The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

Since a sizable percentage of murders in the lower classes are gang related I'd suggest your premise above is false MMI.

If anything the economic motive is more commonplace in the lower classes, where a sizable percentage of killings are related to the drug trade. A crack dealer in the inner city has a 25% chance of surviving the next 5 years. Three in four crack dealers will die over that five year period, the vast majority in gang related homicides (aka turf wars). Rival gangs protecting territories related to the drug trade is without a doubt an economic motive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Murder is not a black or working class crime. It is certainly not a female crime. While more murders occur among the lower classes, they are usually committed in the heat of the moment, whereas, when a killing takes place among the higher social classes, power or money is usually the motive. It might be cynical of me, but I suggest that working class killers use murder where they see no other option, or where they lose control, while upper class killers see murder as the most expedient way to achieve their purposes, after calculating the pro's and con's and concluding that a person's death is necessary. Such people would never be called yobs or trash.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Since a sizable percentage of murders in the lower classes are gang related I'd suggest your premise above is false MMI.

If anything the economic motive is more commonplace in the lower classes, where a sizable percentage of killings are related to the drug trade. A crack dealer in the inner city has a 25% chance of surviving the next 5 years. Three in four crack dealers will die over that five year period, the vast majority in gang related homicides (aka turf wars). Rival gangs protecting territories related to the drug trade is without a doubt an economic motive.

---

You could be right - I have no way to refute or confirm what you say, and I cannot support my assertion with any meaningful facts or statistics: it is an impression I have.

However, I still think that turf wars take place as a result of an inability to deal with the "invasion" of a patch in any other way, whereas, if the gangs were run by ... ummm - let us say "business men" ... there might be a meeting around a long polished table, where compromises would be sought, deals would be cut, and concessions would be made. Only if these "negotiations" failed, would any deaths follow, and then on a selective basis. (I'm hypothesising ... tell me to get real if you like, but it seems to me that people with working class backgrounds resort to violence much more quickly than people from middle class backgrounds.)

what about the separate justice systems for the wealthy from the middle and working class? A Kennedy can allow a woman to drown and die a respected member of society, or bash in a girls head with a set of golf clubs and nothing really happens. i can try and not offend people by keeping my beliefs about some things that continue to go on in this country and get little to no penalties. i won't even go down the road of why is it that certain celebrities seem to get away with things i would have gotten a lethal injection for? the death penalty has been proved to NOT be a deterrent, costs more than life in prison and makes society guilty of murder imo. are there ever cases where i would like someone killed as i am disgusted by what they have done? of course. My Master and i were discussing this issue last night and He is pro death penalty. He brought up serial killers. i don't even think they would stop for a second, in fact might be encouraged at the notoriety.
it has been shown that treatment is more cost effective than prison, and no one wants the money to treat. Very wealthy men fund all these street level crack dealers and gangs and never get caught. We seem to accept a certain futility as a society with regard to the drug and gang problem and solely react to clean up the mess rather than deal with the problem. It seems to me its an us and them problem for most people who would rather see the drug problem as a them problem. i live on long island in New York. There are articles now in the newspapers addressing our heroin and crack problem as its now seen as a white kid problem. Crying mothers interviewed about kids dead or in jail. I find it to be disgusting that it wasn't even viewed as a real issue for everyone until some idiot figured out white suburban kids do drugs. perhaps when people figure out white kids kill kids in turf wars too it will be dealt with.

Good points well made, badkitty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I agree that the criminal justice system is flawed, and injustices are far more common than is realised or admitted. I also agree with your observation that the system is loaded against particular sections of society: black youths, the working classes and the unemployed, abused women and so on. This has been illustrated in this very thread, where whole sections of society have been labelled "trash" and "yobs" (instinctively, I believe, not maliciously) for which the harshest penalties must be used to punish their crimes.

Murder is not a black or working class crime. It is certainly not a female crime. While more murders occur among the lower classes, they are usually committed in the heat of the moment, whereas, when a killing takes place among the higher social classes, power or money is usually the motive. It might be cynical of me, but I suggest that working class killers use murder where they see no other option, or where they lose control, while upper class killers see murder as the most expedient way to achieve their purposes, after calculating the pro's and con's and concluding that a person's death is necessary. Such people would never be called yobs or trash.

---

I do agree with you on the points that you have mentioned about the two classes of murder or shall we say killings. There is a third however and you have only hinted at it by mentioning other members posts, and that is the gang related murders. These gangs roam our Cities and towns in the UK looking for other gangs, and it is just to show face and protect their teritory, and when these gangs fight each other and a member gets killed, that is premeditated and should be rewarded with a harsh and long imprisonment. One other point i would like to make, and that is a person should never kill as the last resort unless it is accidental in self defence, or could not be avoided in self defence. This is not an argement against what you say, but just my personal feelings.

Regards ian 2411

I guess you have a point about the knife gangs you refer to, but are they as bad as the razor gangs that terrorised Glasgow between the wars, or the gangs in Liverpool and Sheffield? It's not a new problem, and it'll take a helluva lot of rope to hang them all. Remember, they had hanging back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I guess you have a point about the knife gangs you refer to, but are they as bad as the razor gangs that terrorised Glasgow between the wars, or the gangs in Liverpool and Sheffield? It's not a new problem, and it'll take a helluva lot of rope to hang them all. Remember, they had hanging back then.

