NationStates Jolt Archive

I am an occasional Factor viewer, and I happened to watch it tonight. And I heard something I didn't know and never would have guessed.

Bill Oreilly is against the death penalty. IN ALL CASES. He was speaking about this Tookie Williams guy who was executed last week, and mentioned the fact that he thought it was wrong to kill anyone for ANY reason.

I have heard alot of bad things said about Oreilly on this forum and others, but you all have to admit, he doesn't care who agrees with him or not.
he says his views, and he stands by them.

If he's a supposed mouthpiece for the neo-cons, he'll lose viewers over this one. But he said it anyway, and repeated it 3 or 4 times, just to drive it home.

Maybe he isn't the rabid dog that some people think he is. He didn't want them to kill the founder of the Crips, a convicted multiple murder. That takes balls to admit, especially if your the so called neo-con poster boy.

Just goes to show someone cant be wrong all the time

Great, another thing me and O'Reilly disagree on. Yeah, it takes balls for him to be paid to blather on about his stupid political views and get publicity for being at the center of controversy. Balls... IN HIS MOUTH.

Even a broken clock is right 2 times per day.

Even a broken clock is right 2 times per day.
I love that metaphor. I love it like I love cancer. :rolleyes:

Now, whats the chances that a couple of days later, once his neocon views skate off to somewhere else, he claims that he has been misquoted and that he agrees with the death penalty?

Do not even get me started on Tookie and capital punishment.

my guess is that he is saying something he knows will be controversial in his circle just to get people talking about him again because he isn't getting enough attention being the attention whore that he is.

Yeah, Tookie is old news. Good riddance.

If you've read his books, you'd know that he's an ex-Libertarian Party member who got wayyyyy conservative in the 90's, although reasons are unknown for that. He's also for legalization of pot. I can't think of anything else very libertarian of him, but that's the whole "suprise" kit. Sorry if I've ruined it for you.

Personally I think Tookie deserved the Capital Punishment.

He killed 4 people

He showed no rependence, sorrow, and he never took responsibility.

Any con. can write 4 anti-gangs book, but it takes a real man to admit that yes he did kill 4 people, and that he is sorry. He never did this.

Personally I think Tookie deserved the Capital Punishment.

He killed 4 people

He showed no rependence, sorrow, and he never took responsibility.

Any con. can write 4 anti-gangs book, but it takes a real man to admit that yes he did kill 4 people, and that he is sorry. He never did this.


Wasnt this guy nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-gang related works?

Youre telling me a man who is nominated for such an award, deserves the death penalty?
That he cant be socially redeemed, and rehabilitated?

If that were the case, do you think he would have even been nominated?

As for O'Reilly,
Hes the most vinegary of all douches.
Hes a belligerent asshole, who makes his point by yelling louder than his guest.
Thats not wise journalism, that douchebaggery.
The fact that he doesnt support the death penalty, simply means hes not the fucking anti-christ.

Wasnt this guy nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-gang related works?

Youre telling me a man who is nominated for such an award, deserves the death penalty?
That he cant be socially redeemed, and rehabilitated?

If that were the case, do you think he would have even been nominated?

As for O'Reilly,
Hes the most vinegary of all douches.
Hes a belligerent asshole, who makes his point by yelling louder than his guest.
Thats not wise journalism, that douchebaggery.
The fact that he doesnt support the death penalty, simply means hes not the fucking anti-christ.

In order to be redeemed and rehabilitated, you have to admit to your crimes and you have to take responsibility for the crime, and last you must apologize. Tookie did nothing of the sort.

any chance he could be against it because he knows it would draw publicity, and not because, if it is the case i think you are talking about, because quite a number of people have stood up for Tookie, including Snoop Dogg, as a leader to get the youth out of gangs?

In order to be redeemed and rehabilitated, you have to admit to your crimes and you have to take responsibility for the crime, and last you must apologize. Tookie did nothing of the sort.

Nice catch-22 for anyone that is innocent.

EDIT: Not that I am arguing Tookie was innocent. This thread isn't about Tookie. He's dead already.

Nice catch-22 for anyone that is innocent.

Prove that he was innocent. He was found guility in a fair trial setting.

Prove that he was innocent. He was found guility in a fair trial setting.
1) "prove" anything (thats usualy why they add that "resonable doubt" part in there)

2) I dont think he was talking about tookies specific case

Wasnt this guy nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-gang related works?

Yeah.


Youre telling me a man who is nominated for such an award, deserves the death penalty?

Yes. He shot four people to death. And was sentenced to die. Who cares if he was nominated for some stupid award.


That he cant be socially redeemed, and rehabilitated?

Irrelevant.


If that were the case, do you think he would have even been nominated?

Yes.

Yeah.



Yes. He shot four people to death. And was sentenced to die. Who cares if he was nominated for some stupid award.



Irrelevant.



Yes.

Agreed. On all points.

Prove that he was innocent. He was found guility in a fair trial setting.

I wasn't referring to Tookie's case in particular and, as I clarified, was not claiming Tookie was innocent.

As to whether he got a fair trial, there is considerable doubt as to whether the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to unconstitutionally remove blacks from the jury. Again, I'm not taking a position. I'm just saying the issue was hotly debated in the courts and Tookie only narrowly lost. Many experts think the courts got it wrong.

Rehabilitating prisoner is not stopping other people from doing the crimes. Furthermore, a murderer or child molester or rapist being reportedly getting out on "good behavior" is a crock. How can they be bad when they aren't tempted around their prey of choice. In case you haven't noticed, I'm all for tougher sentences, to include execusion.

[quote]Yes. He shot four people to death. And was sentenced to die. Who cares if he was nominated for some stupid award.

Can you tell me what that "stupid award" is, and why it is given?



Irrelevant.

Hardly.
A person is sententenced to death for a crime, becuase the states laws say the guilty is beyond rehabilitation, and thus suitable punishment.




Yes.

Really, and you happen to know the criteria for getting nominated do you?

Yeah.



Yes. He shot four people to death. And was sentenced to die. Who cares if he was nominated for some stupid award.



Irrelevant.



Yes.
besides the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize isnt just "some stupid award", if someone shows the desire to rehabilitate, it isnt irrelevent. I do realise the guy killed 4 people (personally, i wonder how many of them would have killed him, given the chance), but to give the death penalty to someone who not only has show the desire to rehabilitate, but help teach others not to go down the path that he did is almost an insult, a slap in the face, to any remorse he would have shown

besides the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize isnt just "some stupid award", if someone shows the desire to rehabilitate, it isnt irrelevent. I do realise the guy killed 4 people (personally, i wonder how many of them would have killed him, given the chance), but to give the death penalty to someone who not only has show the desire to rehabilitate, but help teach others not to go down the path that he did is almost an insult, a slap in the face, to any remorse he would have shown

But the fact that he showed no remorse, no sympthy, and showed no sign of accepting his crime is why he was given the death penalty.

But the fact that he showed no remorse, no sympthy, and showed no sign of accepting his crime is why he was given the death penalty.


Horseshit.


Look at what he did after he was sentenced.

The guy worked pretty damn tirelessly (or as much as one can in prison, I suppose) to ensure that as many kids as possible, would not end up where he was, and made the same mistakes he had made.
If thats not remorse, and an attempt at atonement, what the hell is?

Can you tell me what that "stupid award" is, and why it is given?


Is this relevant? no. How about we pretend that both of us are aware of the Nobel Peace Prize, hmm? Since at least, I am, and I assume you are.


Hardly.
A person is sententenced to death for a crime, becuase the states laws say the guilty is beyond rehabilitation, and thus suitable punishment.

Correct, a court decided he was guilty beyond rehabilitation and sentenced him to death. I'm not seeing where his *nomination* changes any of that.



Really, and you happen to know the criteria for getting nominated do you?

:rolleyes: Again, not very relevant. But feel free to take an opportunity to call me out on my lack of Nobel Peace Prize nomination criteria trivia knowledge just for the hell of it.

Question: If someone maintains their innocence up to the time of their death... aren't they officially cleared of the charge they are being put to death for?

