Black or White: America's perception

[oggbashan]

Developed Societies

When I was young (in the UK) refrigerators were rare and expensive. Electric cooking appliances were unpopular after frequent power cuts during the war. Gas cookers still worked when the pressure was low. Security was a full coal bunker and a solid fuel range.

Almost every home had some form of alternative heating and lighting if distributed supplies failed.

Food was stored in bottles, cans and packets. Fresh vegetables and fruit might be bought daily. For other provisions a weekly visit to the shops was usually enough. Once post-war rationing had ended the typical housewife could feed her family for a week on stored provisions or cope with a large part of her extended family arriving without notice. Almost all food had preservatives because the delivery chain was slow and complex.

Milk was delivered daily. If it didn't arrive because of bad weather there were alternatives - powdered, condensed and evaporated milk, all of which would be in the average larder.

Water supply could be a problem. At worst the cold water tank in the loft would keep a family supplied for several days. At best a neighbour within a hundred yards or so would still have a well.

The supply and distribution chain for goods and utilities creaked from time to time. The average family could survive without certain commodities for a few days. There might be fruit and vegetables in the garden or on the allotment.

Now 'just in time' logistics are very vulnerable to any minor disaster or disruption. Refrigerators and freezers are fine until the power goes. Then there is a very short interval before food starts to deteriorate. Other foods have had preservatives removed for health reasons.

None of the stored supplies that 1940s housewives had would be much use if the house was destroyed or flooded to the roof. But any neighbours on dry land would have supplies that could be used to help those in distress. Beyond that, the Civil Defence organisation had stockpiles of basic food even if it was ex-wartime Army rations.

Have we got so accustomed to our domestic equipment and supplies that we cannot survive an emergency for a few days without reverting to anarchy? Is our civilisation so highly developed that natural disaster wrecks all our systems? Have we cut out duplication and redundancy in our supply systems to save cost to such an extent that the systems are too fragile?

Whatever the era, New Orleans would have been a catastrophe. If it had happened in 1945 or 1955 would the response have been better? I'm afraid that it might have been.

Og

 

[fifty5]

Not in any way to diminish the tragedy in New Orleans, but the Typhoon that hit China the week before (I happened to be there at the time) hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, even been reported in "the west"...

 

[Alex756]

Not in any way to diminish the tragedy in New Orleans, but the Typhoon that hit China the week before (I happened to be there at the time) hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, even been reported in "the west"...

I found a story documenting all 3 deaths of Talim on every major news outlet. Is that the particular Typhoon?

Believe it or not but the deaths in those horrid apartments in France also made American News.

-Alex

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kassiana
--No. My point is that our criminal justice system is racially biased at all levels, as ANYONE, black or white, who kills a WHITE person is 100 times more likely to get the death penalty than if ANYONE, black or white, kills a BLACK person in the United States.

Ah, but is race really the issue in many of those instances? Does anyone have statistics on financial situations of the victims, versus those of the murdurers? How many of these crimes against blacks are being committed when both parties involved are poor, versus how many white victims who are poor? The relations between race and socioeconomic status is still in question here.

Q_C

Personally, I think that even more important than the race or the socio-economic status of victim and killer is how heinous the crime is perceived to be. For instance, if a person abducts, rapes and murders a child he or she is going to get the maximum penallty, including the death penalty. However, if a member of one criminal gang murders a member of another gang, it would possibly be shrugged off as "fair fighting", and not even prosecuted zealously.

 

[Weird Harold]

Have we got so accustomed to our domestic equipment and supplies that we cannot survive an emergency for a few days without reverting to anarchy? Is our civilisation so highly developed that natural disaster wrecks all our systems? Have we cut out duplication and redundancy in our supply systems to save cost to such an extent that the systems are too fragile?

Whatever the era, New Orleans would have been a catastrophe. If it had happened in 1945 or 1955 would the response have been better? I'm afraid that it might have been.

You make a very good point, Ogg.

A large part of the problems with getting relief where it is needed is the loss of modern communications.

For example, the FEMA website advises those in the disaster area to apply for aid online or call an 800 number -- a bit hard to do becuse most of the people in New Orleans forgot to bring their laptop to the roof with them and their cell phones aren't working because al of the cell towers are down.

That's an extreme case and isn't advice specific to Katrin but it does illustrate how the planning didn't take into account the loss of communications -- both communications between relief assets, and communication with the victims who need assistance. Even someone with a hand-cranked sports radio isn't getting any information because there are few if any functional radio transmitters left in the region.

 

[oggbashan]

You make a very good point, Ogg.

A large part of the problems with getting relief where it is needed is the loss of modern communications.

