...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Kemet » As of 2015, only about 16 percent of those in prison are there for drugs crimes.

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: As of 2015, only about 16 percent of those in prison are there for drugs crimes.
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/16/jeff-sessionss-war-on-drugs-will-be-less-consequential-than-many-believe-heres-why/?utm_term=.f0362f3bcabf

Over half of all people in state prison are there for violent crimes, and over half the growth in state prisons since 1980 is due to locking up people for violent offenses. As of 2015, only about 16 percent of those in prison are there for drugs crimes.


Prosecutors get all the tough-on-crime credibility from sending people to prison, but their counties bear none of the financial cost. In fact, it’s “cheaper” for county prosecutors to charge someone with a more-serious felony (which sends the defendant to state prison) than with a lesser misdemeanor (which lands the defendant in county-funded jail or probation)....


At least since crime and arrests started to drop in the early 1990s, the main engine driving prison growth has been an increased willingness on the part of prosecutors to charge more and more arrestees with felony charges. We lack almost any data on prosecutors, so it’s hard to say with any certainty why this change happened....

I have a lot of plausible theories, but right now the one that seems like the most important is a boring-but-critical story of employment. Between the early 1970s and 1990, as crime rose steadily, the number of prosecutors rose from 17,000 to 20,000; between 1990 and 2008, as crime dropped, we expanded the number of prosecutors by three times as much, to 30,000. There’s no evidence I’ve seen that individual prosecutors are more aggressive today than in the 1990s or even 1970s. We just have a lot more of them who need to justify their positions. We arrest over 10 million people every year: There are plenty of cases for them to take if they need to.


Jeff Sessions has just announced a “tough on crime” order, intended to push prosecutors to seek longer sentences. How consequential is this order going to be, and for whom?

When it comes to federal policy, it’s important to realize that the federal system is fairly small, holding only 12 percent of U.S. prisoners, and federal policies cannot apply to the states. So while Sessions’s new rule may cause an increase in the size of the federal prison (where, unlike the states, about half the inmates are in for drug crimes), its direct impact on the states will be nil, and thus its direct impact on the overall U.S. incarceration will be slight.

More concerning is any sort of “bully pulpit” effect: Will Sessions’s “tough on crime” and Trump’s “carnage in America” rhetoric shape how local county prosecutors use their vast discretion? There’s no rigorous data on this, but my sense from the snippets of data we have is that any such effect will be slight. Prosecutors, as far as I can tell, focus very much on local conditions and local politics, and people’s attitudes towards crime appear to be fairly local. There are a lot of way prison reform can fail or falter in the years ahead, but I don’t think the tough talk coming out of D.C. right now will matter much.

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, instead of creating job opportunities, better housing and education etc. they so called toughen up to Non-Violent Crimes. Then again, this is the agenda. Doxie will be happy with.


It was already crazy in America, but now?

Jailed for Life for Stealing a $159 Jacket? 3,200 Serving Life Without Parole For Non-Violent Crimes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_fO4Bw4XU8&t=641s

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now this:

quote:
Brock Turner released from jail after serving only three months of his sexual assault sentence.

A former Stanford University swimmer convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman outside a fraternity house has been released from prison after serving half of a six-month sentence that critics condemned as too lenient.

In the latest twist to a case that has ignited controversy across the USA, Brock Turner walked out of Santa Clara County jail in California at around 6am yesterday and climbed into a white SUV after spending just three months behind bars. The 21-year-old told authorities he plans to live with his parents in his native Ohio, where he must register as a sex offender for life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brock-turner-released-three-months-sexual-assault-stanford-rape-case-a7222051.html


And this:

quote:
California Man Who Raped Sister Gets Four Months In Jail

A 20-year-old man in California will spend four months in jail after raping his teenage sister while she was high on marijuana.

He was sentenced last week to three years, but received probation. He will only spend 240 days, at half time, behind bars in country jail, as a condition of his probation, according to a press release from the Del Norte District Attorney's Office.

The man’s 16-year-old sister repeatedly refused to have sex with him, so he gave her potent marijuana "dabs" to smoke until she no longer recognized him, according to the district attorney's office. He pleaded guilty to rape of an intoxicated person earlier this month.

Judge thought stigma of crime was enough

The prosecution wanted six years in state prison, but Judge William H. Follett said he thought that the stigma of the conviction, combined with him registering as a sex offender, would be enough to dissaude him from reoffending.

 -

 -


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/05/25/california-man-raped-sister_n_16804624.html


https://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/man-who-raped-family-member-gets-four-months?utm_term=.csZLXdp4v#.pyM6x2q3v

Versus


quote:
Former football star Brian Banks, who served five years in prison for rape he didn’t commit, disgusted by Brock Turner ruling

Brian Banks, a promising high school football player who had committed to play at Southern Cal, was an innocent man accused of rape. He remembers sitting at the defendant's table 13 years ago and not one person in the courtroom would look at him or talk to him or acknowledge him.

"It was like I was not even in the room," he said Monday. "I felt like I wasn't a human being. I was a number."

[…]

Banks, who works in the NFL's Los Angeles office, was 16 years old when he was accused of rape and tried as an adult. He was sent to juvenile hall for a year before his case came up. He faced 41 years to life in prison and first turned down plea deals for 25, 18 and nine years. Why? He didn't do it. He finally agreed to undergo 90 days of observation in Chico State Prison with assurances from his attorney that he would then get probation. It was a better option, he was told, than a young black kid facing an all-white jury.