What I don't get is why would Tookie maintain his innocence for the murders while confessing to everything else? Isn't it possible that he was actually convicted for a crime he didn't commit? If it is possible, then shouldn't life in prison be sufficient punishment for all the things he did confess too? Death is such an easy way out. I'm sure I would pick that over life in prison anyday. If one truely wants revenge on Tookie, I would think they would rather he live his life in the torment of prison for as long as possible.

besides the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize isnt just "some stupid award", if someone shows the desire to rehabilitate, it isnt irrelevent. I do realise the guy killed 4 people (personally, i wonder how many of them would have killed him, given the chance), but to give the death penalty to someone who not only has show the desire to rehabilitate, but help teach others not to go down the path that he did is almost an insult, a slap in the face, to any remorse he would have shown


I don't like the death penalty, but I like to look at it from a more pragmatic perspective. Tookie williams probably wouldn't kill anyone else, I doubt that he would harm anyone, he did good works, so why should he be killed?

Now, a child molester, who is very likely to offend again, and destroy some young life (not necessarily physically, but at least psychologically) doesn't get put to death? People who have a higher risk of recidivism for a crime that I personally think is just as bad, or at least at the same level of abhorrence are put in prision for a little while and then let free.

In a case where the person is not going to hurt others any more, or be a danger to soceity killing them is just being vindictive.

Question: If someone maintains their innocence up to the time of their death... aren't they officially cleared of the charge they are being put to death for?

Um. No. Of course not.

Horseshit.


Look at what he did after he was sentenced.

The guy worked pretty damn tirelessly (or as much as one can in prison, I suppose) to ensure that as many kids as possible, would not end up where he was, and made the same mistakes he had made.
If thats not remorse, and an attempt at atonement, what the hell is?
i whole heartedly agree here. and as i said before, would any of those four, given the chance, kill him before he pulled the trigger on them?

Um. No. Of course not.


Oh, ok, I could have sworn I heard that somewhere. That's why I asked because it sounded wrong to me.

I also think that having him alive is better for soceity, To have the founder of the Crips (the largest street gang in the world) constantly speaking agaisnt gang violence is probably the best weapon against gang violence. putting him to death was just silencing the mouth of one of the the best weapons against street violence in the US.

That was why he was nominated for the peace prize -Those blokes in stockholm aren't idiots

Horseshit.


Look at what he did after he was sentenced.

The guy worked pretty damn tirelessly (or as much as one can in prison, I suppose) to ensure that as many kids as possible, would not end up where he was, and made the same mistakes he had made.
If thats not remorse, and an attempt at atonement, what the hell is?

What did he do that kept as many kids as possible out of gangs? Write anti-gang books? It's a nice guesture, but how is that to console the family of the people he killed? How about ADMITTING that he did the crime, and that he is sorry for it?

What did he do that kept as many kids as possible out of gangs? Write anti-gang books? It's a nice guesture, but how is that to console the family of the people he killed? How about ADMITTING that he did the crime, and that he is sorry for it?

He was THE founder of the biggest street gang in the world. To have the founder - a guy with max respect in the gang speaking against gang violence is a powerful message. and everyone knows that he knows what he's talking about, he's not just some TV pundit.

He was THE founder of the biggest street gang in the world. To have the founder - a guy with max respect in the gang speaking against gang violence is a powerful message. and everyone knows that he knows what he's talking about, he's not just some TV pundit.

Actually co-founder, and it is a powerful message, but that still doesn't mean that he's sorry for his crime.

What did he do that kept as many kids as possible out of gangs? Write anti-gang books? It's a nice guesture, but how is that to console the family of the people he killed? How about ADMITTING that he did the crime, and that he is sorry for it?


Nothing will console a greiving family.
No matter how many times a person could say "im sorry", the person does not come back to life.

and how do you know, he is actually guilty?

You got any idea how many innocents are on death row?

Maybe you remember that Govenor a while back who did some research on the inmates in his state, and found 20 of them to be innocent, and thus granted thier release?

I wouldnt be sorry, nor apologize for a crime I didnt commit.

To be fair, however, I didnt follow his case.
For all I know, hes as guilty as sin.

I have to wonder, if you would be saying the same things, if this guy were white?

I very much doubt it.

Actually co-founder, and it is a powerful message, but that still doesn't mean that he's sorry for his crime.

Do you think that it would be better to have not killed him? I do. His work probably does a better job of discouraging criminals than the death penalty does.

Do you think that it would be better to have not killed him? I do. His work probably does a better job of discouraging criminals than the death penalty does.
He deffinatly was devoting his life to making an impact on gangs

Nothing will console a greiving family.
No matter how many times a person could say "im sorry", the person does not come back to life.



You know, that makes me think.. does the death penalty do anything good for soceity as far as making the family feel better? give them closure? or is the mad drive for the death penalty just some sick bloodlust being exposed, a desire for vengence by the family of the deceased? I actually look at people who want the death penalty so bad for the murderer of a loved one as being a little morally wrong. Not that the person should be allowed to walk, but It seems wrong. The person may be guilty, and even a threat to soceity, but I don't think it's very good to want someone dead.

Nothing will console a greiving family.
No matter how many times a person could say "im sorry", the person does not come back to life.

and how do you know, he is actually guilty?

You got any idea how many innocents are on death row?

Maybe you remember that Govenor a while back who did some research on the inmates in his state, and found 20 of them to be innocent, and thus granted thier release?

I wouldnt be sorry, nor apologize for a crime I didnt commit.

To be fair, however, I didnt follow his case.
For all I know, hes as guilty as sin.

I have to wonder, if you would be saying the same things, if this guy were white?

I very much doubt it.


Nice try with the race card, but North Carolina just excuted a white guy too. Guess what, he killed people, he didn't apologized or take responsbility. I called for his death too, and he was WHITE!

To me it doesn't matter what's on the outside, but by the action that the person does.

Nice try with the race card though.

Do you think that it would be better to have not killed him? I do. His work probably does a better job of discouraging criminals than the death penalty does.

and yet, in states that abolished the death penalty, their crimes actually went up. Texas put a halt to it's capital punishment system a while back. Crime rate in Texas went up!

You know, that makes me think.. does the death penalty do anything good for soceity as far as making the family feel better? give them closure? or is the mad drive for the death penalty just some sick bloodlust being exposed, a desire for vengence by the family of the deceased? I actually look at people who want the death penalty so bad for the murderer of a loved one as being a little morally wrong. Not that the person should be allowed to walk, but It seems wrong. The person may be guilty, and even a threat to soceity, but I don't think it's very good to want someone dead.


Im somewhat torn.

Some people simply give up thier right to live, by commiting heinous actions.

On the other hand, can we really condemn a man (or woman) to death, if we cant be 100% sure of thier guilt?

We know innocent people are often sentenced for crimes they didnt commit, so how can we ever be that sure?

You know, that makes me think.. does the death penalty do anything good for soceity as far as making the family feel better? give them closure? or is the mad drive for the death penalty just some sick bloodlust being exposed, a desire for vengence by the family of the deceased? I actually look at people who want the death penalty so bad for the murderer of a loved one as being a little morally wrong. Not that the person should be allowed to walk, but It seems wrong. The person may be guilty, and even a threat to soceity, but I don't think it's very good to want someone dead.

The justice system in America works like this. When you take something (money, virginity, innocent, or life), you must give something back that is of equal value. Like if I stole $100 from a guy, and found guility, I should be expected to repay him that $100. Tookie took 4 life, thereforth, he should pay with his own.

and yet, in states that abolished the death penalty, their crimes actually went up. Texas put a halt to it's capital punishment system a while back. Crime rate in Texas went up!


as did the availability of concealed handguns.

Coincidence?

I think not.

as did the availability of concealed handguns.

Coincidence?

I think not.

nope, so this actually proves there is a coorlations to the death penality and crime rate.

The justice system in America works like this. When you take something (money, virginity, innocent, or life), you must give something back that is of equal value. Like if I stole $100 from a guy, and found guility, I should be expected to repay him that $100. Tookie took 4 life, thereforth, he should pay with his own.


There were serious questions as to wether his trial was a fair one.

Experts are not sure if he was truly guilty.

Why are you?

There were serious questions as to wether his trial was a fair one.

Experts are not sure if he was truly guilty.

Why are you?

Because even though our Justice system may have flaws, I still think it's the best system out there, and if it wasn't a fair trial, then how come he didn't repeal and go to a higher court?

and yet, in states that abolished the death penalty, their crimes actually went up. Texas put a halt to it's capital punishment system a while back. Crime rate in Texas went up!