For example, the FEMA website advises those in the disaster area to apply for aid online or call an 800 number -- a bit hard to do becuse most of the people in New Orleans forgot to bring their laptop to the roof with them and their cell phones aren't working because al of the cell towers are down.

That's an extreme case and isn't advice specific to Katrin but it does illustrate how the planning didn't take into account the loss of communications -- both communications between relief assets, and communication with the victims who need assistance. Even someone with a hand-cranked sports radio isn't getting any information because there are few if any functional radio transmitters left in the region.

The UK had a network of hardened telex and telephone communications that was upgraded after it had proved its worth in WWII. What we have now is probably a defence secret but our major phone lines are underground and protected from water. Redundancy is still there and alternatives can be used to switch telephone traffic around a damaged area.

The internet itself was a US defense project to make communications survive a nuclear attack.

Our government advises its citizens in areas that could be affected by flood to consider how they would deal with a flood that affected their property; to have basic supplies including bottled water on an upper floor; to have emergency lighting if only candles and matches; to have a battery operated radio and spare batteries and so on.

How many people have followed our government's advice? I have. I doubt that many of my neighbours have except those who have been flooded in recent years.

Og

 

[Kassiana]

is race really the issue in many of those instances?

--Yes. It is. Even after controlling for all other factors, our criminal justice system is racially biased at all levels re the death penalty. I've seen the research. Every sociologist who's done the studies on the DP has come up with the same results.

Maybe I'm not coming off as credible for some reason, despite the fact that I took a death penalty seminar in law school and have researched the death penalty extensively on my own. I'm sorry for that, but if you look up the research you'll find out that I've been right here. Honest.

 

[Alex756]

The UK had a network of hardened telex and telephone communications that was upgraded after it had proved its worth in WWII. What we have now is probably a defence secret but our major phone lines are underground and protected from water. Redundancy is still there and alternatives can be used to switch telephone traffic around a damaged area.

The internet itself was a US defense project to make communications survive a nuclear attack.

Our government advises its citizens in areas that could be affected by flood to consider how they would deal with a flood that affected their property; to have basic supplies including bottled water on an upper floor; to have emergency lighting if only candles and matches; to have a battery operated radio and spare batteries and so on.

How many people have followed our government's advice? I have. I doubt that many of my neighbours have except those who have been flooded in recent years.

Og

In the UK you are dealing with a smaller areas with a denser population. It reduced the cost and logistics of creating a strong communications sytem greatly. Some communications is still up in NO in the newer parts it seems, since last night some 71 year old woman reached fox news on the phone and geraldo went and got her and her dog dust (I kid you not) phone systems are upgraded in the US all the time, but its a HUGE country.

Part of the reason people in NO were underprepared, some not all, was a combination of monetary and previous experience. How many people say 'The house withstood betsy and camille' Soo many storms have turned and spared NO, this one did too.... just she was too big and too strong for it to save the city.

Bell south did everything it seems possible I believe to save the communications, their staff had to be evacuated by armed police when looters (and I mean looters) were shooting at their building.

-Alex

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
is race really the issue in many of those instances?

--Yes. It is. Even after controlling for all other factors, our criminal justice system is racially biased at all levels re the death penalty. I've seen the research. Every sociologist who's done the studies on the DP has come up with the same results.

Maybe I'm not coming off as credible for some reason, despite the fact that I took a death penalty seminar in law school and have researched the death penalty extensively on my own. I'm sorry for that, but if you look up the research you'll find out that I've been right here. Honest.

Race may sometimes be a factor but aren't you exaggerating here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kassiana
--No. My point is that our criminal justice system is racially biased at all levels, as ANYONE, black or white, who kills a WHITE person is 100 times more likely to get the death penalty than if ANYONE, black or white, kills a BLACK person in the United States.

I notice you say "kill" here. Do you mean to say "murder"? If I waste an armed intruder who has just pried open my window and climbed inside the house, it would probably not be considered murder. If he were to kill me, it would be.

I still think that the status of the victim is more important than other factors. If one drug dealer kills another in a turf dispute, the killer will be prosecuted less strongly than if he had killed a law-abiding citizen, regardless of race.

 

[thebullet]

Boxlicker wrote:
Personally, I think that even more important than the race or the socio-economic status of victim and killer is how heinous the crime is perceived to be. For instance, if a person abducts, rapes and murders a child he or she is going to get the maximum penallty, including the death penalty. However, if a member of one criminal gang murders a member of another gang, it would possibly be shrugged off as "fair fighting", and not even prosecuted zealously.

Boxlicker, is this fact based upon research of available statistics, or are you just speculating and/or offering your opinion? As I understand it, Kassiana is quoting from respectable studies.