---

I'll answer that from experience of that era, i was up in Glasgow in 1968-9 doing a keeping the army in the public eye tour, it was just another name for recruiting. There was a notorious gang on the Gorbles estate, [im am not sure if that is spelt right] and i believe they were called The tongs, and their name was in gaffiti all over Glasgow. there was a book writen on the notoriosness of the gang and its leader, called i believe, The Razor King. On leaving Glasgow on friday morning, there was a newspaper sitting on the seat that i picked up, it was the daily record, and the front page picture that took the whole of the page except the headlines, was of a baby, no more than a few months old. She/he had a slash from the corner of the eye to the corner of the mouth, it was a razor cut, and it was done while the mother was pushing a pram with the baby in. That picture haunts me now even after all these years later. In answer to your question,; no thank heavens, they are nothing like the razor gangs.

Regards ian 2411

You do this quite often! Just who are you responding to with this post?????????

I think it is me but without the original reference you message make no sense.
Although I do not it does not support your original comment!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

The difference in the military is that you make a voluntary choice to give up some rights to the control of the country/president/your superior officers in order to serve ones country. A prisoner is not doing anything of benefit by serving their sentence. They don't have prestige or respect. They also don't have the pay. A voluntary choice to temporarily give up some rights to better serve a cause you believe in is a far cry from giving up rights for an indeterminate and possibly lifelong period for no noble reason at all. Making noble sacrifices is often personally rewarding and can make up for the consequences of losing some rights.

On the other hand when the choice is taken away the military is often a miserable existence. Look at draft dodging (particularly during Vietnam) and the horrors of risking your life against your will for a cause you don't believe in.

So I do think my earlier point stands regardless of your somewhat inaccurate attempt to compare the rights of a prisoner to the rights of a soldier.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I agree that the criminal justice system is flawed, and injustices are far more common than is realised or admitted. I also agree with your observation that the system is loaded against particular sections of society: black youths, the working classes and the unemployed, abused women and so on.

---

I have to take exception to the characterization above. Much of the support for the claim is the "fact: that a larger percentage of these people are actually in prison.

Perhaps that is because more crimes are actually committed by these groups.

Now I know I do not have data. While I was refilling my tea I thought about the data. It has to exist somewhere but I have to devlop the question to ask in order to find it.
I have to find data on arrests vs convictions somehow.

Capone was a businessman!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

You could be right - I have no way to refute or confirm what you say, and I cannot support my assertion with any meaningful facts or statistics: it is an impression I have.

However, I still think that turf wars take place as a result of an inability to deal with the "invasion" of a patch in any other way, whereas, if the gangs were run by ... ummm - let us say "business men" ... there might be a meeting around a long polished table, where compromises would be sought, deals would be cut, and concessions would be made. Only if these "negotiations" failed, would any deaths follow, and then on a selective basis. (I'm hypothesising ... tell me to get real if you like, but it seems to me that people with working class backgrounds resort to violence much more quickly than people from middle class backgrounds.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I guess you have a point about the knife gangs you refer to, but are they as bad as the razor gangs that terrorised Glasgow between the wars, or the gangs in Liverpool and Sheffield? It's not a new problem, and it'll take a helluva lot of rope to hang them all. Remember, they had hanging back then.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian 2411

I'll answer that from experience of that era, i was up in Glasgow in 1968-9 doing a keeping the army in the public eye tour, it was just another name for recruiting. There was a notorious gang on the Gorbles estate, [im am not sure if that is spelt right] and i believe they were called The tongs, and their name was in gaffiti all over Glasgow. there was a book writen on the notoriosness of the gang and its leader, called i believe, The Razor King. On leaving Glasgow on friday morning, there was a newspaper sitting on the seat that i picked up, it was the daily record, and the front page picture that took the whole of the page except the headlines, was of a baby, no more than a few months old. She/he had a slash from the corner of the eye to the corner of the mouth, it was a razor cut, and it was done while the mother was pushing a pram with the baby in. That picture haunts me now even after all these years later. In answer to your question,; no thank heavens, they are nothing like the razor gangs.

Regards ian 2411

---

I think I might remember that incident.

I also think I made my point above badly: I shouldn't have compared today's knife gangs with pre-war razor gangs because they are/were both just as bad as each other. I'm quite sure that a baby's face could be slashed today: psychopaths will never go out of fashion.

What I really meant to point out was that this is an age old problem, and I don't see us ever getting on top of it, no matter how we punish them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

I have to take exception to the characterization above. Much of the support for the claim is the "fact: that a larger percentage of these people are actually in prison.

Perhaps that is because more crimes are actually committed by these groups.

Now I know I do not have data. While I was refilling my tea I thought about the data. It has to exist somewhere but I have to devlop the question to ask in order to find it.
I have to find data on arrests vs convictions somehow.

---

While you're at it you could try and find data on random stops. Police tend to be more suspicious of black people, so there are a far higher rate of random stops, and a far higher rate of searches at the border etc.

I have several acquaintances who smoke marijuana, 4 of whom took their personal amounts across the border, the three white guys weren't searched, the one minority was. Admittedly this is only an anecdotal case, but if stuff like this plays out in the larger data, then its quite likely blacks are not necessarily committing more crimes but rather are being treated with suspicion and hence are caught more frequently.