I don't know, I don't know the situation, I do know that the US has a higher crime rate than alot of other countries that don't have the death penalty.

I usually find fault in statistics like the one you just said, because they haven't been fully studied crime rates are caused by a lot of things, perhaps there was an economic recession at the time, or there was something else, but in my experiance, most statistics like that can't be accurately measured.

I don't know, I don't know the situation, I do know that the US has a higher crime rate than alot of other countries that don't have the death penalty.

I usually find fault in statistics like the one you just said, because they haven't been fully studied crime rates are caused by a lot of things, perhaps there was an economic recession at the time, or there was something else, but in my experiance, most statistics like that can't be accurately measured.

We have higher crime rates because we have the most freedom.

Nice try with the race card, but North Carolina just excuted a white guy too. Guess what, he killed people, he didn't apologized or take responsbility. I called for his death too, and he was WHITE!

To me it doesn't matter what's on the outside, but by the action that the person does.

Nice try with the race card though.


Liar.

If actions was truly what made the man, in your eyes, then Williams actions probably saved more lives than he ever could meet, let alone 4 people.
How many kids may have been steered away from gang life, and not shot down at an early age?

Could you be any more hippocritical?

We have higher crime rates because we have the most freedom.


No, Canada for instance has every freedom we do, and significantly lower crime rates.

Why do you suppose that is?

there was recently an australian man that was hung in singapore for drug-smuggling. one of the arguments against the sentence was that he knew names of various drug connections in australia and SE asia. the thing is, he never gave the names up. on the other hand, we have a guy who was activly trying to stop people going down the same road he did. to me, he deserved to be pardoned more than the australian guy, because he was actually trying to help.

The justice system in America works like this. When you take something (money, virginity, innocent, or life), you must give something back that is of equal value. Like if I stole $100 from a guy, and found guility, I should be expected to repay him that $100. Tookie took 4 life, thereforth, he should pay with his own.

an eye for an eye... why is that supposed to work?

Liar.

If actions was truly what made the man, in your eyes, then Williams actions probably saved more lives than he ever could meet, let alone 4 people.
How many kids may have been steered away from gang life, and not shot down at an early age?

Could you be any more hippocritical?

No one knows how many kids he steered away from the gang's life. Do you know, because I sure as hell don't. That is the flaw in that argument, no one knows exactly how much of an impact he made.

Like I said before, in the American Justice System, it's an eye for an eye. If you take something away from someone, then you must repay him in equal value.

Horseshit.


Look at what he did after he was sentenced.

The guy worked pretty damn tirelessly (or as much as one can in prison, I suppose) to ensure that as many kids as possible, would not end up where he was, and made the same mistakes he had made.
If thats not remorse, and an attempt at atonement, what the hell is?

You'd probably start screaming about how horrible the wages of sin are as loud as you could, too, if you found yourself getting a needle stuck in your arm and thought it might get you out.

What did he do that kept as many kids as possible out of gangs? Write anti-gang books? It's a nice guesture, but how is that to console the family of the people he killed? How about ADMITTING that he did the crime, and that he is sorry for it?

More importantly, how many of those gang members would know or even care that he was writing about how bad gang-life is? And even if they did know, would any of them plunk down the money to buy a book, or even steal it, and then after having read it, decide that the gang life is not the life for them. Few.

as did the availability of concealed handguns.

Coincidence?

I think not.

So did the number of illegal immigrants, but I don't see you pointing to that.

Concealed handguns have nothing to do with crime. Do you think a criminal is going to care whether he can legally conceal his handgun? Probably not.

Because even though our Justice system may have flaws, I still think it's the best system out there, and if it wasn't a fair trial, then how come he didn't repeal and go to a higher court?


Uhh...cuz he was a) Black.

and B) the founder of a notorious gang.

an eye for an eye... why is that supposed to work?

Because if people see that when you commit this crime, this will be the punishment.

We have higher crime rates because we have the most freedom.

The neatherlands has alot more freedom than we do.. and someone up there said canada.

No, Canada for instance has every freedom we do, and significantly lower crime rates.

Why do you suppose that is?

Canada has fewer freedoms than we do.

Uhh...cuz he was a) Black.

and B) the founder of a notorious gang.

Oh please, stop it with the race card. OJ Simpson was black, but he got off. How come they didn't nail him? The fact that Tookie was black is irrevelant, if he was truely innocent, and didn't recieve a fair trial, his lawyers should've repealed to a higher court.

an eye for an eye... why is that supposed to work?
someone has a quote from ghandi in their sig: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

Uhh...cuz he was a) Black.

and B) the founder of a notorious gang.

A-Irrelevant.
B-Yes. Good enough reason to string a man (or woman) up in my book.

Oh please, stop it with the race card. OJ Simpson was black, but he got off. How come they didn't nail him? The fact that Tookie was black is irrevelant, if he was truely innocent, and didn't recieve a fair trial, his lawyers should've repealed to a higher court.

OJ simpson was also rich and famous, which cancels out blackness. But I think the reason that tookie couldn't get out was the fact the he was the leader of a gang, and it would set an example.

No one knows how many kids he steered away from the gang's life. Do you know, because I sure as hell don't. That is the flaw in that argument, no one knows exactly how much of an impact he made.




WRONG.

He made enough of an impact to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

The only flaw, is you are judging a man by reputation, and ignoring the greater good he may have accomplished.
If he was truly guilty, then he he should have been forced to serve his full term in prison, no question.
But, to assume he was remorseless, is probably an uneducated assumption on your part.
Having never spent time with this guy, you dont kow for certain how he felt about it.

OJ simpson was also rich and famous, which cancels out blackness. But I think the reason that tookie couldn't get out was the fact the he was the leader of a gang, and it would set an example.

Well you're right about that. It was a GREAT example. It's basically saying, if you are in a gang, and commit an unlawful act, you will get punished for your crime. His skin has NOTHING to do with the reason he was found guilty.

someone has a quote from ghandi in their sig: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

And if everyone's blind, we can't bloody well kill each other with handguns and cruisemissiles, can we? Suddenly anorexia would be a thing of the past, as few people would care about how they or anyone else looks, and gyms would swell because the only important thing would be to have toned muscles.

I wonder if we would not be better off blind.

someone has a quote from ghandi in their sig: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

I like that quote, or more importantly, my high school history teacher loved that quote, and rubbed it in my face. Though, I don't like to quote gandhi.. not sure why, it just seems like I'm bragging "Ha! even Gandhi agrees with me!"

A-Irrelevant.
B-Yes. Good enough reason to string a man (or woman) up in my book.


If you think the average poor black man gets the same treatment in the American justice system that a white man gets...you are living in a dream world.

And if everyone's blind, we can't bloody well kill each other with handguns and cruisemissiles, can we? Suddenly anorexia would be a thing of the past, as few people would care about how they or anyone else looks, and gyms would swell because the only important thing would be to have toned muscles.

I wonder if we would not be better off blind.

Just remember man, "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king"

Translation: a world run by Pirates!

WRONG.

He made enough of an impact to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

The only flaw, is you are judging a man by reputation, and ignoring the greater good he may have accomplished.
If he was truly guilty, then he he should have been forced to serve his full term in prison, no question.
But, to assume he was remorseless, is probably an uneducated assumption on your part.
Having never spent time with this guy, you dont kow for certain how he felt about it.

Jimmy Carter did more good than Tookie, at least Jimmy Carter didn't have to kill 4 people to realize that he screwed up. I know exactly how he felt about it.

Where is his apology?

Where did he say that "Yes I did kill those for people."?

The fact that he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is irrevelant.

I wonder if we would not be better off blind.
well, there wouldnt be any racism

Well you're right about that. It was a GREAT example. It's basically saying, if you are in a gang, and commit an unlawful act, you will get punished for your crime. His skin has NOTHING to do with the reason he was found guilty.


No, it has to do with the fact he couldnt afford Johnny Cochran.

WRONG.

He made enough of an impact to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

The only flaw, is you are judging a man by reputation, and ignoring the greater good he may have accomplished.
If he was truly guilty, then he he should have been forced to serve his full term in prison, no question.
But, to assume he was remorseless, is probably an uneducated assumption on your part.
Having never spent time with this guy, you dont kow for certain how he felt about it.