In a situation like this, it's probably best to have the actual statistics at your dispolsal. Some of the study results I've seen related to race and prison population and/or sentencing were so shocking to me that I never would have believed them if I hadn't seen them.

Race appears to be a prime determinant in trial results and sentences. You will reasonably respond that economic circumstances, gang membership, etc all must play a part and that response would be a valid one.

The question is: all other factors BEING EQUAL, what role does race play in convictions and sentencing?

 

[cloudy]

The statistics for Indians in prison as a percentage compared to a general population percentage are way, way off too.

I have to agree, racism is alive and well here.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Boxlicker, is this fact based upon research of available statistics, or are you just speculating and/or offering your opinion? As I understand it, Kassiana is quoting from respectable studies.

In a situation like this, it's probably best to have the actual statistics at your dispolsal. Some of the study results I've seen related to race and prison population and/or sentencing were so shocking to me that I never would have believed them if I hadn't seen them.

Race appears to be a prime determinant in trial results and sentences. You will reasonably respond that economic circumstances, gang membership, etc all must play a part and that response would be a valid one.

The question is: all other factors BEING EQUAL, what role does race play in convictions and sentencing?

I will have to admit that I am strictly expressing my opinion, and it is based more on gut feelings than on any research. As for Kassiana's figure of 100 times more likely, I wonder what is the source of that statistic.

I am well aware that the percentage of Black or Hispanic persons in penitentiaries is far more than their percentage of the general population. I am aware that some persons in prison were wrongfully convicted and that there is probably a relationship to socio-economic status. However, I also believe that most people in prisons are there because they are criminals.

To get back to what I said earlier, I strongly believe that the death penalty is assessed or not depending on the heinousness of the crime. A serial rapist/killer such as Ted Bundy, who was white, rightfully goes to the gas chamber or whatever because of his many evil deeds. The white men in Texas who dragged a black man to death behind their pickup truck were sentenced to death because of the brutality of the crime. A person who kills impulsively or almost accdentally is treated differently because of the nature of the crime.

 

[oggbashan]

Poor does not equal criminal. Criminal may equal poor.

Poverty does not make every poor person a criminal but many criminals come from poverty ridden backgrounds.

I can understand the temptation of seeing conspicuous consumption when you cannot afford the basics for your family. Yet most poor people do not commit crimes just because they have less than others.

Loss of hope and lack of escape routes from poverty may produce a tendency to commit crime since no other solutions are available. Part of the solution is to provide the means to break the poverty cycle. That ain't easy. Those marginalised from an affluent society are likely to at least think about seeking repayment.

In the UK our welfare state means that no one should starve or lack basic amenities. However the definition of 'poor' is constantly moving. Is it 'poor' if you cannot buy the latest trainers for your children, or the latest computer game? Some people think it is. That aspiration can fuel crime.

The consumer society assumes that the consumer has or can get the means to consume the products heavily advertised and that people's lives will be diminished if they do not buy the latest product. It takes a mature intellect to see the flaw in the advertiser's argument. The latest model car will not get you from one place to another any faster that last year's model if there are speed limits and traffic snarl-ups. Nor will a ten-year-old car.

The distinction between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' is obvious at the extremes. It is less clear in the middle ground and gradations of poverty cover the whole spectrum.

One measure of a society is the care it takes of its more vulnerable members. I don't think there are many societies that can claim they have really protected the poor and the disadvantaged.

Og

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I have to agree, racism is alive and well here.

Alive and well, yes. I'm not disagreeing there, nor am I disagreeing that, in this instance, racism works against... well, non-whites.

--Yes. It is. Even after controlling for all other factors, our criminal justice system is racially biased at all levels re the death penalty. I've seen the research. Every sociologist who's done the studies on the DP has come up with the same results.

How exactly do you control those other factors? I'm not questioning that racism is involved in near everything that involves races, however, like boxlicker said, most of the people in jail are criminals, they committed crimes. Yes, they should all be trated equally, but at the same time, the stats are somewhat accurate in terms of is in jail and for how long. There is a higher percentage of blacks in jail than there are out of jail. There are a higher percentage of blacks below the poverty level (or so it seems, and I may be wrong about this) than whites as well. As Ogg pointed out (hopefully not in argument, as I meant what he said) many criminals come from poverty.

OJ's rich, and he walked.

Maybe I'm not coming off as credible for some reason, despite the fact that I took a death penalty seminar in law school and have researched the death penalty extensively on my own. I'm sorry for that, but if you look up the research you'll find out that I've been right here. Honest.

No, it isn't your credibility that is in question, but would you take our words for it? Simply because we said so...

