeple in America still continues to be okay with selective prosecution based on race.

Okay- it takes no more resources, really to take down white collar crime than to go drug hunting in the projects. Look how few convictions, if any, comes in a "sweep" of an area. White collar crime is REAL big time- Ken Lay stole more in one year that all the thiefs and con artists have in the history of the US. No bank holds that much in the vault!

I have seen white drug dealers operate with impunity in suburban middle class America, dealing out tons of weed and coke, without EVER being busted. When it comes time to make some publicity about "what we are doing about crime"- the politicians know who votes, and know that they can't afford to go alienating entire white middle class American households, with "heavy handed tactics"- those will only work on minorities, with no real statewide or federal political clout- oh sure, there is some progress, but really- what can the blacks in large communities do about selective enforcement? Well, obviously- nothing.

It takes REAL morals and courage to say "we will hold everyone accountable according to the law, not one race above the other"- and then do it.

Like I said- when we have white poeple being stopped for "driving while white"- then, well, perhaps we have made some progress?

Of course- the obvious thing to do is inject some common sense into our laws in the first place- do away with drug crimes completely- make them do biz and hold to business standards, just like Alcohol and cigarettes ( far more dangerous and expensive than all the oter "illegal" drugs combined)- and started taking more of a public safety/what really needs to be illegal/what should we spend our (limited) resources on- perhaps we could focus on REAL bad guys, that do bad things to other poeple.

I'm looking over this thread as it proceeded from this post, and I see that starting about here, it seriously started to go off on a tangent. The question is not whether there are inequalities in a capitalist system (there undeniably are). The question isn't even whether these inequalities are just or unjust, however you might define those terms. The question is whether it's an actual goal of the system to have unjust inequalities. That's the premise of the statement referenced in the first debate question. It says that in a capitalist system, the underclass "must remain oppressed for the triumph of the dominant economic class". That statement is false. There's no "must" involved. It's, at most, a side effect, not a goal.

And actually, the statement's reference to criminal law is false even if oppression were the goal of capitalism. If you want to oppress the poor, the way to do it would be to be too lax on crime, not too harsh. The poor are overwhelmingly the hardest hit by crime.

I think you may have a point here- "never assign blame to malice what can be explained with incompetence" has a kernal of truth here-

my Grandfather became reasonably well off because he was a Texan that was willing to do business with blacks and jews and mexicans. His explanation was "you got to be one dumb racist not to take someone's money" and "I can never see the reason for hating someone based on the color of thier skin or the type of religion when there are so many other valid reasons".

I don't believe that there is some monolithic system with the design to "keep a brutha down"- I think it is laziness and political expediency- two pet peeves of mine.

DAs, and the police are overworked and understaffed, chronically. So they go to the path of least resistance- it has little to do with what is right, moral or ethical- it is what uses the least resources, for everyone involved. It is simply easier to bust blacks and harrass blacks in our system than whites.

You start pulling over poeple for being white- you are going to have some serious political repurcussions, and fast. Whites, for the most part, but really, conservatives in particular (the self described type) really don't care if another race is being targeted, simply for being that race. If we were REALLY interested in stopping, say, cocaine importation, we would be busting white poeple, probably in the millions of poeple.

How well would that go over in an election year? We wouldn't be busting black poeple in droves, if we really wanted to make a dent in cocaine usage- we would be busting upper middle class white poeple- the main users of cocaine. Most of them would be the usual voters for social conservatives.

Can't go throwing your base in jail, now can we?

Our current regime is some of those former users of cocaine as well, I have no doubt that GW was a pretty frequent user, being in the right age group, income bracket and social circles as your average powder cocaine user. But we really never raid a rich guy's persons party too often, now do we?

Street corner dealers don't vote- I think we can all agree on that. There are lots of white voters that do use drugs and vote, however.

CR, the hyperbole is extremely entertaining, but can you even attempt to back up your claim that social conservatives are the primary users of cocaine? Or that the legal system is so predominately conservative that busting white people would be throwing the base in jail? Or even that there are 'millions' of white cocaine users/dealers?????



I'm not sure if this is simply a case of over-exaggerated-generalization, or an acute case of some sort of white guilt complex........

I am sorry DTOM- I guess when you are immersed in drug and alcohol couselling, intervention, and all the things that go along with it- you kinda expect everyone to know it I suppose.

Here is pretty non-biased reporting of several studies:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/public...er_cocaine.html

Who uses powder cocaine? Powder cocaine users are predominantly adult (>30 years) White males, who live in central city areas. Although most epidemiologic/ethnographic and treatment sources agree that powder cocaine users are predominantly adults, variations are reported: 14 of 45 respondents report young adults (18–30 years) as the predominant powder cocaine users, 3 report adolescents (13–18 years) and young adults as the predominant age groups, and 2 report adolescents as the predominant group. Similarly, although males are most often reported as the predominant gender of powder cocaine users (by 26 of 45 respondents), 17 respondents report that the genders are evenly split, and 2 report that females predominate. Most respondents (21 of 45) report Whites as predominant users, but Blacks predominate according to 11 respondents, Hispanics predominate according to 4 respondents (in El Paso, Los Angeles, and New York), and Blacks and Hispanics predominate according to the nonmethadone sources in Miami and New York.