If he were repentant, he would have said so, very loudly. And then he might have gotten off the hook (or out of the noose, as the case may be).

Of course, the Nobel Prize for Peace is named for a man whose inventions killed countless thousands during the Twentieth Century and his award went to America's first Big Stick President, Theodore Roosevelt.

If you think the average poor black man gets the same treatment in the American justice system that a white man gets...you are living in a dream world.

Oh yes, the black man is being treated sooo poorly. Why they are just ready to hang every black man up in every tree in Mississippi! Give me a break! These people are not in jail because they are black, hispanic, or asian. They are in there because they have committed A CRIME!

No, it has to do with the fact he couldnt afford Johnny Cochran.

As far as OJ goes, I think he was guilty, he just had a savvy lawyer. Do you really want another guilty person to have a savvy lawyer so he can get off too?

If you think the average poor black man gets the same treatment in the American justice system that a white man gets...you are living in a dream world.

You forgot to add the modifier 'poor' to the white man. And both poor white men and poor black men go to jail. The American justice system neither favors nor harms either greater than the other.

If you believe any different, I have news for you: Welcome to the 00s!

Of course, the Nobel Prize for Peace is named for a man whose inventions killed countless thousands during the Twentieth Century and his award went to America's first Big Stick President, Theodore Roosevelt.

I think that was being used for more comedic purposed (I hope) but it's entirely irrelevent when it comes to what the nobel peace prize is.

I think that was being used for more comedic purposed (I hope) but it's entirely irrelevent when it comes to what the nobel peace prize is.

It's true though. Albert Nobel came up with the Nobel Peace Prize after what he saw black powder can do. After he invented black powder, he decided to reward those who were working towards peace.

nope, so this actually proves there is a coorlations to the death penality and crime rate.

basic science 101: correlation does not equal causation.

basic science 101: correlation does not equal causation.

So I guess it's just one big concidence that as soon as Texas put a temp. stop to the death penality, that crime went up and sales a hand guns went up.

Oh yes, the black man is being treated sooo poorly. Why they are just ready to hang every black man up in every tree in Mississippi! Give me a break! These people are not in jail because they are black, hispanic, or asian. They are in there because they have committed A CRIME!

And often they commited the crime because they were poor... which leads to the reason why they continue to be in jail, is because they couldn't higher a fancy-boy lawyer. If they were rich, they'd probably just commit white-collar crimes and get off scott-free because of their lawyer.

Jimmy Carter did more good than Tookie, at least Jimmy Carter didn't have to kill 4 people to realize that he screwed up. I know exactly how he felt about it. [quote]

In that case, youre being a presumptious ass.
You most certainly do NOT know how he felt about anything, unless you had the opportunity to talk with him.
You didnt.

[quote]Where is his apology?

If he wasnt actually guilty, he needed none.

Where did he say that "Yes I did kill those for people."?

Maybe he didnt.

The fact that he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is irrevelant.

No, it clearly goes to show the good works he did after his conviction.
His ACTIONS, proved he helped make a difference, a positive one.
Even if this was not sufficient to earn his release,(and it shouldnt have), it may have been, or should have been enough to grant him a stay of execution.

In the eyes of many young blacks, Williams was a very respected man.
If that respected man, tells young impressionable minds to stay away from gangs and violence, then hes done a good thing.

It's true though. Albert Nobel came up with the Nobel Peace Prize after what he saw black powder can do. After he invented black powder, he decided to reward those who were working towards peace.
he actually intended it for peacful applications. unfortunatly, others saw other uses....

It's true though. Albert Nobel came up with the Nobel Peace Prize after what he saw black powder can do. After he invented black powder, he decided to reward those who were working towards peace.

I know it's true, but that doesn't make the peace prize a bad thing is what I was saying.

You forgot to add the modifier 'poor' to the white man. And both poor white men and poor black men go to jail. The American justice system neither favors nor harms either greater than the other.

If you believe any different, I have news for you: Welcome to the 00s!


Really?

Why dont you look up the ratio of whites vs blacks in american prisons.

And often they commited the crime because they were poor... which leads to the reason why they continue to be in jail, is because they couldn't higher a fancy-boy lawyer. If they were rich, they'd probably just commit white-collar crimes and get off scott-free because of their lawyer.

A crime is still a crime, no matter how you try to slice it.

I think that was being used for more comedic purposed (I hope) but it's entirely irrelevent when it comes to what the nobel peace prize is.

The Nobel Peace Prize is a hunk of metal and with associated money handed out by a corrupt international organization that has its own political objectives and seeks to forward them by giving it to various persons with whom the political weight of the prize might prove to be enough for the politics to go their way.

In the case of Tookie, it was almost certainly considered for him only because he was on death row and happened to write some books about a life he regretted, though he never regretted having taken lives himself. They probably hoped to get him off the hook by having it awarded to him and, in doing so, show us Americans 'how backwards we are'.

He killed four people. He died for that. His books might give him some karma/good deeds to counter his sins, but that is not for us to decide. He killed, according to the law, he should have been put to death. He was. His soul is now in God's (or Buddha's, or Vishnu's, or no-one's) hands, now.

[QUOTE=Stone Bridges]Jimmy Carter did more good than Tookie, at least Jimmy Carter didn't have to kill 4 people to realize that he screwed up. I know exactly how he felt about it. [quote]

In that case, youre being a presumptious ass.
You most certainly do NOT know how he felt about anything, unless you had the opportunity to talk with him.
You didnt.



If he wasnt actually guilty, he needed none.



Maybe he didnt.



No, it clearly goes to show the good works he did after his conviction.
His ACTIONS, proved he helped make a difference, a positive one.
Even if this was not sufficient to earn his release,(and it shouldnt have), it may have been, or should have been enough to grant him a stay of execution.

In the eyes of many young blacks, Williams was a very respected man.
If that respected man, tells young impressionable minds to stay away from gangs and violence, then hes done a good thing.

How many of those impressionable mind actually listen? I mean he has to compete with Rap stars who glorify gangs.

It should be noted that he did good work, but he still didn't apologize, he still didn't take responsbility, and our justice system is still an eye for an eye.

Really?

Why dont you look up the ratio of whites vs blacks in american prisons.

Why don't you look up crime rates between whites and blacks in America. You might be amused to note that more black people are in prison because *gasp* more black people commit crimes!

So I guess it's just one big concidence that as soon as Texas put a temp. stop to the death penality, that crime went up and sales a hand guns went up.

I don't know, but neither do you.

For example, you haven't mentioned whether crime in general went up, or just violent crime subject to capital punishment.

So, you have to show that capital offenses grew at a greater rate than non-capital offenses to demonstrate even the shadow of a causal link between the elimination of the death penalty and an increase in crime.

I'd also be interested to see a source that actually supports your basic claim.

A crime is still a crime, no matter how you try to slice it.

But what I'm saying is that it's mostly not racism, I think it all has to do with poverty. Most crimes are caused by poverty, and the reason that there are more african americans in jail is because they have less economic opportunity (mostly because of their poorer upbringing) People who fall into crime usually aren't middle class, suburban white-boys, and that's because their parents have enough money to support them and send them to college, or at least enough to keep them from resorting to crime to support themselves.

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches][QUOTE=Stone Bridges]Jimmy Carter did more good than Tookie, at least Jimmy Carter didn't have to kill 4 people to realize that he screwed up. I know exactly how he felt about it.

How many of those impressionable mind actually listen? I mean he has to compete with Rap stars who glorify gangs.

It should be noted that he did good work, but he still didn't apologize, he still didn't take responsbility, and our justice system is still an eye for an eye.

Learn something.

Our system is NOT "Eye for an Eye".

If you steal something...no one is going to cut off your hand.
If you rape someone, no one is going to cut off your dick.
If you poke my eye out, no judge is going to order yours to be removed.

The legal system has never worked that way.

Only in your mind, is this the case.

Our system lives by the "The punishment must fit the crime".

BIG difference.

Why don't you look up crime rates between whites and blacks in America. You might be amused to note that more black people are in prison because *gasp* more black people commit crimes!

or we could compare conviction rates.

whoops, minorities are convicted more often than whites.

oh, and BTW, the vast majority of crime in the US is committed by whites.

you may think you're not a bigot, but you're teetering with ignorant statements like that.

A crime is still a crime, no matter how you try to slice it.

ever read "les Miserables?"