[…]


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/wrongfully-convicted-brian-banks-disgusted-brock-turner-ruling-article-1.2663595


Doxie, a white supremacist said it best, all this for "white survival", because whites are being disfranchised and treated unfairly, they think". Doxie, however never explains how…but Doxie feels this is protection of "white children" because they are in danger. And again Doxie doesn't explain how.

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not that I am dissing The Washington Post, but this article by Atlanta Black Star, forwarded by Justice Policy" has more depth to it and goes to the root of this thing (cause and problem), not just the early 80's, but late 60's and prior.


quote:
Is AG Jeff Sessions Quietly Waging a Second ‘War on Drugs’?

Even more disheartening, much of the drug war was by design, as revealed by John Ehrlichman, former Nixon domestic-policy chief and a key figure during the Watergate scandal. Ehrlichman admitted in a 1994 interview that, “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people.”


Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did

[…]

The damage was devastating to the Black community. By disproportionately targeting Blacks and other minorities, prison rates exploded, each administration playing its own role. This includes President Clinton who, despite being immensely popular, was directly responsible for increasing the prison population by over 673,000 during his presidency. Of that injustice, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker told ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, “We now have more African-Americans under criminal supervision than all the slaves back in the 1850s.”

[…]

At just 12 percent of the U.S. population, African-American men are now 13 times more likely to be sent to prison for drug charges than their white counterparts. And, despite using illegal substances at roughly the same rate, studies show that African-Americans are still apt to receive longer sentences. Human Rights Watch says, “The disparities are particularly tragic in individual states where Black men are sent to federal prison on drug charges at 57 times greater than White men.”

As Ava DuVernay’s critically acclaimed “13th” illustrates, though the 13th amendment formally abolished slavery and indentured servitude, the U.S. has continued to profit from free labor, now supplied via mass incarceration. By enacting stiff penalties for minor drug offenses, the United State’s prison population has soared, boosted by millions of Black and brown bodies.

[…]


http://www.justicepolicy.org/news/11280


http://atlantablackstar.com/2017/03/11/ag-jeff-sessions-quietly-waging-second-war-drugs/

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ish Gebor you posts seem diversionary

the article theme is

"Over half of all people in state prison are there for violent crimes, and over half the growth in state prisons since 1980 is due to locking up people for violent offenses. As of 2015, only about 16 percent of those in prison are there for drugs crimes."

that is surprising. But instead of dealing with that the first post you say

"Yeah, instead of creating job opportunities, better housing and education etc. they so called toughen up to Non-Violent Crimes"

I just posted an article which says more people a being locked up for violent crimes and your reaction is yeah, they are locking people up for non violent crimes!

Disputing the data would be one thing but you are just changing the topic.

Then you have a post about sexual assault, again not on topic.

Lastly you have an Atlanta Black Star article on drug charges
Again posting that article makes no sense. I didn't post an article on people getting charged with drug crimes. If I had it would have made sense for you to post about blacks getting unfairly charged for drug offenses.

But I didn't post about people getting charged with drug offenses
I posted an article that said As of 2015, only about 16 percent of those in prison are there for drugs crimes. Over half of all people in state prison are there for violent crimes, and over half the growth in state prisons since 1980 is due to locking up people for violent offenses.

None of your posts addressed that. It's as if you didn't want to deal with the article I posted. You spammed three other articles in my thread that you think are more interesting.
Why not just make your own thread if you are not going to address the topic? This topic is about violent offenses not drug offenses although theres is some overlap

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gabor's posts are related though, for the same Sessions-style "tough
on crime" policies is mentioned in the article that links with
the Atlanta article. Such approaches resulted in a huge amount of people
incarcerated for minor offenses in past years, and such Sessions rhetoric
of course still does not address the disparate justice that allows the
the well-heeled criminals above to walk away with very lenient punishment.
Almost half of your OP talks about Sessions, along with prosecutors, who
multiplying in number, have to justify their positions with more activity.

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Lastly you have an Atlanta Black Star article on drug charges
Again posting that article makes no sense. I didn't post an article on people getting charged with drug crimes. If I had it would have made sense for you to post about blacks getting unfairly charged for drug offenses.

But I didn't post about people getting charged with drug offenses
I posted an article that said As of 2015, only about 16 percent of those in prison are there for drugs crimes. Over half of all people in state prison are there for violent crimes, and over half the growth in state prisons since 1980 is due to locking up people for violent offenses.

None of your posts addressed that. It's as if you didn't want to deal with the article I posted. You spammed three other articles in my thread that you think are more interesting.
Why not just make your own thread if you are not going to address the topic? This topic is about violent offenses not drug offenses although theres is some overlap

What makes no sense is that you claim to be an African American woman, while not understanding any of the concerns within the black communities in America in this era.


You are lying your socks off, when it comes to drugs chargers. Your argument is typically what the rightwing party uses to justify to lock up blacks on a high pace. Everybody in social-studies knows that these type of policies announced by Sessions hit minority groups the most. Thanks for exposing yourself once again.

The major of blacks in prison are there because of non-violent drugs offenses. Ironically for exceedingly long periods, while white "peers" aren't being charged, although they use drugs at the same ratio.



quote:


”Similarly, the vast majority of counties arrest blacks at a higher rate than whites, with some having a disparity of greater than 10 to 1:

 -

 -

The black/white marijuana arrest gap, in nine charts


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/


quote:

"Targeting Blacks

• African Americans constituted 53.5 percent of all persons who entered prison5 because of a drug conviction;_6_

• Blacks were 10.1 times more likely than whites to enter prison for drug offenses;

• A black man was 11.8 times more likely than a white man to enter prison for drug offenses;

• A black woman was 4.8 times more likely than a white woman to enter prison for drug offenses;

• Among all African Americans entering prison, almost two out of five (38.2 percent) were convicted of drug offenses, compared to one in four whites (25.4 percent); and


• Although still dramatic, the racial disparity in the ratio of black to white prison admission rates for drug offenses in 2003 was in most states less than in 1996. Nevertheless, because of the increase in the disparity in states with large populations such as New York and California, the racial disparity across the 34 states was higher in 2003 than it was in 1996. In 2003, the black prison admission rate for drug offenses was 10. 1 times that of whites. In 1996, it was 9.9 times greater.