So looking it how arrests compare to convictions wouldn't show you the larger picture of what level of crimes are being committed. It would only show you what level of crimes are being caught. Assuming a random sampling is certainly problematic as there is strong evidence of bias. Take for instance racial profiling:

The idea behind it was that blacks committed a higher percentage of crimes, so if a police officer has two suspicious people (one white, one black) fleeing the scene of a crime and can only chase one of them they go after the black guy. There are several possibilities for what actually happened here:

Case (i): The black guy did it. They likely catch him and prosecute.

Case (ii): The white guy did it. He escapes the initial scene, and chances are somewhat poor that they track him down to catch him and prosecute.

Case (iii): They were accomplices. The black guy likely gets caught and is prosecuted. He may or may not turn over his accomplices.

So if you have a police force that responds to a chase scene in this way, you would have bias in your data. The white guy is far more likely to not be caught for this crime than the black guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

While you're at it you could try and find data on random stops. Police tend to be more suspicious of black people, so there are a far higher rate of random stops, and a far higher rate of searches at the border etc.

---

You move from the general to the specific quite quickly here. You have referred to "assumptions", yet you are doing just that in the above statement. Said assumption being that police are intrinsically suspicious of black people. No one can provide empirical evidence that such is the case. Why does the border matter or is that meant to be a lead in to the following paragraph?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

I have several acquaintances who smoke marijuana, 4 of whom took their personal amounts across the border, the three white guys weren't searched, the one minority was. Admittedly this is only an anecdotal case, but if stuff like this plays out in the larger data, then its quite likely blacks are not necessarily committing more crimes but rather are being treated with suspicion and hence are caught more frequently.

---

Yes it is anecdotal. And as previously stated there is no empirical data. If one of four, all guilty, were searched it seems reasonable to suggest there was some trigger, yes you would like to say color, it could be as simple as being nervous, or the manner in which questions are answered, or even a general manner of presentation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

So looking it how arrests compare to convictions wouldn't show you the larger picture of what level of crimes are being committed. It would only show you what level of crimes are being caught. Assuming a random sampling is certainly problematic as there is strong evidence of bias.

---

Not sure about the "level of crimes". That could mean nature or quantity. However with police located throughout the city there is no real reason to presume that criminals caught does not represent the set of criminals in general. Your issue of bias here is either poorly thought out or poorly stated. As written it presupposes a strong bias in any random sampling. In terms of the stats on crime we have at least three sets of data. Crimes committed, criminals arrested, and criminals convicted. Neither of these sets represents a random sample. They are the complete set!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Take for instance racial profiling:

The idea behind it was that blacks committed a higher percentage of crimes, so if a police officer has two suspicious people (one white, one black) fleeing the scene of a crime and can only chase one of them they go after the black guy. There are several possibilities for what actually happened here:

Case (i): The black guy did it. They likely catch him and prosecute.

Case (ii): The white guy did it. He escapes the initial scene, and chances are somewhat poor that they track him down to catch him and prosecute.

Case (iii): They were accomplices. The black guy likely gets caught and is prosecuted. He may or may not turn over his accomplices.

---

While the following are in fact my words they are a compiled sets of understanding of what you wrote. Happens that my daughter dropped by and read what you had to say in this scenario. Her opinion is that your entire scenario is biased.
She feels it is important to know what type of crime occurred. And further notes that in each case that you "assume" the black is the person chased.
In the description you have the officer presented with a crime scene with two people fleeing. That act by its nature makes both parties suspicious. In every point after that you "assume" the officer chases only the black. Can you not see that as a bias on your part. I know what I would do but, the officer on the scene is most likely to focus on the closer suspect than a specific factor of that suspect. Also in such situations decisions are made in a manner and speed that determination of why, can not be made, even well after the event. I have seen video of a person fleeing from the police make a high jump onto a wall that appears to be at least five feet high, sorry I am not going to try and chase him, no matter what he looks like.
It is so easy to dissect an officers actions after the fact. But such usually totally ignores the fact that every decision, in chases, must be made in fractions of seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

So if you have a police force that responds to a chase scene in this way, you would have bias in your data. The white guy is far more likely to not be caught for this crime than the black guy.

---

A police force responding to a chase does not respond with a single unit. Multiple units will automatically negate your "assumption" that only the black will be chased. Also every case you posit has the non black getting away. Not only from the scene but with the crime. You really think that an accomplice caught by the police is going to take all the blame on themselves and let someone else walk free?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

You move from the general to the specific quite quickly here. You have referred to "assumptions", yet you are doing just that in the above statement. Said assumption being that police are intrinsically suspicious of black people. No one can provide empirical evidence that such is the case. Why does the border matter or is that meant to be a lead in to the following paragraph?

Yes it is anecdotal. And as previously stated there is no empirical data. If one of four, all guilty, were searched it seems reasonable to suggest there was some trigger, yes you would like to say color, it could be as simple as being nervous, or the manner in which questions are answered, or even a general manner of presentation.


Not sure about the "level of crimes". That could mean nature or quantity. However with police located throughout the city there is no real reason to presume that criminals caught does not represent the set of criminals in general. Your issue of bias here is either poorly thought out or poorly stated. As written it presupposes a strong bias in any random sampling. In terms of the stats on crime we have at least three sets of data. Crimes committed, criminals arrested, and criminals convicted. Neither of these sets represents a random sample. They are the complete set!