The Nobel Peace Prize is a hunk of metal and with associated money handed out by a corrupt international organization that has its own political objectives and seeks to forward them by giving it to various persons with whom the political weight of the prize might prove to be enough for the politics to go their way.

In the case of Tookie, it was almost certainly considered for him only because he was on death row and happened to write some books about a life he regretted, though he never regretted having taken lives himself. They probably hoped to get him off the hook by having it awarded to him and, in doing so, show us Americans 'how backwards we are'.

He killed four people. He died for that. His books might give him some karma/good deeds to counter his sins, but that is not for us to decide. He killed, according to the law, he should have been put to death. He was. His soul is now in God's (or Buddha's, or Vishnu's, or no-one's) hands, now.

I actually believe that he was nominated because he negotiated peace between the bloods and crips, which has severely reduced the ammount of violence on inner-city streets. also he was probably the most powerful speaker against gang violence.

but I don't think the Peace Prize is corrupt.

But what I'm saying is that it's mostly not racism, I think it all has to do with poverty. Most crimes are caused by poverty, and the reason that there are more african americans in jail is because they have less economic opportunity (mostly because of their poorer upbringing) People who fall into crime usually aren't middle class, suburban white-boys, and that's because their parents have enough money to support them and send them to college, or at least enough to keep them from resorting to crime to support themselves.

and yet, poor white people are also able to stay out of crime. See this is a racist comment. You say that because blacks are poor, they commit crimes, and you go futher to suggest that middle class white boys don't commit crimes because they are middle class and white. This whole post is racist. People commit crime for various reason. It doesn't matter what your economic status is, it doesn't matter what race you are. When a person commits a crime, he should be punished for it.

I've also met several poor black people who were also able to stay out of crime.

Trying to keep the blacks on the democrat political plantation aren't we?

or we could compare conviction rates.

whoops, minorities are convicted more often than whites.

oh, and BTW, the vast majority of crime in the US is committed by whites.

you may think you're not a bigot, but you're teetering with ignorant statements like that.

Well, they're not a biggot untill you ask them why more blacks commit crimes. That's where you find racism, in the reasons.

[QUOTE=Stone Bridges][QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches]

Learn something.

Our system is NOT "Eye for an Eye".

If you steal something...no one is going to cut off your hand.


But you do pay for the equal value of the object that was stolen, either with money or time.


If you rape someone, no one is going to cut off your dick.


They do castrate some rapist, and once again, they repay the crime with time.


If you poke my eye out, no judge is going to order yours to be removed.


eh you got me there.


The legal system has never worked that way.

Only in your mind, is this the case.

Our system lives by the "The punishment must fit the crime".

BIG difference.

You're right and I've been using the wrong saying, my bad. But I still stand by my argument that Tookie took 4 lives, thereforth he should've (and did) pay with his.

and yet, poor white people are also able to stay out of crime. See this is a racist comment. You say that because blacks are poor, they commit crimes, and you go futher to suggest that middle class white boys don't commit crimes because they are middle class and white. This whole post is racist. People commit crime for various reason. It doesn't matter what your economic status is, it doesn't matter what race you are. When a person commits a crime, he should be punished for it.

I've also met several poor black people who were also able to stay out of crime.

Trying to keep the blacks on the democrat political plantation aren't we?

No, I think crime has nothing to do with race, it has entirely to do with economic opportunity.

No, I think crime has nothing to do with race, it has entirely to do with economic opportunity.

Once again, middle class and rich people commit crimes too. All that changes is what kind of crime.

or we could compare conviction rates.

whoops, minorities are convicted more often than whites.

oh, and BTW, the vast majority of crime in the US is committed by whites.

you may think you're not a bigot, but you're teetering with ignorant statements like that.

I was expecting someone to get to that point. If I had said that black people commit more crimes than white people because they're black, then yes, I would be a bigot. The causes, IMHO, are a gang culture and poverty. Same for (most) white, hispanic, Asian, &c. criminals. Also, I refuse to buy into this 'race' garbage. No one's ever proven that there is such a thing as 'race' and perpetuating the myth only breeds more racism.

Secondly, conviction rates are all that matters for whether someone did or did not commit a crime. Or we could just say that everyone dragged before a court gets a half trial and then gets hung, regardless of race or guilt. That would probably sate the need for the blood of all races.

Well, they're not a biggot untill you ask them why more blacks commit crimes. That's where you find racism, in the reasons.

I said teetering.

and it simply isn't true that "more blacks commit crimes."

Once again, middle class and rich people commit crimes too. All that changes is what kind of crime.

I guess it's my fault for not clarifying what kind of crime I was talking about, But what do you think the main causes of people commiting crimes such as Robbery, Drug dealing etc. are?

I actually believe that he was nominated because he negotiated peace between the bloods and crips, which has severely reduced the ammount of violence on inner-city streets. also he was probably the most powerful speaker against gang violence.

but I don't think the Peace Prize is corrupt.

So he got an award for keeping scum from killing each other off? Not that I'm saying that innocent bystanders weren't the all too frequent victims, but getting two rival gangs to turn their guns on the cops is hardly a reason to give a man a prize of any sort. Especially not when there are real peace-makers out there, in the Mid-East, in Africa, in South-east Asia. People whose works stop genocide and centuries old conflicts. Gang wars in LA is a drop in the bucket next to that.

and yet, poor white people are also able to stay out of crime.

No, they simply get convicted of it less often.


See this is a racist comment. You say that because blacks are poor, they commit crimes,

The #1 attributing factor to crime, is economic strife.
Few places in this country experience more of this, than the inner-city ghettos.



and you go futher to suggest that middle class white boys don't commit crimes because they are middle class and white.

No...the poster said they commit LESS of them, becuase they do not suffer the same levels of poverty.




This whole post is racist.

No, youre just grasping at straws.

People commit crime for various reason. It doesn't matter what your economic status is,

FALSE.
Rich people generally do not commit larceny, or armed robbery, or other smaller crimes, to earn a living.


I've also met several poor black people who were also able to stay out of crime.

I bet they hated your guts.

Trying to keep the blacks on the democrat political plantation aren't we?

Such crap.

I guess it's my fault for not clarifying what kind of crime I was talking about, But what do you think the main causes of people commiting crimes such as Robbery, Drug dealing etc. are?

Idioticy, and one needs to "prove" himself to his "friends". Comon, it's not that hard to stay out of crime, but your making it look like it is.

So he got an award for keeping scum from killing each other off? Not that I'm saying that innocent bystanders weren't the all too frequent victims, but getting two rival gangs to turn their guns on the cops is hardly a reason to give a man a prize of any sort. Especially not when there are real peace-makers out there, in the Mid-East, in Africa, in South-east Asia. People whose works stop genocide and centuries old conflicts. Gang wars in LA is a drop in the bucket next to that.

Well, he didn't win the peace prize for crissakes.. There were a lot more qualified people.

Anyways, the statement you made about "Scum" and killing Cops etc. isn't well grounded, and I am going to ignore it.

I was expecting someone to get to that point. If I had said that black people commit more crimes than white people because they're black, then yes, I would be a bigot. The causes, IMHO, are a gang culture and poverty. Same for (most) white, hispanic, Asian, &c. criminals. Also, I refuse to buy into this 'race' garbage. No one's ever proven that there is such a thing as 'race' and perpetuating the myth only breeds more racism.

Secondly, conviction rates are all that matters for whether someone did or did not commit a crime. Or we could just say that everyone dragged before a court gets a half trial and then gets hung, regardless of race or guilt. That would probably sate the need for the blood of all races.

I'm quibbling with the phrase-choice, and its subtext.

Saying "black people commit more crimes than white people" is not true, it is a misleading description of crime rates within "racial" demographics, and one that is charged with subtext.

In any case, you seem to be agreeing with Morassa that crime is largely the result of socio-economic circumstance, but that really just takes the race argument back one step: why do a higher percentage of blacks find themselves in poverty and "gang culture?" I'd argue it's the lingering effects of systemic bigotry in US socio-political culture, and that those effects are also responsible for the higher percentage of convictions for minorities in our society's legal system.

Other wise, you'd have to argue that cops are somehow "better" at arresting the "right" minority than they are at arresting the "right" white person.

Idioticy, and one needs to "prove" himself to his "friends". Comon, it's not that hard to stay out of crime, but your making it look like it is.