Over the years, those surveys have suggested that whites and blacks use illicit drugs at roughly the same rates.

-- Human Rights Watch

Drug Law Enforcement and Race in the United States.(2008) Long before BLM existed."

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0508_1.pdf

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again you miss the point of the article, first that Jeff Sessions’s war on drugs will be less consequential than many believe and second blacks aren't even mentioned in the article.
Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Again you miss the point of the article, first that Jeff Sessions’s war on drugs will be less consequential than many believe and second blacks aren't even mentioned in the article.

Again, you miss the point that you are a NUMBSKULL.

Blacks and other minority groups will be hit most hard by these announcements, anybody in social-studies knows this and understands this. This is recorded history.

I completely understand you fight here. It's a typical rightwing proposition / position. Looking for excuses to lockup as much minorities as you can, in your private prisons industry.

The fact that you come here arguing, without even looking at/ reading the social-studies (your instant response, within one minute) speaks volumes.


 -


"Now and then a book comes along that might in time touch the public and educate social commentators, policymakers, and politicians about a glaring wrong that we have been living with that we also somehow don't know how to face. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander is such a work"
— The New York Review of Books

"An explosive debut ... alarming, provocative and convincing."
— Kirkus Reviews
http://newjimcrow.com

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb] Again you miss the point of the article, first that Jeff Sessions’s war on drugs will be less consequential than many believe and second blacks aren't even mentioned in the article.

Again, you miss the point that you are a NUMBSKULL.

Blacks and other minority groups will be hit most hard by these announcements, anybody in social-studies knows this and understands this. This is recorded history.

I completely understand you fight here. It's a typical rightwing proposition / position. Looking for excuses to lockup as much minorities as you can, in your private prisons industry.


It says Jeff Sessions’s war on drugs will be less consequential than many believe. Do you understand was "less consequential " means ?
Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Gabor's posts are related though, for the same Sessions-style "tough
on crime" policies is mentioned in the article that links with
the Atlanta article. Such approaches resulted in a huge amount of people
incarcerated for minor offenses in past years, and such Sessions rhetoric
of course still does not address the disparate justice that allows the
the well-heeled criminals above to walk away with very lenient punishment.
Almost half of your OP talks about Sessions, along with prosecutors, who
multiplying in number, have to justify their positions with more activity.

It shows again that The Lioness is an imposter African American, who knows nothing about law-enforcement and black America. (not surprisingly)

Supposably my posts didn't relate. [Big Grin]


quote:
"Police are searching black drivers more often, but finding more illegal stuff with white drivers"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/police-are-searching-black-drivers-more-often-but-finding-more-illegal-stuff-with-white-drivers-2/


quote:
"City Police Stop Whites Equally but Frisk Them Less, a Study Finds"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/nyregion/21rand.html?_r=0

quote:

”White People Stopped By New York Police Are More Likely To Have Guns Or Drugs Than Minorities”


During the just-concluded trial on the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program, the city argued that officers’ disproportionate targeting of black and Latino New Yorkers was not due to racial profiling but because each stopped individual was doing something suspicious at the time. The data, however, tells a different story: weapons and drugs were more often found on white New Yorkers during stops than on minorities, according to the Public Advocate’s analysis of the NYPD’s 2012 statistics.

White New Yorkers make up a small minority of stop-and-frisks, which were 84 percent black and Latino residents. Despite this much higher number of minorities deemed suspicious by police, the likelihood that stopping an African American would find a weapon was half the likelihood of finding one on a white person.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities/


However:

quote:

Councilman Says FWPD Racial Profiling Report Shows Bias


"The report is a collection of information from all Fort Worth police traffic stops with an arrest or where a ticket was issued in 2010.

While police made the most motor vehicle-related contacts with Caucasian drivers, officers searched the vehicles of African American drivers the most.

Reports show that Blacks are also arrested nearly twice as often as Whites or Hispanics. “There needs to be some kind of explanation of why such a disproportionate number of African-Americans were arrested as relates to stops under the racial profiling report,” said Moss.”

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/05/24/councilman-says-fwpd-racial-profiling-report-shows-bias/
Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:also doesn't know what "less consequential" means. People simply ignore the point of the article and pull out their soapbox and then zarahan endorses the diversions as opposed to even a rebuttal of the article
Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:also doesn't know what "less consequential" means. People simply ignore the point of the article and pull out their soapbox and then zarahan endorses the diversions as opposed to even a rebuttal of the article

Less consequential means that blacks and other minorities are being be put in jail at a higher ratio than whites. For less consequential drug related crimes, than whites. It also had black drugs addicted people locked up in prison, instead of feed for help at clinics.



quote:
The Trump administration just took its first big step to escalate the war on drugs

[…]


Trump and Sessions now have a chance to undo the reforms Obama enacted


Although it was never a big part of Obama’s campaigns or speeches, his administration did take a number of steps to pull back the war on drugs. It publicly spoke of the opioid epidemic as primarily an issue of public health, not criminal justice. (Obama’s “drug czar,” Michael Botticelli, repeatedly said that “we can’t arrest and incarcerate addiction out of people.”) It shifted anti-drug spending to emphasize public health programs, like drug treatment, as much as approaches focused on criminal justice and national security.