While the following are in fact my words they are a compiled sets of understanding of what you wrote. Happens that my daughter dropped by and read what you had to say in this scenario. Her opinion is that your entire scenario is biased.
She feels it is important to know what type of crime occurred. And further notes that in each case that you "assume" the black is the person chased.
In the description you have the officer presented with a crime scene with two people fleeing. That act by its nature makes both parties suspicious. In every point after that you "assume" the officer chases only the black. Can you not see that as a bias on your part. I know what I would do but, the officer on the scene is most likely to focus on the closer suspect than a specific factor of that suspect. Also in such situations decisions are made in a manner and speed that determination of why, can not be made, even well after the event. I have seen video of a person fleeing from the police make a high jump onto a wall that appears to be at least five feet high, sorry I am not going to try and chase him, no matter what he looks like.
It is so easy to dissect an officers actions after the fact. But such usually totally ignores the fact that every decision, in chases, must be made in fractions of seconds.


A police force responding to a chase does not respond with a single unit. Multiple units will automatically negate your "assumption" that only the black will be chased. Also every case you posit has the non black getting away. Not only from the scene but with the crime. You really think that an accomplice caught by the police is going to take all the blame on themselves and let someone else walk free?

---

Your standards on data set here are the same standards that justified a lot of discriminatory laws, and pointed to studies that showed blacks were less intelligent then whites and hence needed to be treated differently, for their own good. The particular data in this case was data showing that blacks scored lower than whites on IQ tests. In fact this data was biased because it contained cultural references familiar to whites of the day but less common among blacks (in particular nursery rhymes). By accepting that data as accurate and using it to inform policy many problems were created.

Furthermore, my claims of potential for bias are based on a long history of bias and racial profiling in many police forces around the country. This was part of police culture for a long time, leading to riots in several cities and other such problems. I find it hard to believe that this behaviour vanishes the second we find it no longer appropriate. In my own city one of our former chiefs of police spoke out in favor of racial profiling, saying that it lead to more arrests and convictions. I don't have the data to dispute whether racial profiling leads to more arrests or convictions, but even assuming this claim is true, the fact is it leads to more arrests and convictions of non-whites.

So given that the police use methods (Racial Profiling for instance) that they argue are effective and result in higher arrest rates and higher conviction rates, but work against specific minorities, why should I believe the police have an equal chance of catching a white person as catching a black person if they both commit the same crime.

Even if racial profiling is not in use, this assumption could still be problematic.

Consider for instance a border security officer who processes vehicles. The person is required to search and suspicious vehicles. They happen to dislike rap music and think it is associated with gang activity, and hence search every vehicle of someone wearing rap attire.

To simplify the data lets assume that 40% of blacks are wearing rap related attire and 10% of whites are. Furthermore lets assume that an equal number of whites and blacks are carrying drugs across the border, and that the attire of the individual is independent of whether or not they carry drugs.

Over the long run this security officer will catch 4 black people for every white person even though they aren't being racist, and even though equal numbers of blacks and whites are committing crimes.

I'd argue the onus is on you to show the data actually shows what you claim it shows, given that I've presented both a plausible way in which the data can be inaccurate which you are unable to account for and a history showing that the bias has been present in the past.

The statement in your argument I have the most problem with is this: "However with police located throughout the city there is no real reason to presume that criminals caught does not represent the set of criminals in general.".

There are a lot of reasons to believe the set of criminals caught doesn't represent the set of criminals in general. For starters different types of crimes are caught at different rates, so if whites are committing more of a certain type of crime that gets caught less (say white collar crime) and blacks are committing one of the crimes (say armed robbery) that gets caught at a higher rate then there are problems in the data. Even if you focus in on a particular crime, you introduce all sorts of new biases, in particular the choice of crime to focus on (given that different crimes have different race data).

Lastly, even if you manage to reduce the data to a single crime without introducing bias, you still don't have evidence showing the arrest data mirrors the committed crimes set. Racial profiling is effective at catching criminals, but results in a higher rate of catching blacks than of catching whites. If police are using methods that are better at catching specific races then that introduces bias in the data. As argued above, they have historically used such methods so the onus is on you to prove they aren't using them anymore.

You make even less sense here than usual!You make an awful lot of assumption! then proceed as if they were fact!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Your standards on data set here are the same standards that justified a lot of discriminatory laws, and pointed to studies that showed blacks were less intelligent then whites and hence needed to be treated differently, for their own good. The particular data in this case was data showing that blacks scored lower than whites on IQ tests. In fact this data was biased because it contained cultural references familiar to whites of the day but less common among blacks (in particular nursery rhymes). By accepting that data as accurate and using it to inform policy many problems were created.

Furthermore, my claims of potential for bias are based on a long history of bias and racial profiling in many police forces around the country. This was part of police culture for a long time, leading to riots in several cities and other such problems. I find it hard to believe that this behaviour vanishes the second we find it no longer appropriate. In my own city one of our former chiefs of police spoke out in favor of racial profiling, saying that it lead to more arrests and convictions. I don't have the data to dispute whether racial profiling leads to more arrests or convictions, but even assuming this claim is true, the fact is it leads to more arrests and convictions of non-whites.

So given that the police use methods (Racial Profiling for instance) that they argue are effective and result in higher arrest rates and higher conviction rates, but work against specific minorities, why should I believe the police have an equal chance of catching a white person as catching a black person if they both commit the same crime.

Even if racial profiling is not in use, this assumption could still be problematic.