Someone deals drugs to proove themselves to their friends? I haven't met a single drug dealer who does it for any reason other than the cash. I honestly feel that people who rob someone else wouldn't do it if there was no material benefit.

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches][QUOTE=Stone Bridges]
You're right and I've been using the wrong saying, my bad. But I still stand by my argument that Tookie took 4 lives, thereforth he should've (and did) pay with his.


I'll go this far...

IF Williams was guilty, and IF he was truly unrepentent, and IF he showed no remorse, then sure, I would have helped you drag him out in the street, to shoot him.

However, there were enough questions to cast enough reasonable doubt about his trial, and the issue of remorse.

Reasonable doubt.

Do you know what a jury must do, if they have such doubts?

So then, considering everything he did, prior to his conviction, if such doubt lingered, then a stay of execution should have been ordered.

No, they simply get convicted of it less often.


That's nice, prove it.



The #1 attributing factor to crime, is economic strife.
Few places in this country experience more of this, than the inner-city ghettos.


So what, we should just give everyone a free ride into middle class? Sorry that's not going to float with me, I worked my way to get where I am, I don't expect anything less of anyone else. Beside when talking about crime, economic is irrevelnt, all that is revelant is the type of crime.



No...the poster said they commit LESS of them, becuase they do not suffer the same levels of poverty.


And yet, a rich white boy killed tens of gay men. What about him? What about the likes of Charles Manson, and Ted Bundy?



No, youre just grasping at straws.


No I'm fairly certain stating that the only reason black commits more crime is because they are poor is racist, if not bigoitted.


FALSE.
Rich people generally do not commit larceny, or armed robbery, or other smaller crimes, to earn a living.


Ever heard of Embezzalment? (my spelling sucks, I know.). That is stealing.


I bet they hated your guts.


Nope, actually they love me because they too believe that it's crap that people commit crimes because they are poor. And these are poor black people!


Such crap.

and yet, this has been a tatics the democrat uses to keep the blacks voting for them.

No, they simply get convicted of it less often.

Which means that they commit crimes less often. Convictions=guilt. And they can get the conviction appealed if they want.


The #1 attributing factor to crime, is economic strife.
Few places in this country experience more of this, than the inner-city ghettos.

I would agree with this, mostly. Other things that contribute to crime is boredom and psychological disorder.

No...the poster said they commit LESS of them, becuase they do not suffer the same levels of poverty.

Again.

No, youre just grasping at straws.

Sure seems like it on this one issue.

FALSE.
Rich people generally do not commit larceny, or armed robbery, or other smaller crimes, to earn a living.

Yes, they do. What do you think the CEO and board of Enron did for a living? It wasn't running a business, I can tell you that.

I bet they hated your guts.

Why would they hate his guts? Are you attempting another ad hominen attack?

Such crap.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It probably would have been better to say, "No, I am not trying to keep the African race on the Democractic ticket." But I digress.

Someone deals drugs to proove themselves to their friends? I haven't met a single drug dealer who does it for any reason other than the cash. I honestly feel that people who rob someone else wouldn't do it if there was no material benefit.

That drug dealer know that it's wrong, he knows that it's a crime, and even if he didn't ignorant of the law is no excuse.

So what, we should just give everyone a free ride into middle class? Sorry that's not going to float with me, I worked my way to get where I am, I don't expect anything less of anyone else. Beside when talking about crime, economic is irrevelnt, all that is revelant is the type of crime.


Economics is relevent in all things... All things...

That drug dealer know that it's wrong, he knows that it's a crime, and even if he didn't ignorant of the law is no excuse.

Capitalism works that way, anything that there's a market for will get sold by someone.

Idioticy, and one needs to "prove" himself to his "friends". Comon, it's not that hard to stay out of crime, but your making it look like it is.

not really. the vast majority of people of all classes do not commit crime.

finding a better answer than "idiocy" and peer-pressure to explain those that do might be helpful to society, however.

You seem to think there is no answer, so were doomed to jailing and killing people for all time.

You may be right, but I suspect with understanding, we can at least jail and kill a few less people, and maybe even get close to per capita legal equity for all our citizens.

not really. the vast majority of people of all classes do not commit crime.

finding a better answer than "idiocy" and peer-pressure to explain those that do might be helpful to society, however.

You seem to think there is no answer, so were doomed to jailing and killing people for all time.

You may be right, but I suspect with understanding, we can at least jail and kill a few less people, and maybe even get close to per capita legal equity for all our citizens.

Or maybe, we can educate these people, make them realize that they commit the crime because they wanted to. That's the whole thing in this equation, free will! We should educate people that if they commit the crime, they will serve the time, it doesn't matter if your white, black, rich, poor. Commit a crime, you do the time.

Capitalism works that way, anything that there's a market for will get sold by someone.

I agree with you on the function of a Capitalistic society, but that still doesn't make it right. It's still a crime, and he should still be punished for it.

Wasnt this guy nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-gang related works?

Youre telling me a man who is nominated for such an award, deserves the death penalty?
That he cant be socially redeemed, and rehabilitated?

If that were the case, do you think he would have even been nominated?


Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize. 'Nuff said.

Economics is relevent in all things... All things...

So you think that just because people are poor, they are more likely to commit crimes? That is such crap. Welcome to the land of bigitory. I mean that's the same as me saying "Well he's mexican, so he's going to join a gang, and leech off of the system."

Please either find something that backs up the economic defense, or shut up about it.

All right, O'Reilly!
I'm sure he cannot possibly be as right-wing as most of viewers: everybody gets tired of spewing that crap from time to time. But how else would he sell all those wonderful Factor jackets and mugs to the only section of the population who would buy them - i.e. the survivalists.

That's nice, prove it.
Do your own homework, or take that at face value.




So what, we should just give everyone a free ride into middle class? Sorry that's not going to float with me, I worked my way to get where I am, I don't expect anything less of anyone else. Beside when talking about crime, economic is irrevelnt, all that is revelant is the type of crime.

No, you likely were born into the middle class.
You may earn every dollar you make, but that doesnt change where you come from.




And yet, a rich white boy killed tens of gay men. What about him? What about the likes of Charles Manson, and Ted Bundy?

Charles Manson is still alive.

Bundy isnt.

Both are just about the most exteme cases you could possibly imagine.
I suppose next you'd like to suggest Dahmer?

Niether are average.




No I'm fairly certain stating that the only reason black commits more crime is because they are poor is racist, if not bigoitted.

Then you would be wrong, and foolish.

Racist..would be saying "blacks commit more crimes because they just dont know any better."

The above statement, shows that economic strife, leads to crime.
If you cant find a job, becuase there are none to find, eventually, you may steal something to feed yourself.





Yes, and peformed by white-collar workers, in moderate to high paying jobs.
and far more rarely, than larceny, or petty theft.



[quote]ctually they love me because they too believe that it's crap that people commit crimes because they are poor. And these are poor black people!

Now im offically calling you liar.



[nd yet, this has been a tatics the democrat uses to keep the blacks voting for them.


and now, Im calling you delusional.

Tell me, what has Reagan, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr, done for the minority groups in this country, besides creating fewer jobs, reduce funding for health care, etc....

Why would any minority want to vote for him?

ahh, finally the hackneyed old saw, "I worked for mine, why can't they?"

Simply put, certain classes of people in US society have less opportunity for economic success than others. Numerous studies have demonstrated that race remains a factor in all aspects of our society.

When a society denies an entire class full access to the dominant culture, full access to economic opportunity, and then refuses to acknowledge the disparity, crime is simply a symptom of the more sytemic malaise.

And pointing at Dahmer and Bundy is really irrelevant, though such demented criminals, and their overwhelming tendencey to be white males is an interesting sociological phenomenon. The argument here is about rates and overarching trends, not individual cases.

Those trends demand our attention if we actually want to live in an egalitarian society.

Pretending you already do won't make it so.

So you think that just because people are poor, they are more likely to commit crimes? That is such crap. Welcome to the land of bigitory. I mean that's the same as me saying "Well he's mexican, so he's going to join a gang, and leech off of the system."

Please either find something that backs up the economic defense, or shut up about it.

That's an economics joke. Economists believe economics are at the root of everything, I don't think it's that extreme, but I do believe it has a larger part in things than you aparently do.