And the law school seminar's and whatnot do make you better informed than I. Now that I know that...

Q_C

 

[Guest]

I pulled this info from the Death Penalty Information Center.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=414&scid=8


Executions in the United States, 1608-1976, By State


STATE EXECUTIONS, 1608-1976
STATE EXECUTIONS, 1976-Present

Virginia: 1,277 - 94
New York: 1,130 - 0
Pennsylvania: 1,040 - 3
Georgia: 950 - 39
North Carolina: 784 - 36
Texas: 755 - 348
California: 709- 11
Alabama: 708 - 33
South Carolina: 641 - 33
Louisiana: 632 - 27
Arkansas: 478 - 26
Ohio: 438 - 16
Kentucky: 424 - 2
New Jersey: 361 - 0
Mississippi: 351 - 6
Illinois: 348 - 12
Massachusetts: 345 - 0
Tennessee: 335 - 1
Florida: 314 - 60
Maryland: 309 - 4
Missouri: 285 - 65
West Virginia: 155 - 0
Oklahoma: 132 - 79
Indiana: 131 - 15
Connecticut: 126 - 1
Oregon: 122 - 2
Washington, DC: 118 - 0
Washington: 105 - 4
Arizona: 104 - 22
Colorado: 101 - 1
New Mexico: 73 - 1
Montana: 71 - 2
Minnesota: 66 - 0
Delaware: 62 - 13
Nevada: 61 - 11
Kansas: 57 - 0
Rhode Island: 52 - 0
Hawaii: 49 - 0
Iowa: 45 - 0
Utah: 43 - 6
Nebraska: 34 - 3
Idaho: 26 - 1
Vermont: 26 - 0
New Hampshire: 24 - 0
Wyoming: 22 - 1
Maine: 21 - 0
South Dakota: 15 - 0
Michigan: 13 - 0
Alaska: 12 - 0
North Dakota: 8 - 0
Wisconsin: 1 - 0




Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976

BLACK
330
34%

HISPANIC
62
6.3%

WHITE
568
58%

OTHER
21
2.3%


NOTE: The federal government counts some categories, such as Hispanics, as an ethnic group rather than a race. DPIC refers to all groups as races because the sources for much of our information use these categories.


RACE OF VICTIMS* SINCE 1976

BLACK
199
14%

HISPANIC
60
4.0%

WHITE
1175
81%

OTHER
28
1.5%


*NOTE: Number of Victims refers to the victims in the underlying murder in cases where an execution has occurred since the restoration of the death penalty in 1976. There are more victims than executions because some cases involve more than one victim.

"In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."
- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990

PERSONS EXECUTED FOR INTERRACIAL MURDERS IN THE U.S. SINCE 1976

White Defendant / Black Victim (12)

Black Defendant / White Victim (202)


CURRENT U.S. DEATH ROW POPULATION BY RACE

BLACK
1,432
41.7%

HISPANIC
350
10.4%

WHITE
1,553
45.5%

OTHER
80
2.3%


(Death Row Population Figures from NAACP-LDF "Death Row USA (Julyl 1, 2005)")

 

[thebullet]

Man, the internet is wonderful.

According to a study printed in The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, March 2004:
Black representation on death row is lower than black representation in the population of murder offenders. This disproporation results from reluctance to seek or impose death in black defendent-black victim cases, which more than offsets eagerness to seek and impose death in black defendent-white victim cases. The disporportion survives because there are many more black defendent-black victim murders, which are underrepresented on death row, than there are black defendent-white victim murders, which are overrepresented on death row.
So this would support a major portion Boxlicker's opinion.

But here are some other statistics that aren't very pleasing:
1) For the 50 year period prior to 1973, the US's prison population was relatively stable. Starting in 1973 a 'get tough' policy was instituted (it was, of course, politically motivated). Currently the prison population is SIX TIMES greater than it was in 1972.
2) The US has 702 prisoners per 100,000 population - an all time high
3) The US prisoner rate/100,000 is 5 to 8 times higher than other industrialized nations. It is also the highest incarceration rate in the entire world.
4) 12% of black males between the ages of 25 and 29 are currently in prison
5) a black male born today has a 29% chance of spending time in prison

it gets worse for the poor:
6) a black male born in Washington DC has a 75% chance of spending time in prison
7) African American women, hispanics and Native Americans have far higher incarceration rates than the national average and the rates are rising

The US is about average with other nations in their rate of non-violent crimes. However, the US has far more violent crimes than other nations.

I know this will piss off the gun lobby, that hates me anyway, but the statistics show that there is a direct correlation between violent crimes and the availablity of firearms. There are 5.6 times as many homicides in the US than there are in England. But excluding gun-related homicides, that number is reduced to 2.4 times.