[…]


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15597632/trump-sessions-war-on-drugs


The only one who endorses diversions is you.

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb] Again you miss the point of the article, first that Jeff Sessions’s war on drugs will be less consequential than many believe and second blacks aren't even mentioned in the article.

Again, you miss the point that you are a NUMBSKULL.

Blacks and other minority groups will be hit most hard by these announcements, anybody in social-studies knows this and understands this. This is recorded history.

I completely understand you fight here. It's a typical rightwing proposition / position. Looking for excuses to lockup as much minorities as you can, in your private prisons industry.


It says Jeff Sessions’s war on drugs will be less consequential than many believe. Do you understand was "less consequential " means ?
Less consequential means:

quote:
Jones may have been referring to data contained in the 2014 National Research Council report on "Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences." Pages 60 and 61 focus on drug crimes.


We checked the overall data from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Here's the breakdown for all illicit drugs.


 -



Here's the drug arrest rate trend:

 -


With that backdrop, the National Research Council report says, "In recent years, drug-related arrest rates for blacks have been three to four times higher than those for whites. In the late 1980s, the rates were six times higher for blacks than for whites."


We noted in the BJS data that the racial disparity has decreased significantly since 1991. That NAACP 10 percent imprisonment statistic appears to be based on 2003 data analyzed in 2009 by Human Rights Watch. (We also note that the drug-use statistic is easy to misread. Whites aren't five times more likely to use drugs. Five times more whites are using drugs because there are about 5.5 times more whites in the U.S. population than blacks.)

We wondered why so many more blacks are going to prison for drug offenses.


Adjusting for the number of blacks and whites (another approximation because many Americans are of mixed race), the black imprisonment rate for drug offenses is about 5.8 times higher than it is for whites.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jul/13/van-jones/van-jones-claim-drug-use-imprisonment-rates-blacks/


Who you think you're fooling? Supposedly they are going to patrol white neighborhoods to fight the "war on drugs". Sure. [Big Grin]

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First try looking up in the dictionary what "consequential' means and then you will know what "less consequential' means
Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
First try looking up in the dictionary what "consequential' means and then you will know what "less consequential' means

LOL Are you really this ignorant and brainless? SMH

I post studies on drug convictions and you don't even read them. Obsessed by a diversion of "less consequential", so it's all good.


Next, lets talk about exonerations and drug convictions.

These are the "less consequential" facts, on "drug offences" for blacks:

quote:
African-Americans more likely to be wrongfully convicted: study

[…]

African-Americans are far more likely to be wrongfully convicted of crimes such as murder, sexual assault and illegal drug activity than whites due to factors including racial bias and official misconduct, a study released on Tuesday said.

Of the 1,900 defendants convicted of crimes and later exonerated, 47 percent were African-Americans - three times their representation in the population - according to the study from the National Registry of Exonerations, which examined cases from 1989 to October 2016.

The study also said black Americans were about seven times more likely to be wrongfully convicted of murder than white Americans.

"In the murder cases we examined, the rate of official misconduct is considerably higher in cases where the defendant is African-American compared to cases where the defendant is white," said Samuel Gross, a University of Michigan Law School professor who is senior editor of the group that tracks U.S. exonerations.

He said unconscious bias, institutional discrimination and explicit racism, were factors in some of the wrongful convictions.

When it comes to drug crimes, black Americans are about 12 times more likely to be wrongfully convicted than innocent white people, the study said.

A separate study from the same group also released on Tuesday showed that 2016 set a record for known exonerations in the United States since 1989 at 166, up from 160 cases in 2015.

[…]



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-race-idUSKBN16E0H2


The Study:

quote:
We see this racial disparity for all major crime categories, but we examine it in this report in the context of the three types of crime that produce the largest numbers of exonerations in the Registry: murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes.


III. Drug Crimes


• The best national evidence on drug use shows that African Americans and whites use illegal drugs at about the same rate. Nonetheless, African Americans are about five times as likely to go to prison for drug possession as whites—and judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about 12 times more likely to be convicted of drug crimes than innocent white people. pp.16-17

• In general, very few ordinary, low-level drug convictions result in exoneration, regardless of innocence, because the stakes are too low. In Harris County, Texas, however, there have been 133 exonerations in ordinary drug possession cases in the last few years. These are cases in which defendants pled guilty, and were exonerated after routine lab tests showed they were not carrying illegal drugs. Sixty-two percent of the Harris County drug-crime guilty plea exonerees were African American in a county with 20% black residents.