Consider for instance a border security officer who processes vehicles. The person is required to search and suspicious vehicles. They happen to dislike rap music and think it is associated with gang activity, and hence search every vehicle of someone wearing rap attire.

To simplify the data lets assume that 40% of blacks are wearing rap related attire and 10% of whites are. Furthermore lets assume that an equal number of whites and blacks are carrying drugs across the border, and that the attire of the individual is independent of whether or not they carry drugs.

Over the long run this security officer will catch 4 black people for every white person even though they aren't being racist, and even though equal numbers of blacks and whites are committing crimes.

I'd argue the onus is on you to show the data actually shows what you claim it shows, given that I've presented both a plausible way in which the data can be inaccurate which you are unable to account for and a history showing that the bias has been present in the past.

The statement in your argument I have the most problem with is this: "However with police located throughout the city there is no real reason to presume that criminals caught does not represent the set of criminals in general.".

There are a lot of reasons to believe the set of criminals caught doesn't represent the set of criminals in general. For starters different types of crimes are caught at different rates, so if whites are committing more of a certain type of crime that gets caught less (say white collar crime) and blacks are committing one of the crimes (say armed robbery) that gets caught at a higher rate then there are problems in the data. Even if you focus in on a particular crime, you introduce all sorts of new biases, in particular the choice of crime to focus on (given that different crimes have different race data).

Lastly, even if you manage to reduce the data to a single crime without introducing bias, you still don't have evidence showing the arrest data mirrors the committed crimes set. Racial profiling is effective at catching criminals, but results in a higher rate of catching blacks than of catching whites. If police are using methods that are better at catching specific races then that introduces bias in the data. As argued above, they have historically used such methods so the onus is on you to prove they aren't using them anymore.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

You make even less sense here than usual!You make an awful lot of assumption! then proceed as if they were fact!

---

I make specific assumptions to demonstrate one example. This is a common technique to show problems with data.

My point is not that the people are biased against rappers, and that leads to a higher conviction of blacks. My point is that if they were it could lead to biases in the data.

As for racial profiling itself it has been used for a long time. It is effective at catching people of certain races.

On what basis do you assume police have an equal chance of catching a culprit regardless of their race/background? To me that seems a massive unsupported assumption that you need to conclude that the arrest/conviction data reflect the crimes committed data.

Race, Crime and Justice in America
The Color of Crime
New Century Foundation
Oakton, VA 22124

Second, Expanded Edition
Major Findings
• Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.
Crime Rates
• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder,
and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely
than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and
Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of
the population that is black and Hispanic.
Interracial Crime
• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving
blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Fortyfive
percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are
Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are
black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against
a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes
against whites than vice versa.
Gangs
• Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white.
• Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs.
Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.
Incarceration
• Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139
to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39
million.
• Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than whites. Hispanics are
three times more likely.
Just a beginning! The data supports the make up of prison population, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

I make specific assumptions to demonstrate one example. This is a common technique to show problems with data.

My point is not that the people are biased against rappers, and that leads to a higher conviction of blacks. My point is that if they were it could lead to biases in the data.

As for racial profiling itself it has been used for a long time. It is effective at catching people of certain races.

On what basis do you assume police have an equal chance of catching a culprit regardless of their race/background? To me that seems a massive unsupported assumption that you need to conclude that the arrest/conviction data reflect the crimes committed data.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

"Furthermore, my claims of potential for bias are based on a long history of bias and racial profiling in many police forces around the country."

---

Sorry but this statement makes an assumption and assumes it is correct within itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

I make specific assumptions to demonstrate one example. This is a common technique to show problems with data.

My point is not that the people are biased against rappers, and that leads to a higher conviction of blacks. My point is that if they were it could lead to biases in the data.

As for racial profiling itself it has been used for a long time. It is effective at catching people of certain races.

On what basis do you assume police have an equal chance of catching a culprit regardless of their race/background? To me that seems a massive unsupported assumption that you need to conclude that the arrest/conviction data reflect the crimes committed data.

---

Oh no! Why UK need's a death penalty? You have ban gun's and knives. There can not be violence any more. They tell me gun's and knives make murder. Not peoples. What shall we ban next? Cut the arms off peoples? Then they can not push the trigger or knife edge. ;)

We didn't abolish the death penalty simply because we abolished violence through gun control, because we haven't. I read recently that GB is the most violent country in Europe, and is worse than USA (!) and even South Africa (!!). I have no reason to doubt the statistics, although it comes to me as a surprise and a shock to learn that we rank among the worst societies in the world.

Perhaps there are special situations to take into account - for example, perhaps the statistics include terrorism in Northern Ireland - but perhaps I am looking for excuses or am in denial. I find it hard to believe that the streets of London are more dangerous than those of Washington DC or Jo'burg.

Maybe I must face facts. After all, wasn't it only a month ago that a taxi driver went on a murder campaign in Cumbria, and killed or injured 37 people, using legally held weapons, while a fortnight later, four people received gunshot wounds in Birmingham. Even as I write, BBC 1's News at Six is full of reports about a Tyneside gunman who, just out of prison, has shot his girlfriend, her lover, and a police constable, and who has "declared war" on the Northumbria Police, is being stalked by armed police toting semi-automatic weapons. A village has been locked down and a 5 mile exclusion zone set up around it, as they search for this killer. It is being suggested that this man has chosen to "commit suicide by cop," a nasty phrase reflecting insidious conduct by the "victim" (by choice). And so the violence escalates.