OR you can take the dark humor that we use as a rule of thumb when confronted with a "powder" user- we say "gawds way of telling you that you have too much money"- or "the DOC (drug of choice) for the upwardly mobile young republican"

I am guessing, for the most part, since you and your wife are both in the military- you probably don't have too many user friends- of anything besides alcohol and cigs.

Crack cocaine is much cheaper "per dose" than powder cocaine- though the study I have posted has noted that the pricing is all over the map, depending on region.

But for the most part-

According to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, approximately 33.7 million Americans ages 12 and older had tried cocaine at least once in their lifetimes, representing 13.8% of the population ages 12 and older. Approximately 5.5 million (2.3%) has used cocaine in the past year and 2.4 million (1.0%) had used cocaine within the past month.5

The 2005 NSDUH results also indicate that there were 872,000 persons aged 12 or older who had used cocaine for the first time within the past 12 months. This is a statistically significant reduction from 2002 when there were more than one million past year cocaine initiates.6

Okay- 33 million users, just underage users. Dude- that is 1/10th of the US!!

1) When I say "millions" it is not hyperbole dude- it is fact. And most poeple in this field agree that it is UNDER REPORTED.

America has a love/hate relationship with casual/recreational drug use, and a real schizzophrenic (using the literal definition "being of two minds") - we want to crack down on drug use but not OUR/MY drug use.

And there are millions of drug users in this nation, perhaps even hundreds of millions (considering Alcohol and cigerettes are the most often abused, and most dangerous and costly drugs) and we don't really prosecute "white poeple drugs" like we do "minority user drugs"

Marijuana is a good example- it is recent history that it has become a predominent drug in white america- before, it was "dirty mexicans" doing it, not a drug a "white man" would do.

DTOM- we are pretty crazy in this society about alot of things- and one of the craziest is our attitudes on recreational drug use. And we are also big on denial, which, of course, is the nemisis of what I do- is get rid of the denial so we can go on to treatment.

Still- we target black drug users in this country- maybe not on purpose- but it is just the way the system works- and just because "the system" is not purposely being racist, well, that doesn't make it any less racist.

Let me ask you this DTOM- what percentage of the US population use "recreational illegal drugs"? I bet it is alot higher than you think, I will be willing to bet that more than 50% of the nation's folks that are alive and physically capable of taking drugs, have taken and still, on occasion ( as opposed to once and tried it and never again- a rarity I think ) use drugs, as recreation.

DUde- there are LOTS of potsmokers and coke users out there- I would even hazard a guess that those poeple are BARELY in the minority in this country- amongst folks- underage or not, that are physically capable of using an illegal "recreational drug" -

So, white poeple make up what, lets just round it off to 70% of America is white- why aren't 70% of the illegal drug criminals in jail or "in the system" white- or even the top half DTOM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_...e_United_States

I mean, why is that such a hard thing to come to a conclusion on DTOM? Why is the jail population so heavily black, when the majority of those committing the same crime, white? Why do we pass laws that specifically gives harder sentences, that are really targeted to a non-white race?

You know- I have no "race guilt" at all DTOM- I feel no relationship whatsoever to white slave owners in the past, or any guilt or embarrasment in the past at all.

But, in as multi-cultural of a city that I live in, I am frequently the minority, in alot of work situations, and just day to day life. I am greatful that minorities don't treat me the way they talk about poeple being treated in the "lower 48".

Then, I see the inequities in the justice system in my everyday work- how in the world are you going to give out an average sentence of 20 years, 10-15 years actually served, for intent to distribute 11 grams of "rock cocaine" and less than half that for sentencing with more powder cocaine with intent to distribute?

Now - a subtle point here- is that I don't think a lawmaker says to himself "man, I got's to bust me some minorities"-but the poeple doing the crime don't look like him, he doesn't feel like that they are a possible help to him and poeple that look like him- and, on the subconcious level, is a bit afraid because they are scary bad guys that aren't white.

So, though there is no logic to making a law strictr for a "black" drug than a "white" drug- though the end result may be even worse for the "more lax" law dealing with the "white" drugs-

What other conclusion is thier DTOM?

That was a long post, but it didn't quite address my questions to you. White people do drugs too. Got it. Surprise surprise.

You seem to imply that the criminal justice system in the US is run predominately by conservatives, thus the disparity you see. I had asked for some kind of backing for some of your allegations, such as:



I am against drug laws, by and large. I think the war on drugs is a ridiculous waste of money and resources, just as I think most drug users are weak and pathetic.

I don’t know. Going along with evolution or reality people can make laws but really its people that is the law per say. I mean what is law in Iraq right now, or what was the law at Normandy during D-day? Laws also tend to fluctuate along with human thought on a subject. Maybe its just natural law at work here, I don’t know but I bet GW does.

Anyways. Its easy to see liberal drug laws don’t as a constant automatically equate into the downfall of humanity. In some places though it seems as if drugs can do nothing but negative work really as far as creating misery, despair and just general nasty stuff most people in the world I think would avoid if not for an addiction. Which I think biologically speaking some drugs can be quite devastating to a human being. Such as meth, its highly addictive and basically can turn a normal person into some horrific midnight killer type really, or such happens which would not have occured save for the introduction of the drug.