• The main reason for this racial disproportion in convictions of innocent drug defendants is that police enforce drug laws more vigorously against African Americans than against members of the white majority, despite strong evidence that both groups use drugs at equivalent rates. African Americans are more frequently stopped, searched, arrested, and convicted—including in cases in which they are innocent. The extreme form of this practice is systematic racial profiling in drug-law enforcement. pp. 20-21


• Since 1989, more than 1,800 defendants have been cleared in “group exonerations” that followed 15 large-scale police scandals in which officers systematically framed innocent defendants. The great majority were African-American defendants who were framed for drug crimes that never occurred. There are almost certainly many more such cases that remain hidden. pp. 21-25

• Why do police officers who conduct these outrageous programs of framing innocent drug defendants concentrate on African Americans? The simple answer: Because that’s what they do in all aspects of drug-law enforcement. Guilty or innocent, they always focus disproportionately on African Americans. Of the many costs that the War on Drugs inflicts on the black community, the practice of deliberately charging innocent defendants with fabricated crimes may be the most shameful. pp. 26-27

Drug transactions and drug possession have no immediate victims. With rare exceptions, drug investigations are initiated by the police themselves, who go searching for crimes that are almost never reported. The police have essentially unlimited discretion to choose how and where to enforce drug laws, and against whom, which opens the door to pervasive discrimination. We see the effects in two settings. In routine drug possession cases, African Americans are more likely than whites to be convicted by mistake because—guilty or innocent— they are more likely to be stopped, searched and arrested. Some false drug convictions, however, are not mistakes. African Americans are also the main targets in a shocking series of scandals in which police officers systematically framed innocent defendants for drug crimes that never occurred.


http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf


You're a blister of ignorance with alternative facts.


Once convicted you are ph.cked for life.

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ish Gebor you are name calling, You may re-post the comment without the name calling

[ 03. June 2017, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:also doesn't know what "less consequential" means. People simply ignore the point of the article and pull out their soapbox and then zarahan endorses the diversions as opposed to even a rebuttal of the article

Baloney. The bulk of your article talks about prosecutors,
who multiplying in number, have to justify their positions with
more activity, along with the new regime of Sessions.

And to me there is little to "rebut" in the article's numbers.
It is a fact that yes, most people in state prisons, at the current
time, are not there on drug crimes. What the article doesn't mention
is that the numbers have gone down from what we had in
the 1990s and early 2000s. In the 1990s state prison
rolls for drug offenses were up to double what we have today.
And I did express skepticism about any Sessions "get tough" approach,
which still does not address issues of disparate justice.
What's your own analysis of the article?

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:also doesn't know what "less consequential" means. People simply ignore the point of the article and pull out their soapbox and then zarahan endorses the diversions as opposed to even a rebuttal of the article

Baloney. The bulk of your article talks about prosecutors,
who multiplying in number, have to justify their positions with
more activity, along with the new regime of Sessions.

And to me there is little to "rebut" in the article's numbers.
It is a fact that yes, most people in state prisons, at the current
time, are not there on drug crimes. What the article doesn't mention
is that the numbers have gone down from what we had in
the 1990s and early 2000s. In the 1990s state prison
rolls for drug offenses were up to double what we have today.
And I did express skepticism about any Sessions "get tough" approach.

There are quite a few conflicts here:

quote:
As of 2015, only about 16 percent of those in prison are there for drugs crimes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/16/jeff-sessionss-war-on-drugs-will-be-less-consequential-than-many-believe-heres-why/?utm_term=.ae4044b9f42d


quote:
Marijuana Arrests Outnumber Those for Violent Crimes, Study Finds


Arrests for possessing small amounts of marijuana exceeded those for all violent crimes last year, a new study has found, even as social attitudes toward the drug have changed and a number of cities and states have legalized its use or decriminalized small quantities.

And a disproportionate number of those arrested are African-Americans, who smoke marijuana at rates similar to whites but are arrested and prosecuted far more often for having small amounts for personal use, according to the study. The arrests can overwhelm court systems.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/marijuana-arrests.html?ref=todayspaper
Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:also doesn't know what "less consequential" means. People simply ignore the point of the article and pull out their soapbox and then zarahan endorses the diversions as opposed to even a rebuttal of the article

Baloney. The bulk of your article talks about prosecutors,
who multiplying in number, have to justify their positions with
more activity, along with the new regime of Sessions.

And to me there is little to "rebut" in the article's numbers.
It is a fact that yes, most people in state prisons, at the current
time, are not there on drug crimes. What the article doesn't mention
is that the numbers have gone down from what we had in
the 1990s and early 2000s. In the 1990s state prison
rolls for drug offenses were up to double what we have today.
And I did express skepticism about any Sessions "get tough" approach,
which still does not address issues of disparate justice.
What's your own analysis of the article?

I was just surprised that the drug offenses were not at the top. It was also interesting the speculation on there being a lot more prosecutors leading to more convictions. Also the point that Jeff Sessions rhetoric implying a new drug was mentality applies to the federal system only accounting for 12 percent of U.S. prisoners, and such policies not applying to the state. The author concludes:
"There are a lot of way prison reform can fail or falter in the years ahead, but I don’t think the tough talk coming out of D.C. right now will matter much. Not surprising considering Trumps other shortcomings on rhetoric"

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ish Gabor says:
Arrests for possessing small amounts of marijuana exceeded those for all violent crimes last year, a new study has found, even as social attitudes toward the drug have changed and a number of cities and states have legalized its use or decriminalized small quantities.

And a disproportionate number of those arrested are African-Americans, who smoke marijuana at rates similar to whites but are arrested and prosecuted far more often for having small amounts for personal use, according to the study. The arrests can overwhelm court systems.


Indeed. From what you post, even though the number in prison for
drug offenses has gone down, minorities are STILL being disproportionately
targeted for drug offenses, and are being arrested and prosecuted
far more than similarly situated whites. Jeff Session's rhetoric
does not address this, and some say is partly a smokescreen to
divert attention from the issue. What better way to get "the base" all
"pumped" than to rail against "urban" crime, and "the Obama administration"
-which helps the issue disappear on the back burner.


lioness says
I don’t think the tough talk coming out of D.C. right now will matter much. Not surprising considering Trumps other shortcomings on rhetoric"

I am skeptical myself- state and local regimes will continue to do business the
same way until lawsuits and protests force them to clean up, as happened
with New York's "stop and frisk" abuses.