I have argued on these threads that countries that do not have the death penalty are in some way better than those that do; I would write smug messages asserting that the British or European approach to crimes of violence - particularly murder - demonstrates a higher level of civilisation which should be emulated by all other countries, and I would hear no rebuttal. I was right and I knew it. But now I see that Britain is no better, no safer, no more peaceful than anywhere else, rather, it is worse, more dangerous, and more violent than most places, and I ask myself if the death penalty really is the answer.

... well that would require a radical rethink of all my principles, and I am not prepared to rehearse all the arguments for and against capital punishment on this board (Thank God! I hear you chorus). Instinctively, I still feel it is wrong, and I still feel it reflects a higher level of social standards not to have the death penalty than to have it ... but just because most of us behave one way, there's no proof that it will make others, who are less inclined to, behave the same way.

So, if GB is such a violent place to live in, and guns and other weapons are strictly controlled, how can we protect ourselves? I don't think there is any popular desire for guns to be de-regulated so we can protect ourselves, and I don't think there is enough evidence to support the re-introduction of the death penalty. What other options are there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I have argued on these threads that countries that do not have the death penalty are in some way better than those that do; I would write smug messages asserting that the British or European approach to crimes of violence - particularly murder - demonstrates a higher level of civilisation which should be emulated by all other countries, and I would hear no rebuttal. I was right and I knew it. But now I see that Britain is no better, no safer, no more peaceful than anywhere else, rather, it is worse, more dangerous, and more violent than most places, and I ask myself if the death penalty really is the answer.

---

Despite my being an advocate for the death penalty, I can honestly say that, No, the death penalty is not the answer. It is only a small part of the answer. While it may seem inhumane to some, I think you may be learning that there are some people for whom the only true defense for society is the death penalty.

Quote:

---

Instinctively, I still feel it is wrong, and I still feel it reflects a higher level of social standards not to have the death penalty than to have it ... but just because most of us behave one way, there's no proof that it will make others, who are less inclined to, behave the same way.

---

There is ample evidence that the death penalty is not a valid deterrent to violent crimes. Most such crimes are done in the heat of passion, with little or no thought given to punishment. The only true justification I can give for having it is that it eliminates the possibility of a truly dangerous person ever committing another crime. Far too often people who are given a life sentence are released for "good behavior" and allowed back into society. Perhaps most will not relapse. But it only takes one.

Quote:

---

So, if GB is such a violent place to live in, and guns and other weapons are strictly controlled, how can we protect ourselves?

---

This is the core of the problem, I believe. You really can't protect yourselves. I have seen reports of victims trying to defend themselves against criminals receiving higher penalties than the criminals. That's not justice!

Quote:

---

I don't think there is any popular desire for guns to be de-regulated so we can protect ourselves, and I don't think there is enough evidence to support the re-introduction of the death penalty. What other options are there?

---

Surprisingly, the answer actually is in deregulation. In those areas of the US where people are able to get licenses to carry concealed weapons, street crimes are down, as are home invasions. When the criminals don't know if they are going to be met by meek victims or armed defense, they think twice about committing the crimes. I think you'll find that the great majority of gun crimes committed in the major cities of the US are gang and drug related. Sadly, too many of their victims are innocent bystanders, but few law-abiding citizens will mourn the deaths of drug dealers.

A well-armed, and well-trained, citizenry can do more to cut down on violent crimes than anything else, surprisingly. With few exceptions, the store owner who shoots the person trying to rob his store will be far less likely to have to shoot anyone else once the word gets around.

I am sorry to hear about your crisis of faith, though, MMI. I'll try not to say, "I told you so." ;)

It's not a crisis of faith, nor an epiphany, and I haven't recanted yet, Thorne. I am simply questioning my position in the light of information I was previously unaware of, and, to be honest, am having difficulty accepting.

You say that a "well-armed and well-trained citizenry" would do more good than anything else. But what about a well-armed but poorly-trained citizenry? Are you advocating another law like the one in the C16th suppressing the playing of cricket in favour of compulsory target practice on the village green? What's the American experience here?

(In fact, it was necessary for that law to absolve archers from the crime of murder if they killed someone during archery practice! Would it be necessary to have a modern law making a similar provision?)

I wonder if crime in America has fallen in areas where concealed weapons can be carried because the criminals fear their "marks" could be dangerously incompetent gunmen. Or does that not matter, because crime has fallen and the end justifies the means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

You say that a "well-armed and well-trained citizenry" would do more good than anything else. But what about a well-armed but poorly-trained citizenry?

---

First of all, this is only my opinion.I have no hard facts to back it up. But I definitely mean a well-trained citizenry. I believe every registered gun owner should be required to pass certification tests in the handling, maintenance and safety of weapons. Those who cannot pass the tests should not be granted a permit.

Quote:

---

(In fact, it was necessary for that law to absolve archers from the crime of murder if they killed someone during archery practice! Would it be necessary to have a modern law making a similar provision?)

---

Not at all! Those who apply for permits to own and carry concealed weapons should not be considered part of the militia unless they are actually called into service by their government. Given proper gun safety and licensed practice ranges there should be no problems with such incidents.

Quote:

---

I wonder if crime in America has fallen in areas where concealed weapons can be carried because the criminals fear their "marks" could be dangerously incompetent gunmen. Or does that not matter, because crime has fallen and the end justifies the means?

