Ferguson

[Prazutis]

I trust the Justice Department more than that racist prosecutor and those racist, white jurors from St. Louis. The Grand Jury is bullshit. It's too secretive and nothing is going to get done. They need to pass new laws to change the way cops are prosecuted, and that can only happen at the state level. Cops shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt when they shoot someone.

Also, the whole "judged by a jury of your peers" process needs to change. If you're black, and you're judged by white people, then that is not a "jury of your peers." You can't trust white people with these things.

Those are both excellent points! Especially the fact about being judged by your peers. Especially in a situation like that in Ferguson. A jury of racist white men prosecuting a black man is absolutely ridiculous. I still remember reading "To Kill a Mockingbird" and reading about this kind of situation. It's a travesty. I thought America had gone farther then this. (proud to be a Canadian, though that doesn't have much to do with anything)

 

[Sovereign]

Those are both excellent points! Especially the fact about being judged by your peers. Especially in a situation like that in Ferguson. A jury of racist white men prosecuting a black man is absolutely ridiculous. I still remember reading "To Kill a Mockingbird" and reading about this kind of situation. It's a travesty. I thought America had gone farther then this. (proud to be a Canadian, though that doesn't have much to do with anything)

Institutional racism is a global problem, not an American one.

 

[Kaeb]

America certainly has a more obvious one, and one that is more vehemently denied by those who occupy and perpetuate it than most other nations I'm aware of, but that might simply be a bi-product of the global overexposure to American generated media.

 

[Sovereign]

America certainly has a more obvious one, and one that is more vehemently denied by those who occupy and perpetuate it than most other nations I'm aware of, but that might simply be a bi-product of the global overexposure to American generated media.

Right.

What about Arabs in France? Or the Romani people? Europe isn't doing so well either.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Also, the whole "judged by a jury of your peers" process needs to change. If you're black, and you're judged by white people, then that is not a "jury of your peers." You can't trust white people with these things.

So are we only expanding your system of segregate justice to black people, or all races?

 

[Prazutis]

I didn't mean to say that global racism isn't an ever present issue. Quite the contrary. It's a global issue. What I meant by what I said is that I condemn the actions of (some of) the people of Ferguson. I didn't meant to say it isn't a global issue.

Is it really so hard to treat people the way you'd want to be treated? That's what I want to know.

 

[BLADE]

The United States is easily the most enlightened major Western power with regards to immigration. Which says very little about rampant xenophobia in idem country and rather more about the political salience of albescence in the wider Western paradigm.

The interesting thing about Ferguson is not for what reformative impact it will have (see: none) but rather whether it will become contestable within the context of the rapidly browning Democratic Party/other so-called Left institutions in the United States.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

So are we only expanding your system of segregate justice to black people, or all races?

The jury shouldn't be stacked, is the real point.

There's a reason that prosecutors push for all-white juries when there's a black defendant.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Juries shouldn't be stacked, this is true. I just don't see why skin pigmentation should be the major deciding factor in keeping juries from being stacked. Seems like a step backwards from allowing african americans the same level of rights and equal representation under the law. Also in cases where there is a white defendant and black accuser, does this mean an all black jury and possibly judge as well is required for the case? Does this requirement take place when its a black defendant only? Or is it whenever an african american in involved legally? Regardless, I don't see how making everyone involved required to have the same skin color will solve anything, as what seems to be at issue here is more a mentality then any physical trait, one that can be expressed by all people, black included. I'm just wary when skin pigmentation is elevated as some sort of empirical way to measure quality, the whole idea just strikes the wrong cord.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

That's a false equivalency, and really betrays how little you know about this issue.

Black people do not treat white people with the kind of racial bias shown towards black people by white people. What you're saying sounds wise and fair until you think about it for 2 seconds. You're talking about "equality" only in the sense that people have different-looking skin, while giving no consideration to the historical issues at play.

It doesn't mean that the quality of the decision will somehow increase, but it does level the playing the field.

It's a white privilege to be able to say that skin color should not be a factor, because it's only a non-factor for how white people are treated. A black person, by and large, would not say that, because they do not have the life experience to say that.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Black people do not treat white people with the kind of racial bias shown towards black people by white people.