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:

I can't recall there was name calling, but I do understand that you'll run from a simple questions.

Anyway, so explain at what neighborhoods they will the and fitght this "war on drugs"? What demographic is that going to be. Since you claim that it will have less consequences for blacks and other minority groups. Historically we have a very accurate and detailed recorded description of this process.

I see forward to your "view".


Definition of consequential

1 : of the nature of a secondary result : indirect insurance against consequential loss
2 : consequent oversupply and the consequential plummeting prices
3 : having significant consequences : important a grave and consequential event consequential decisions


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consequential

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Indeed. From what you post, even though the number in prison for drug offenses has gone down, minorities are STILL being disproportionately targeted for drug offenses, and are being arrested and prosecuted far more than similarly situated whites. [b]Jeff Session's rhetoric does not address this, and some say is partly a smokescreen to divert attention from the issue. [/q]

And that is exactly the core of this issue here. And we know how ignorant and arrogant these folks are.

The man has a history.


Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump's new attorney general, said the Ku Klux Klan 'was OK until I found out they smoked pot’

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jeff-sessions-attorney-general-marijuana-justice-department-anti-drug-laws-a7425511.html


Instead of announcing a uplift plan for inner-cities and urban-development, such as better schools, housing, jobs etc they decide to reenforce on drug use etc. Locking up people as much as possible isn't helping to make it get better, it only makes things worse. There will be replacement after replacement, as long as they do not go for the real solution which is better schools, housing, jobs etc, instead of fancy prisons facilities.

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:also doesn't know what "less consequential" means. People simply ignore the point of the article and pull out their soapbox and then zarahan endorses the diversions as opposed to even a rebuttal of the article

Baloney. The bulk of your article talks about prosecutors,
who multiplying in number, have to justify their positions with
more activity, along with the new regime of Sessions.

And to me there is little to "rebut" in the article's numbers.
It is a fact that yes, most people in state prisons, at the current
time, are not there on drug crimes. What the article doesn't mention
is that the numbers have gone down from what we had in
the 1990s and early 2000s. In the 1990s state prison
rolls for drug offenses were up to double what we have today.
And I did express skepticism about any Sessions "get tough" approach,
which still does not address issues of disparate justice.
What's your own analysis of the article?

I was just surprised that the drug offenses were not at the top. It was also interesting the speculation on there being a lot more prosecutors leading to more convictions. Also the point that Jeff Sessions rhetoric implying a new drug was mentality applies to the federal system only accounting for 12 percent of U.S. prisoners, and such policies not applying to the state. The author concludes:
"There are a lot of way prison reform can fail or falter in the years ahead, but I don’t think the tough talk coming out of D.C. right now will matter much. Not surprising considering Trumps other shortcomings on rhetoric"

And I am surprised (joke) you didn't mention that the groups who populate this particular statistic are predominantly Black and Latin. I am also surprised (joke) you didn't mention the exonerations.
Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the theme of the article is this

quote:

Many people have argued that the “war on drugs” has led to the great increase in the prison population. You argue that this theory doesn’t explain most of the increase. Why not?

At its simplest, it’s just a matter of numbers. Over half of all people in state prison are there for violent crimes, and over half the growth in state prisons since 1980 is due to locking up people for violent offenses.

The theme of the article is violent crimes. Black or white wasn't mentioned so I don't know how it relates or doesn't relate. Therefore I didn't mention.
Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Narmerthoth
Member
Member # 20259

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Narmerthoth     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
comment deleted
You can't say "white boys" unless the discussion is clearly about people under the age of adult. Similarly in this forum people will not be allowed to called black male adults "boy" . You may re-post with the changes

lioness

[ 04. June 2017, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]

Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
Member
Member # 19944

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
comment deleted
"Eurbino" is not allowed nor is calling adults "boys"
Eurbino was posted recently but not deleted recently due to the fact it was posted minutes before rules were posted

lioness

Posts: 3774 | From: the Tekrur bordering Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
Member
Member # 19944

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then there's this restaurant
https://m.yelp.com/biz/white-boy-tacos-los-angeles

_______________________________

comment, lioness >

the forum is a different context .
Additionally in less formal contexts society tolerates people using slurs that apply to themselves "what's up my n_____" etc as opposed to someone not of that group saying it
However any of that here is unnecessary here and wont be tolerated no matter who says these things.
That limitation should not prevent you from discussion things Africana, scientific , etc. that you like to discuss

[ 04. June 2017, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]

Posts: 3774 | From: the Tekrur bordering Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
Member
Member # 19944

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it's a slur how can it be
the name of a chamber of
commerce approved
business?


I won't be discussing much of
anything on your forum. I 'll
be on the mainstream forum
for the most part and leave
this alternate stream and
sociology Forum to those of that bent.

Posts: 3774 | From: the Tekrur bordering Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Narmerthoth
Member
Member # 20259

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Narmerthoth     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Narmerthoth:
comment deleted
You can't say "white boys" unless the discussion is clearly about people under the age of adult. Similarly in this forum people will not be allowed to called black male adults "boy" . You may re-post with the changes

lioness

So, is European defined, Caucasian boys more acceptable?

Anyway, I can't repost it. I've already forgotten what I wrote.

Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
If it's a slur how can it be
the name of a chamber of
commerce approved
business?


I won't be discussing much of
anything on your forum. I 'll
be on the mainstream forum
for the most part and leave
this alternate stream forum
to those of that bent.