---

I don't know the reasons for it, only that it does seem to be the case. I would think that a dangerously incompetent gunman might be more dangerous to himself than to any potential criminal.

Does the end justify the means? I don't know the answer to that. Sometimes it might. But the death of one innocent person by an armed civilian who thinks he is only defending himself would negate any good that has been done. ANY death or even injury occurring during a criminal attack would have to be investigated by the police, but with the prevalence of CCTV cameras virtually everywhere, that should be far less of a problem than in the past. And an armed civilian who killed an attacker without just cause would have to be charged and tried just as any criminal would be.

As I've said in the past, I don't claim to have all the answers. But it is my strong belief that disarming civilian populations only makes them more likely to be targets of criminals, not less. As GB is learning, it's impossible to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. Not allowing citizens to defend themselves only makes the criminals bolder.

Having let the question simmer in my mind a while, I have decided I am still 100% against the death penalty. I can see no reason for it. None. I push the doubts I expressed earlier aside completely.

The idea of untrained members of the public carrying weapons in public is horrifying. To allow it is licensing vigilante-ism, which is utterly despicable. The prospect of people pulling a gun on another at the merest suggestion of trouble does not bear contemplation, and any authorities that encourage it are, in my opinion, reckless of the law and order they are supposed to enforce, and complicit in any deaths that result. There are no longer any new frontiers where savages and outlaws are liable to swoop down any second and massacre us for our trinkets. There is no danger of redcoats swooping down from Canada to steal hard-won liberties. There's not even any danger of the elected rulers usurping power and overthrowing the constitution - not even where the ruler is a black moslem-loving communist.

No-one has the right to take another person's life, not, to my way of thinking, even in self-defence unless there is no other way to save oneself, and anyone who does take life must show inthe cold light of day and beyond reasonable doubt that his fear of immediate death was real and that there was no other reasonable alternative to save himself. Failure to demonstrate these conditions should lead to a presumption of manslaughter at least.

And because no-one has the right to take another life, except in the most extreme circumstances, it follows that judicial murder is also unacceptable.

It seems to me that the answer must be tougher controls and restrictions on the manufacture, sale, importation and exportation, and possession of offensive weapons of all kinds, and heavy penalties for transgressing the law. OK - it won't stop criminals, but what law ever did? Raoul Moat would've got a gun regardless of what the law said, but maybe Derrick Bird would not; and if he hadn't, 12 lives would not have been pointlessly wasted. Tighter controls will stop people who are not professional lawbreakers from becoming killers by accident or any other cause.

So we are going from death penalty to gun control?

Cuase Im all about good gun control.

You know, the kind that lets me hit what I aim at.

<<is perfectly willing to eaither break out the links or start pulling quotes from the last gun control thread for ammunition here if we are planning on having a lil shootout...lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Having let the question simmer in my mind a while, I have decided I am still 100% against the death penalty. I can see no reason for it. None. I push the doubts I expressed earlier aside completely.

---

I knew I could drive you back into your shell! :)

Quote:

---

The idea of untrained members of the public carrying weapons in public is horrifying.

---

Absolutely! That's why I support mandatory training, with frequent refresher courses.

Quote:

---

There are no longer any new frontiers where savages and outlaws are liable to swoop down any second and massacre us for our trinkets.

---

Obviously you've never strolled through a city park after sundown. In most cities I wouldn't recommend it without Kevlar and an assault rifle.

Quote:

---

There is no danger of redcoats swooping down from Canada to steal hard-won liberties.

---

One thing you have to give the British credit for: they learn from their mistakes. After getting their butts handed to them twice they're not likely to try again; and they eventually got rid of those silly red uniforms!

Quote:

---

No-one has the right to take another person's life, not, to my way of thinking, even in self-defence unless there is no other way to save oneself,

---

What about to save someone else? If I see a man walking into a daycare center carrying a large machete, say, and I have the opportunity to take him out, but not the ability to reach him before he enters the building, should I pop him in the back and save countless kids? Or should I dial 911, wait on hold for 3 minutes, then have the police summoned? I know what I'd do!

Quote:

---

and anyone who does take life must show inthe cold light of day and beyond reasonable doubt that his fear of immediate death was real and that there was no other reasonable alternative to save himself.

---

And just who is to define reasonable? You? The criminal? His family? These things happen in seconds! There's no time for reasonable, only for reaction, which is why training is so important.

Quote:

---

Failure to demonstrate these conditions should lead to a presumption of manslaughter at least.

---

All killings are investigated as manslaughter. The difference between the US and England seems to be that the victim (the person attacked) is not presumed to be guilty because he defended himself.

Quote:

---

And because no-one has the right to take another life, except in the most extreme circumstances, it follows that judicial murder is also unacceptable.

---

Except in the most extreme circumstances, of course.

Quote:

---

It seems to me that the answer must be tougher controls and restrictions on the manufacture, sale, importation and exportation, and possession of offensive weapons of all kinds, and heavy penalties for transgressing the law.

---

These controls already exist. They are ineffective.

Quote:

---

OK - it won't stop criminals, but what law ever did?

---

Laws allowing citizens to take action in their own self defense certainly stops a lot of criminals.

Quote:

---

Tighter controls will stop people who are not professional lawbreakers from becoming killers by accident or any other cause.