So to skip all of that because its off topic maybe current law is where its at because some people like it. I mean did cavemen view some people as weird or different, where did that come from, does it have to do with that song "onward Christian soldier"? I mean we differentiated ourselves to the point in which you cant work or do certain things in certain places unless you wear accepted casual attire. Or you don’t see the president acting or dressing like DMX. Still just human beings I would think. So it does provide a bias in which you have to deal with, which being human as it is I think takes its place in different ways in all levels of humanity. We don’t have laws like other cultures, or customs or possible even view the world at all alike, but who is right and who gets punished.

Personally I think its all inane ignorance to be honest. I tend to think of the blind watchmaker in such scenarios, but then again maybe someone else views it differently. Quick to the voting booths! Wait, Florida and the good ol'boy system ruined that to save the day.

I guess you missed my point on that- is that certain groups, ethnic and earning, use certain drugs, as a demograph- of course, individuals will fall outside that group- but, we can pretty much predict which group mostly uses which drug.

so- why aren't we consistant with our application of busting folks for similar drugs, yet differnet demograph of users?

You and I are in complete agreement on the drug issue- however- the reality is- we are unfairly, perhaps not on purpose- but the inequity and the application are still there- that we prosecute blacks in a more harsh manner and target them specifically when we write criminal law, and why we target that demograph more aggressively than white criminals.

On top of that- we really make some big hurdles for them to leave the life that the impoverished black poeple live in this country- we make it difficult, very difficult, to find housing outside the areas that they are in (as the study I posted early illustrates) and make it very difficult for a black person to get a decent job- no matter the qualifications ( as the other study illustrated)



So what are the choices of the able bodied black man in US society, that comes from an impoverished society- he can go to college, work hard to do everything right- and won't even get a shot at an interview for a job, no matter his education, because his name 'sounds black"- or his voice "sounds black". He is passed over, even if the white caller has a criminal record!!! In fact, he even needs 8 years of experiance to overcome the white criminal's edge on him.

Okay- so, the good job thing is out. What choice does he have? Well, to earn a decent living, a living wage- the only real choices usually are selling drugs.

There just ain't enough alternatives to that life in teh USA.

Okay- now, couple that with the fact that we target them more for the same crimes that white poeple commit.

I mean- once again- have you ever been stopped for "driving while white"?

I discussed this at length on another thread, too, but to put it simply, who harms society more, and maybe more importantly, whom does society fear more? A business executive who makes 500K, pays 200K in taxes, rasies a good family, etc., but does a little blow?; or someone who is unemployed, sells crack and smokes it, hangs with a tough crowd, even if he doesn't yet have any major criminal record? This is a big "duh", or course, and when limited prosecutorial resources are available, person #2 is going to catch more hell than person #1. Say what you will, but that is how it is and always will be, in any system, anywhere.





See my first discussion above--we fear street crime much more than any other, and people who hang out on the street, or who live in rough neighborhoods, always are going to be under greater suspicion. What is interesting is even in big cities with a black mayor, black city council, black police chief, mostly black cops, and majority black electorate, this is still true, and blacks still get the short end of the stick. Hmmm.....maybe they know the territory.





The poor have always faced bigger hurdles, in every society in history. Their are fewer hurdles here than practically any other major nation in history.

A quote on point from the new French president:


"Sarkozy said he admired Americans' work ethic and the opportunities for advancement in the country, irrespective of class or background.

He said while his Hungarian father had worried that his surname would be an obstacle in France, "he was proven wrong."

"That's what he thought. That a name like Sarkozy was a handicap," the president said. "That's the reason why I like the United States. You can have a name like Schwarzenegger and be governor of California. You can be called Madeleine Albright and be secretary of state. You can be called Colin Powell or Condi Rice, and succeed.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_...tormy_interview

If you read Colin Powell's autobiography, he started from a poor background, but did just fine--good work ethic, and no excuses.





First, that is just wrong. I worked in major corp. that had a very agressive black hiring program and hired blacks as fast as they could find even remotely qualified people, and we wereby no means alone. As for the name, dialect, and related issues, I'll say as I have said before--someone looking to move up should do his very best to fit in, not be an arrogant separationist. Why do you think so many ethnic immgrants around the end of the 19th Century changed their name at Ellis Island? This isn't a new problem--the unwillingness to accept it and deal with it is. If I were poor and black today, I'd try to look white, talk white, change my name, whatever legally it takes--do you want to succeed, or do you want to wallow in self-pity and genuflect to Jesse Jackson?




Total horsehockey. Unless you are about to die, there is never an excuse for breaking the law like this, and even then, I'd hope honesty would triumph. I knew a lady who hadn't graduated from high school and worked 3 jobs to help make ends meet and to get her kids through school. She never did very well, but her kids did--that kind of self-sacrifice is what it takes, not making excuses.




I got stopped for looking like a college kid and being out late, i.e. I must have been drinking to be that age and out that late. Puh-lease.

If I were black, I would dress, eat,