I don't think that saying that someone is poor and has little opportunity to go to school and therefore might consider making money through crime to be a racist idea. I don't get how you think that either. And how it's worse than your thinking that someone does it solely because of their culture (which is what I've extrapolated your arguement to mean). Please expalain in more depth.

Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize. 'Nuff said.


So did Jimmy Carter.

Not enough said.

So did Jimmy Carter.

Not enough said.

Gandhi didn't... But I think it has alot to do with the zeitgeist.

Gandhi didn't... But I think it has alot to do with the zeitgeist.


Yah, that one stumps me.

Do your own homework, or take that at face value.

Those who are making the claim have the burden of proving that claim.



No, you likely were born into the middle class.
You may earn every dollar you make, but that doesnt change where you come from.


You're right about that, but guess what, my parents were born poor. They worked hard to get up to middle class. No the government didn't give them any breaks, they didn't get any special treatment. They were white, but they got to middle class because they worked hard.


Charles Manson is still alive.

Bundy isnt.

Both are just about the most exteme cases you could possibly imagine.
I suppose next you'd like to suggest Dahmer?

Niether are average.


I can list SEVERAL white murderers, you'd be suprised how many middle class white people actually commit crimes, but don't let that stop you spewing forth your crap that blacks commit crime because they "have to".


Then you would be wrong, and foolish.

Racist..would be saying "blacks commit more crimes because they just dont know any better."

The above statement, shows that economic strife, leads to crime.
If you cant find a job, becuase there are none to find, eventually, you may steal something to feed yourself.


But, what about the precious welfare system, they always have that! People resort to crime, mainly out of stupidity, they need to be educated on the other aveunes of getting help.


Yes, and peformed by white-collar workers, in moderate to high paying jobs.
and far more rarely, than larceny, or petty theft.


It's still stealing, and I gave you examples of white middle class people stealing.


Now im offically calling you liar.


That's right, don't believe that blacks may actually have an opinion that is diffrent from a Democrat. Don't even think for a second that they have the ability to stand up and say "I'm poor, and I'm black, but I'm not going to commit any crimes."


and now, Im calling you delusional.
Tell me, what has Reagan, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr, done for the minority groups in this country, besides creating fewer jobs, reduce funding for health care, etc....

Why would any minority want to vote for him?

What have the democrats done beside encourage the poor to go on welfare, and do anything to deter the thought that maybe they don't need the government for help, but more importantly, the fact that they have the free will to stay away from crime.

Well, he didn't win the peace prize for crissakes.. There were a lot more qualified people.

Anyways, the statement you made about "Scum" and killing Cops etc. isn't well grounded, and I am going to ignore it.

The statement concerning scum and cops is simple.

If you feel so inclined, that the only way you can feel manly, is by carrying a handgun or AK-47, aiding and abetting murder and drug dealing, murdering innocents, being unabashedly sexist, and getting in firefights with cops, you are scum. Most gang members happen to like this vision of manliness. They are, therefore scum.

And if gang members aren't shooting each other, how are they going to expend their unspent testosterone, and look cool in the eyes of their peeps/homies/crew? By either shooting more policemen or shooting more innocents. Unless you can think of something else they might do?

I'm quibbling with the phrase-choice, and its subtext.

Saying "black people commit more crimes than white people" is not true, it is a misleading description of crime rates within "racial" demographics, and one that is charged with subtext.

Firstly, prove it.

Secondly, if more black people are convicted than white people, am I supposed to lose faith in the system? What happens then? Am I to take my gun(s), form a vigilance group and gun down these criminals because the justice system is dealing with them inadequetly? Is vigilante-ism something that would be better?

In any case, you seem to be agreeing with Morassa that crime is largely the result of socio-economic circumstance, but that really just takes the race argument back one step: why do a higher percentage of blacks find themselves in poverty and "gang culture?" I'd argue it's the lingering effects of systemic bigotry in US socio-political culture, and that those effects are also responsible for the higher percentage of convictions for minorities in our society's legal system.

I believe that poverty is a contributing factor to crime. Hamas and al-Qaida and al-Qaida-in-Iraq get most of their recruits from those who are stricken by poverty and have nothing to do with their time. Un-ironically, gang members and terrorists have more in common than there are differences.

However, I would argue against the supposition that American culture and law is to blame. I would have agreed with you prior to the 1960s and for a long time after the success of the Civil Rights Movement, but, to be frank, it's been forty years. That's two generations. Two generations, during which, these minority groups have been granted special privileges by the government. To be frank, I don't think that's the root-cause of their poverty. Keep in mind the fact that there are plenty of other 'minorities' and members of the 'majorities' live in abject poverty, but they cannot claim a history of slavery and bigotry (at least not to the same extent).

Other wise, you'd have to argue that cops are somehow "better" at arresting the "right" minority than they are at arresting the "right" white person.

I would say that they're equally good at both.

Or maybe, we can educate these people, make them realize that they commit the crime because they wanted to. That's the whole thing in this equation, free will! We should educate people that if they commit the crime, they will serve the time, it doesn't matter if your white, black, rich, poor. Commit a crime, you do the time.

only we live in a society where if you are white and/or affluent and commit the same crime a black and/or poor person does, you are less likely to be convicted. That's a simple statistical fact.

Strangely, your argument that jailing people reduces crime falls apart here, because, while minorities are less likely (from your POV) to "get off scott free" than whites in our justice system, minorities continue commit crimes at higher rates that whites.

Presumably, your position is that we jail and/or execute more white people.

My position is that we should figure out how to get fewer people in the system in the first place.

That's an economics joke. Economists believe economics are at the root of everything, I don't think it's that extreme, but I do believe it has a larger part in things than you aparently do.

I don't think that saying that someone is poor and has little opportunity to go to school and therefore might consider making money through crime to be a racist idea. I don't get how you think that either. And how it's worse than your thinking that someone does it solely because of their culture (which is what I've extrapolated your arguement to mean). Please expalain in more depth.

I believe that people commit crime because A. they're stupid, B. they may not feel like they have any other choice, C. It's "cool" and all of their "friends" are doing it. D. Because they believe they can "beat" the system.

Just last night on the radio, I heard a story of 4 middle class white 16 year old stole a car. But *gasp* that can't be, they're white, they're middle class, they have no reason to steal a car!

/end scarcasam.

only we live in a society where if you are white and/or affluent and commit the same crime a black and/or poor person does, you are less likely to be convicted. That's a simple statistical fact.

That's nice, prove it.


Strangely, your argument that jailing people reduces crime falls apart here, because, while minorities are less likely (from your POV) to "get off scott free" than whites in our justice system, minorities continue commit crimes at higher rates that whites.

No what I am saying is that it doesn't matter if you're white, black, or whatever. Our justice system still punish the crime that you are found guilty of!


Presumably, your position is that we jail and/or execute more white people.


Well you presumed wrong, my argument is that skin color doesn't matter! It may have mattered in the 50's and 60's, but not today!


My position is that we should figure out how to get fewer people in the system in the first place.

Education.

I believe that people commit crime because A. they're stupid, B. they may not feel like they have any other choice, C. It's "cool" and all of their "friends" are doing it. D. Because they believe they can "beat" the system.

Just last night on the radio, I heard a story of 4 middle class white 16 year old stole a car. But *gasp* that can't be, they're white, they're middle class, they have no reason to steal a car!

/end scarcasam.


That's not nice, I don't believe that middle class white kids commit crimes. I know alot of middle class white kids, and some do commit crimes, and it's done for all sorts of reasons. But most people don't just commit crimes for the fun of it, or just to fit in. I don't think criminals are entirely irrational, most have a reason, and I believe a large percentage did it because it was the only (or at least most availible) source of income.

Those who are making the claim have the burden of proving that claim.




[quote]But, what about the precious welfare system, they always have that! People resort to crime, mainly out of stupidity, they need to be educated on the other aveunes of getting help.

No, most people resort to crime...out of need.
Try to keep up.



It's still stealing, and I gave you examples of white middle class people stealing.

Yes you did.
Gold star for you.
What you didnt do, was pay attention to the fact that embezzlement happens FAR less frequently, than does larceny, or other kinds of theft.



That's right, don't believe that blacks may actually have an opinion that is diffrent from a Democrat. Don't even think for a second that they have the ability to stand up and say "I'm poor, and I'm black, but I'm not going to commit any crimes."