The high rate of incarceration (again there are 6X as many inmates today as there were in 1972), is mostly caused by changes in sentencing policy, 3 strikes and you're out, mandetory sentences, longer sentences.

Changes in drug policy is the major contributor to the US prison population. In 1980 there were 40,000 drug convicted inmates nation wide. Today there are 450,000 drug convicted inmates, an increase of more than 10 times.

 

[cloudy]

Despite being the smallest segment of the population, Native Americans have the second largest state prison incarceration rate in the nation, according to a recent review of prison statistics. The review, conducted by the Foundation for National Progress, an umbrella organization for the magazine Mother Jones, found that 709 per 100,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives were incarcerated in state prisons in 2000. The rate was surpassed only by African-Americans, whose jail rate was a startling 1815 per 100,000.

Overall, Native Americans are 1 percent of the state prison population, a rate which hasn't increased significantly nationwide over the past two decades. In federal facilities, Natives were 2 percent of the population.

But depending on the state, Native Americans disproportionately incarcerated. The phenomenon was most evident in the Plains. In Montana, for instance, 16 percent of prisoners were Native, compared to just 6 percent of the state population. In North Dakota, 19 percent of prisoners were American Indian and Alaska Native in a state where just 5 percent are Native.

Wyoming Indians made up 2 percent of the state population and 7 percent of the prison. The rate was comparable to Minnesota, where Indians were 1 percent of the general population and 7 percent of the prison, and Nebraska -- 1 percent and 5 percent, respectively. South Dakota had the highest percentage in the Plains. Some 21 percent of state prisoners were Native, compared to just 8 percent of the state.

The only other state which had a large disparity was Alaska, which has the largest percentage of Native Americans in the entire country. A full 37 percent of the state prison population was Native in 2000, compared to 16 percent of the general population.

But other states with significant Indian populations did not necessarily experience the same phenomenon. The percentage of Natives in state prisons in California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arizona, for instance, were not extraordinarily high.

Yet across the board, Natives are being sent to state prisons at increasingly higher rates. In 1980, there were 145 per 100,000 Indians in California's prisons, a rate which jumped to 767 per 100,000 in 2000. Such large jumps can be attributed, in part, to increases in the general American Indian and Alaska Native population.

The review was based on statistics provided by states, the Department of Justice, and the US Census Bureau. Research was conducted by the Justice Policy Institute, a program of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, a non-profit organization whose mission is to reduce the use of incarceration as a solution to societal ills.

The Department of Justice last year released a study of jails in Indian Country, noting they were overcrowded and underfunded.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Thanx for the stats guys.

Bullet, here's my question, and this may affect things as well. How many of those black-on-black crimes were committed against former offenders? The same with the black-on-white crimes, and vice-versa (white-on-white/white-on-black)?

Don't know if those stats are out there or not.

Q_C

 

[Boxlicker101]

Man, the internet is wonderful.

According to a study printed in The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, March 2004:
Black representation on death row is lower than black representation in the population of murder offenders. This disproporation results from reluctance to seek or impose death in black defendent-black victim cases, which more than offsets eagerness to seek and impose death in black defendent-white victim cases. The disporportion survives because there are many more black defendent-black victim murders, which are underrepresented on death row, than there are black defendent-white victim murders, which are overrepresented on death row.
So this would support a major portion Boxlicker's opinion.

I'm not sure what ir supports unless you mean that I think of the status of the victim, not the race, as being the primary factor. When one criminal kills another, it is not usually considered to be as heinous a crime as when a criminal kills a non-criminal, for instance, a hold-up or kidnap victim. It would be interesting to see what would happen to the statistics after factoring out the murders of criminals by criminals.

I also wonder where somebody like Timothy McVeigh fits in here. His victims were of all races, at random, unless crimes of that magnitude are listed separately.

 

[cantdog]

I'm not disputing racial inequity in the U.S. Far from it, in fact.

But - I did not realize these pictures were from different sources. Doesn't that change matters? Are we now attempting to compare apples and oranges?

Yes. AFP is European.

 

[thebullet]

Bullet, here's my question, and this may affect things as well. How many of those black-on-black crimes were committed against former offenders? The same with the black-on-white crimes, and vice-versa (white-on-white/white-on-black)?

Quiet Cool: Sorry, the study I looked at didn't deal with repeat offenders and/or the status of the victims (criminals or normal citizens). So I just have no idea about the answer to your question.

 

[cantdog]

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/American-Apartheid-Education1sep05.htm

The problem isn't just that it's worse to kill whites than blacks.