It's freedom of speech.
However in a forum, in a university, in a Nation of Islam meeting there is not total freedom of speech. An organization is allowed to impose limits within its domain.
For instance. Say a public debate goes on at a university. One of the debaters is white another black. Everybody is an adult. The debate gets heated and the white guy says to the black guy "listen here boy you don't know what you are talking about"
The moderator then has the right to then kick them out of the debate.
Similarly "white boy" is a dumb inappropriate statement in an intellectual discussion and it has been decided outside of the rules of this forum

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Narmerthoth
Member
Member # 20259

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Narmerthoth     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please explain what is derogatory about Eurobino?
should I instead just write, European Sub-clinical albino, or do you also consider this medical fact used in major universities worldwide (DukeU, TokyoU, JHU) as derogatory?

__________________________________

lioness comment:

I'm sorry but if you keep posting that word it will lead to a 5 day ban and you will have to appeal to return
The way I'm judging this is if there is a word applied to a group of people that that group of people does not apply to themselves on a formal basis then it is not a word permitted in this forum if used in that way.
If said group does not formally self identify by that term I don't care if your word may or may not be more accurate in view, how people self identify is what will be used.
So it doesn't have to be a slur.
And if I someone argues "but some blacks are ni___
here's the reasons why"
I am not going to take the argument into consideration even if a black person is making such an argument.
How people self identify formally is what I'm going with.
That will not be permitted nor will Eubinos be permitted.
further questions about it pm me. I am not required to answer if I think the question is redundant and done for filibuster sake.
But if I see it posted again publicly in the forum I am likely to put the person who posted it on a 5 day ban instantly.
Don't make me do it unless you want to be banned for some reason, thank you

[ 04. June 2017, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]

Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Narmerthoth
Member
Member # 20259

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Narmerthoth     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
If it's a slur how can it be
the name of a chamber of
commerce approved
business?


I won't be discussing much of
anything on your forum. I 'll
be on the mainstream forum
for the most part and leave
this alternate stream forum
to those of that bent.

It's freedom of speech.
However in a forum, in a university, in a Nation of Islam meeting there is not total freedom of speech. An organization is allowed to impose limits within its domain.
For instance. Say a public debate goes on at a university. One of the debaters is white another black. Everybody is an adult. The debate gets heated and the white guy says to the black guy "listen here boy you don't know what you are talking about"
The moderator then has the right to then kick them out of the debate.

Similarly "white boy" is a dumb inappropriate statement in an intellectual discussion and it has been decided outside of the rules of this forum

It wasn't an intellectual debate.
It was a real world example of how skewed police department deployment is.

In my neighborhood, we have a neighborhood community watch that is tied together via the internet. Whenever someone (usually white women) see something they think is strange, they post an email and all registered members get an email with their posts.
At lease 2 time per day I get an email from a white woman stating, "There are three black boys looking suspicious walking down the street. They appear to be between 18-22 years old".
I guess I should have contacted the admin and reported it as a derogatory message. [Cool]

Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
Member
Member # 19944

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again
If it's a slur how can it be
the name of a chamber of
commerce approved
business?

You are just imposing your vision.
Nothing wrong with that. It's your
forum to handle as you will.

But please if you will answer my
question instead of avoiding it.

How does a city's chamber of
commerce license a business
if the business' name is
a racial slur?

Posts: 3774 | From: the Tekrur bordering Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Narmerthoth
A neighborhood watch has different goals. Their goal is not a public conversation, not about words. But that is what we do here.

teenagers could be construed as boys but 21-22 year olds not.
If someone is calling the watch and calling boys men they should be corrected.

But this a written public conversation

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB] Again
If it's a slur how can it be
the name of a chamber of
commerce approved
business?


If the place is run by people who are the same group as the slur and the slur is not that extreme they might let it go. I don't know exactly how they decide these things.
A group of 50 year old black guys says to one of his friends "get the boys together we're going fishing" and he's talking about some other 50 year old friends of his. There is nothing wrong with that. But then a white person calls him a boy. That is a new context and it could be inappropriate if they aren't friends and haven't established that type of report.


But a forum has it's own rules and they don't have to match what a chamber of commerce might or might not do or match what people do on a social basis. Calling adults boys is not permitted by persons of the same group or others. That is more consistent. Obviously calling adults boys is incorrect and in my opinion of no value whatsoever.

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
Member
Member # 19944

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok
So you refuse to admit
chambers of commerce
do not permit
racial slurs
as business names.

That and only that is the issue.

If tomorrow you decide
Banana Republic
is a racial slur
it's your forum to do as you please
but the world outside will not be reordered

10 4

--------------------
Intellectual property of YYT al~Takruri © 2004 - 2017. All rights reserved.

Posts: 3774 | From: the Tekrur bordering Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
the theme of the article is this

quote:

Many people have argued that the “war on drugs” has led to the great increase in the prison population. You argue that this theory doesn’t explain most of the increase. Why not?

At its simplest, it’s just a matter of numbers. Over half of all people in state prison are there for violent crimes, and over half the growth in state prisons since 1980 is due to locking up people for violent offenses.

The theme of the article is violent crimes. Black or white wasn't mentioned so I don't know how it relates or doesn't relate. Therefore I didn't mention.
You are either dreaming or plain ignorant, but i seems more likely to be arrogance, thus you can't address the statistics I have posted.

Blacks have been falsely accused. The argument why blacks are imprisoned for drug related incidents is because the claim is that drugs in black and latino neighborhoods relates to violence. While cocaine in white communities isn't accosted with violence.