No..Im calling you liar , becuase Im reasonably certain you have NEVER had such conversations with black people, about why black people commit crimes.
If you had....you wouldnt be arguing that crimes are cuased by stupidity.



What have the democrats done beside encourage the poor to go on welfare, and do anything to deter the thought that maybe they don't need the government for help, but more importantly, the fact that they have the free will to stay away from crime.

Typical Republican response, change the subject, and point the finger back at your adversary, without answering the question.

That's not nice, I don't believe that middle class white kids commit crimes. I know alot of middle class white kids, and some do commit crimes, and it's done for all sorts of reasons. But most people don't just commit crimes for the fun of it, or just to fit in. I don't think criminals are entirely irrational, most have a reason, and I believe a large percentage did it because it was the only (or at least most availible) source of income.

I just gave you SEVERAL examples of middle class white people committing crimes! Jeez you are missing the point here. I guess in a perfect world we'd all be living the good life, but we don't, and we shouldn't think up of excuses for people who commit crime. By the time you are 18, you should know right from wrong, and the majority of the population do. After that you are on your own.

Firstly, prove it.

you can start here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=105&scid=5#rpts


Secondly, if more black people are convicted than white people, am I supposed to lose faith in the system?

no, but you're supposed to fix it. also, you argument that conviction = guilt is unsound.


However, I would argue against the supposition that American culture and law is to blame. I would have agreed with you prior to the 1960s and for a long time after the success of the Civil Rights Movement, but, to be frank, it's been forty years. That's two generations.

do you really believe every vestige of damage caused by 200 years of slavery, 100 years of socio-economic apartheid, and 40 years of the Civil Rights Act being fought tooth and nail by a large portion of our population is erased simply because it's been two generations since Johnson signed it?

Even if you do believe that, it's not borne out by any means of study at our disposal, so I'm gonna say we have some more work to do, and that racial/social/economic inequality remain contributing factors to crime in the US that bear study.

I would say that they're equally good at both.

then you'd have to admit the courts aren't.

I just gave you SEVERAL examples of middle class white people committing crimes! Jeez you are missing the point here. I guess in a perfect world we'd all be living the good life, but we don't, and we shouldn't think up of excuses for people who commit crime. By the time you are 18, you should know right from wrong, and the majority of the population do. After that you are on your own.

I don't think that all poor people commit crimes either. I don't think that there's a way that everyone can live in relative affluence any time soon (when we get friggin' robots maybe) But I would like to try to isolate the cause of the problems, because I figure that there has to be a way to prevent crimes better than fear of the judicial system. What're your thoughts?

No, most people resort to crime...out of need.
Try to keep up.


so, I guess a guy who robs a 7-11, points a gun to a woman's head, demanding cash, is only doing it because he "needs" to? What about the rights of the owner of that 7-11, or the woman? Don't they matter? Oh wait, we got to think about the poor criminals because we know they can't help it.


Yes you did.
Gold star for you.
What you didnt do, was pay attention to the fact that embezzlement happens FAR less frequently, than does larceny, or other kinds of theft.


It still happens, and the majority of people KNOW FOR A FACT that stealing is wrong, and stealing is stealing.


No..Im calling you liar , becuase Im reasonably certain you have NEVER had such conversations with black people, about why black people commit crimes.
If you had....you wouldnt be arguing that crimes are cuased by stupidity.


Believe what you want.


and BTW I'm actually a consitutionalist.

I don't think that all poor people commit crimes either. I don't think that there's a way that everyone can live in relative affluence any time soon (when we get friggin' robots maybe) But I would like to try to isolate the cause of the problems, because I figure that there has to be a way to prevent crimes better than fear of the judicial system. What're your thoughts?

I believe that education holds the key. If we can educate these people better, and educate them to the fact that theres a better life than crimes, drugs and gangs, then maybe things will improve.

Well you presumed wrong, my argument is that skin color doesn't matter! It may have mattered in the 50's and 60's, but not today!


That's nice. Prove it.


wow, this not-thinking thing is fun.


I'm actually of the opinion that education is the answer.

That's why I vote for democrats.

I believe that education holds the key. If we can educate these people better, and educate them to the fact that theres a better life than crimes, drugs and gangs, then maybe things will improve.

That's good, but I think that improving their economic situation is probably just as important. Because if there are no good-paying jobs, people resort to whatever is availible.

Typical Republican response, change the subject, and point the finger back at your adversary, without answering the question.

DING DING DING!

I think I may even know the site he's copy/pasting from.

same old sad, tired, debunked arguments everywhere I go.

*sigh*

you can start here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=105&scid=5#rpts




no, but you're supposed to fix it. also, you argument that conviction = guilt is unsound.

The problem with systems is that there's no way to fix them. How am I supposed to cure an ill that runs so deep? I can't.

Also, guilt is what is proven by a conviction. If this isn't the case, then what's the point to having a trial? Legally, a conviction means one did commit a crime (whether they actually did or not is another issue, completely).

do you really believe every vestige of damage caused by 200 years of slavery, 100 years of socio-economic apartheid, and 40 years of the Civil Rights Act being fought tooth and nail by a large portion of our population is erased simply because it's been two generations since Johnson signed it?

Even if you do believe that, it's not borne out by any means of study at our disposal, so I'm gonna say we have some more work to do, and that racial/social/economic inequality remain contributing factors to crime in the US that bear study.

Just keep in mind the fact that you can use statistics to say whatever you want.

However, I don't expect it to, nessesarily. But that doesn't explain the other minorities nor does it explain majorities that live in poverty, as well.

then you'd have to admit the courts aren't.

The courts are as unbiased as the people who make up the juries.

I think we've gotten as far as we can on this issue, with out the debate completely breaking apart at the seams. I know that I need sleep, at least. Not sure about anyone else, but it's 0220 here. So. Yeah....

so, I guess a guy who robs a 7-11, points a gun to a woman's head, demanding cash, is only doing it because he "needs" to? What about the rights of the owner of that 7-11, or the woman? Don't they matter? Oh wait, we got to think about the poor criminals because we know they can't help it.

don't be so disingenuous. Noone is arguing that, and you know it.

We're interested in figuring out what got that kid there in the first place so it won't happen to another kid and another 7-11. You don't care about the kid, because he's just stupid.

You put him in jail and forget about him, patting yourself on the back for a job well done, happy in your ignorant and unfounded faith that putting him away will stop it from happening again.

We would put him in jail, try to figure out why he committed the crime, and see if we can reduce the societal factors that contibuted to the incident.

Why? Because we've been trying your way for 5000 years, and kids are still robbing 7-11s.

I think we've gotten as far as we can on this issue, with out the debate completely breaking apart at the seams. I know that I need sleep, at least. Not sure about anyone else, but it's 0220 here. So. Yeah....

Good night man, I actually need to leave in a bit too.

Good night man, I actually need to leave in a bit too.

Well, I guess I wouldn't be leaving, just going to bed and turning off the computer, I'd be in the same room, but I guess I'll go now. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night... and if you don't celebrate christmas.. well I still hope you have a good time on that day.

That's good, but I think that improving their economic situation is probably just as important. Because if there are no good-paying jobs, people resort to whatever is availible.

also, the general equivalence between economic status and proper nutrition, especially in youth, is critical. Undernourished children don't develop well intellectually or emotionally, and even mild malnourishment can lead to fatigue and attention disorders that greatly disturb not just the educational process from an academic standpoint, but also from the standpoint of proper socialization, cultural identification, and simple self-esteem.

Oh yes, the black man is being treated sooo poorly. Why they are just ready to hang every black man up in every tree in Mississippi! Give me a break! These people are not in jail because they are black, hispanic, or asian. They are in there because they have committed A CRIME!

No, they are in jail because they have committed a crime and are black and poor and are prejudged by their peers. I don't have the statistics off-hand but I believe that according to them a black man is more likely to get charged with a harsher crime, that carries a harsher penalty.

Very basic example:

Two men, one white and one black, both beat a guy nearly to death. Neither has a criminal record. The white guy will more likely get charged with general assault (I've never been near a courtroom, I don't know technical terms). The black man however, has a far higher likelihood of being charged with say, assault occaisioning greivous bodily harm or something like that, which is more likely to carry mandatory jail time. Despite there existing no difference between the two crimes. That is how the system is prejudiced.