---

But these people are not the source of the problem. Sure, accidents do happen, but they are very rare, and can result in charges of criminal negligence when they do occur. An average citizen who, for whatever reason, goes off his rocker and decides to kill his whole family will find a way to do so with or without guns. Regardless of the controls, the professional criminals will still get hold of weapons, and still use them, because they will know that their victims will not be able to fight back effectively.

I only introduced gun control as an alternative to imposing capital punishment, den. I'll debate the merits of gun control with anyone till the come home, but that wasn't my purpose in the last message.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

One thing you have to give the British credit for: they learn from their mistakes. After getting their butts handed to them twice they're not likely to try again; and they eventually got rid of those silly red uniforms!

---

Actually, we don't learn. Otherwise we'd have stayed out of Afghanistand this time.

Furthermore, I am told that those silly red uniforms actually made it harder for enemy scouts to get a good estimate of troop numbers from any kind of distance. Perhaps they weren't as silly as the white ones the French used to wear.

As for handing us our butts back ... twice ... it was only recently that I had to remind you (1) that the French and the indians won your little revolution for you, while the treacherous woodmen who had turned on their own kin just tagged along for the reflected glory and (2) the Canadians won the war of 1812 as the Americans tried to turn their northern cousins against the homeland again. Canada understands the true meaning of loyaly, however. That's why Canada fought in the two world wars last century from the beginning instead of waiting till it was virtually over, and then moving in to pick up the victory.

Meanwhile, although the French won a minor victory in America, we took them apart in every other theatre of that global war, as well as defeating the Dutch, the Russians, the Swedes and the Spanish. So, while it hurt to lose the 13 colonies, it's to be expected if you only send your least competent officers. And it didn't amount to much when you look at the big picture. Plus we did get all of the French Canadian possessions to make up for the loss. So, well done you ...!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Actually, we don't learn. Otherwise we'd have stayed out of Afghanistand this time.

---

Well, it did take you two tries against the US, and this is only the second try in Afghanistan, so....

Quote:

---

Furthermore, I am told that those silly red uniforms actually made it harder for enemy scouts to get a good estimate of troop numbers from any kind of distance.

---

That may be true, but it certainly made it easier to see where the troops were.
You might enjoy this. Trust me, it's relevant.

Quote:

---

As for handing us our butts back ... twice ... it was only recently that I had to remind you...

---

Yeah, yeah, I got all that. But still, the British Army had to leave, didn't it?

Quote:

---

That's why Canada fought in the two world wars last century from the beginning instead of waiting till it was virtually over, and then moving in to pick up the victory.

---

Perhaps a topic for another thread. But remember, the US did provide material support before actually getting involved, both times. And US volunteers fought in both wars long before the government decided to get involved.

You are presenting yourself with a quandry. You see the killing of others as wrong and uncivilized. But at the same time realize that there are those that do not, and in fact deliberately do so.
Now it is to determine what is to be done with these people? At least we must be certain that they can not continue to kill! The only sure way is to make it impossible for them to do so. A life term in prison, that is not solitary confinement, does not even provide that certainty. Further is it proper to ask society to support a demonstrably non-productive member for life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

We didn't abolish the death penalty simply because we abolished violence through gun control, because we haven't. I read recently that GB is the most violent country in Europe, and is worse than USA (!) and even South Africa (!!). I have no reason to doubt the statistics, although it comes to me as a surprise and a shock to learn that we rank among the worst societies in the world.

Perhaps there are special situations to take into account - for example, perhaps the statistics include terrorism in Northern Ireland - but perhaps I am looking for excuses or am in denial. I find it hard to believe that the streets of London are more dangerous than those of Washington DC or Jo'burg.

Maybe I must face facts. After all, wasn't it only a month ago that a taxi driver went on a murder campaign in Cumbria, and killed or injured 37 people, using legally held weapons, while a fortnight later, four people received gunshot wounds in Birmingham. Even as I write, BBC 1's News at Six is full of reports about a Tyneside gunman who, just out of prison, has shot his girlfriend, her lover, and a police constable, and who has "declared war" on the Northumbria Police, is being stalked by armed police toting semi-automatic weapons. A village has been locked down and a 5 mile exclusion zone set up around it, as they search for this killer. It is being suggested that this man has chosen to "commit suicide by cop," a nasty phrase reflecting insidious conduct by the "victim" (by choice). And so the violence escalates.

I have argued on these threads that countries that do not have the death penalty are in some way better than those that do; I would write smug messages asserting that the British or European approach to crimes of violence - particularly murder - demonstrates a higher level of civilisation which should be emulated by all other countries, and I would hear no rebuttal. I was right and I knew it. But now I see that Britain is no better, no safer, no more peaceful than anywhere else, rather, it is worse, more dangerous, and more violent than most places, and I ask myself if the death penalty really is the answer.

... well that would require a radical rethink of all my principles, and I am not prepared to rehearse all the arguments for and against capital punishment on this board (Thank God! I hear you chorus). Instinctively, I still feel it is wrong, and I still feel it reflects a higher level of social standards not to have the death penalty than to have it ... but just because most of us behave one way, there's no proof that it will make others, who are less inclined to, behave the same way.

So, if GB is such a violent place to live in, and guns and other weapons are strictly controlled, how can we protect ourselves? I don't think there is any popular desire for guns to be de-regulated so we can protect ourselves, and I don't think there is enough evidence to support the re-introduction of the death penalty. What other options are there?

---