I just love how little you know about the Black community, yet at the same time claim to be this progressive thinking African American woman. (Sarc) Anyone with sense in head and historical knowledge on the subject knows that black and latinos have been subjected to this. And the studies back this up.


quote:
Blacks face higher risk of drug arrests in White neighborhoods
— Rebecca Fielding-Miller, Peter Davidson, Anita Raj

June 2016Volume 32, Pages 100–103
http://www.ijdp.org/article/S0955-3959(16)30077-9/fulltext


As I stated from the beginning, poverty and violence have a correlation. The solution to this is not to lock up people as much as possible, but to fight poverty by creating proper jobs, a proper education system, housing etc.


quote:

For African Americans, however, it was more difficult to differentiate the effects of race and SES, because most of the predominantly African American neighborhoods were low-income neighborhoods. In addition, this finding suggests that economic, even more than racial, segregation is more common among African Americans compared to Whites. Thus, it may be that the higher prevalence of some problem behaviors among African Americans, such as violence, are due to concentrated economic disadvantage, which places strains on communities. In contrast, the lower prevalence of other problem behaviors, such as adolescent alcohol or hard drug use, may also be due to concentrated economic disadvantage in that it reduces the economic opportunity to use.

—Courtney Cronley,


Exploring the Intersection of Neighborhood Racial and Economic Composition and Individual Race on Substance Use among Male Adolescents

J Ethn Subst Abuse. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as:
J Ethn Subst Abuse. 2012 Jan; 11(1): 52–74.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3311110/


Keep trying …

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb] the theme of the article is this

quote:

Many people have argued that the “war on drugs” has led to the great increase in the prison population. You argue that this theory doesn’t explain most of the increase. Why not?

At its simplest, it’s just a matter of numbers. Over half of all people in state prison are there for violent crimes, and over half the growth in state prisons since 1980 is due to locking up people for violent offenses.

The theme of the article is violent crimes. Black or white wasn't mentioned so I don't know how it relates or doesn't relate. Therefore I didn't mention.

You are either dreaming or plain ignorant, thus you can't address the statistics I have posted.

Blacks have been falsely accused. The argument why blacks are imprisoned for drug related incidents is because the claim is that drugs in black and latino neighborhoods relates to violence. While cocaine in white communities isn't accosted with violence.

I just love how little you know about the Black community, yet at the same time claim to be this progressive thinking African American woman. (Sarc) Anyone with sense in head and historical knowledge on the subject knows that black and latinos have been subjected to this. And the studies back this up.



I won't address it because it is off topic. This article is about violent crimes not drug crimes. It doesn't even mention blacks.
If you want to start a new topic on drug charges and black people then if I comment in the thread it will be related to that.

The topic of the article is that more people are going to prison for violence charges
and it doesn't say that those charges are drug related.

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fencer
Member
Member # 22259

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fencer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is obvious what you are implying by posting the article in this forum though - otherwise it would be 100% irrelevant to anything this sub-forum usually covers. You are being disingenuous, dishonet and your hypocrisy are the concurrent themes of the topic. It is unbecoming of a mod who should have a character of good judgement and intergrity, neither of those you have shown so far in this very thread, despite the supposed "show" of it.
Posts: 310 | From: US | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no problem with anyone disputing the claims of the article. As soon as I came across this article that said most people in prison are not there on drug charges I posted it because that to me is surprising. So if you think I'm implying something it is irrelevant. One should be able to address what the article says.
The fact that most people in prison today are not there on a drug charge is useful to know no matter what your perspective is. Additionally it says that Jeff Sessions new anti-drug crime policies are likely to have less result than the rhetoric.
Zarahan did that and not worry about why I posted it and addressed the content. Instead of trying to read minds
Ish Gebor has a history of looking at a tangent of something in a new thread and then trying to change the topic to that tangent. That's what he likes to do. Reading minds is what you like to do.

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fencer
Member
Member # 22259

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fencer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
I have no problem with anyone disputing the claims of the article. As soon as I came across this article that said most people in prison are not there on drug charges I posted it because that to me is surprising. So if you think I'm implying something it is irrelevant. One should be able to address what the article says.
The fact that most people in prison today are not there on a drug charge is useful to know no matter what your perspective is. Additionally it says that Jeff Sessions new anti-drug crime policies are likely to have less result than the rhetoric.
Zarahan did that and not worry about why I posted it and addressed the content. Instead of trying to read minds
Ish Gebor has a history of looking at a tangent of something in a new thread and then trying to change the topic to that tangent. That's what he likes to do. Reading minds is what you like to do.

Stop diverting from the issue here and projecting, this topic has nothing to do with any of the typical themes on the forum, whether you find it interesting are not is what is truly irrelevant. Should you post a topic about the quality of your stool if you find it interesting? Who would benefit from this otherwise? Not everyone on the forum lives in the US so at a neutral position of your intent, it is doubly irelevant.

As such you are reflecting poor judgement for a moderator (if we assume you have integrity for the original intent of this topic, which of course the answer is obvious).

Posts: 310 | From: US | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This forum is open to any topic as long as rules are followed.
So one doesn't have to conform to your interpretation of what is typical and you are free to post on stool if you want

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fencer
Member
Member # 22259

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fencer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because of a lack of scrutiny from topics, this leads to many topics that are typically garunteed to get zero responses, which happen a lot from you, so you aren't even following clear rules about the quality of topics for engaging content. As such if you make a random topic that lacks relevancy you are going to get a variant of responses from people who don't even live in the US. Probably knowing this though, you chose to make the topic anyway. So if you choose to divert in anyone else's topics, it will be exposed if I notice it and no one else bothers to.
Posts: 310 | From: US | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3