That is the most ignorant thing posted this entire thread.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

If you're not willing to engage on the point, don't bother saying anything.

Why is it the most ignorant thing said here?

Please keep in mind the institutional, systematic, and historical racism perpetrated by white people that black people are and always have been incapable of committing due to their relative historical powerlessness.

 

[BLADE]

Given that there's no dearth of uninformed nonsense here, let me chime in with my own experiences as an attorney. During the voir dire (that's the juror-selection process) part of any given trial, experienced litigators learn to cold-read juries. I know when I'm arguing a case I do rely to some extent on a lot of the stereotypes and phenotypical thinking that I'd decry in a different context. That's in a civil process (I largely don't deal with criminal cases) and these epihenomena manifest themselves a fortiori in criminal legal proceedings.

Even then, that initial procedure is a small part of a process imbricated and alembicated with a racial, a classist, etcist subtext. That institutions replicate prejudices shouldn't, I think, be a particularly controversial point.

I am however, unsurprised that some contest otherwise.

Magical thinking in the service of white supremacy has never been in short supply in the United States.

 

[TWD26]

That is the most ignorant thing posted this entire thread.

Well he doesn't mean every white person, he means Whites as a society and it makes sense. If you look back in History you will find that Whites have shown incredible bias towards blacks in general. Now that doesn't make you biased towards blacks (I know I tend to try and not be, but we have to admit that prejudices do come into play sometime as it is human nature), but Brandon is right on this point.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Well he doesn't mean every white person, he means Whites as a society and it makes sense. If you look back in History you will find that Whites have shown incredible bias towards blacks in general. Now that doesn't make you biased towards blacks (I know I tend to try and not be, but we have to admit that prejudices do come into play sometime as it is human nature), but Brandon is right on this point.

Well I'm not white, so apparently I'd be incapable of bias anyway. I see people as human, capable of doing both horrible and honorable actions, and coming in a wide assortment of creeds, virtues, vices, and beliefs. And honestly, since the word people weren't defined, I have no reason to believe we're talking about "white society" here and not "white people", the individuals whose pigmentation is pale enough to be lumped into that category of group. Historical context is all well and good but it doesn't account for everything like apparently is being purported here, one group being oppressed decades ago doesn't, in my eyes, give excuses for behavior carried out by their grandchildren who never experienced the levels of open racism they always harken back to.

Everyone is capable of racism, and depending on what degree you'd want to it it, everyone is racist in their own ways. And to believe otherwise is to deny a race of being human, it's a dehumanization through glorification, that because someones group went through a struggle of oppression that it makes them incapable of enacting the same sort of mentality that their oppressors had. It's dangerous to do, it assumes way to much about someone and ignores the dangers of ignorance and arrogant racial beliefs.

I strongly believe in the thought that revenge based actions and mentalities can only lead to more trouble, and what I see here is a lot of revenge based assumptions about people that do lean heavily towards open and proud ignorance. If everyone is the same, as so many civil rights activists of the past, whose work was in an era of true racial discrimination and oppression, have pushed for in getting equal rights and representation, then how is assuming that race determines a person moral compass any better then the ignorant hatred of those times?

 

[TWD26]

Well I'm not white, so apparently I'd be incapable of bias anyway.

Everyone is biased, it's human nature. I understand your side though.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Black people do not treat white people with the kind of racial bias shown towards black people by white people. What you're saying sounds wise and fair until you think about it for 2 seconds.

Perhaps it would've been clearer had I said "the level of" but I think it was pretty obvious that I did not say black people are incapable of bias.

You're getting really defensive here.

 

[Cailst]

Given that there's no dearth of uninformed nonsense here, let me chime in with my own experiences as an attorney. During the voir dire (that's the juror-selection process) part of any given trial, experienced litigators learn to cold-read juries. I know when I'm arguing a case I do rely to some extent on a lot of the stereotypes and phenotypical thinking that I'd decry in a different context. That's in a civil process (I largely don't deal with criminal cases) and these epihenomena manifest themselves a fortiori in criminal legal proceedings.

Even then, that initial procedure is a small part of a process imbricated and alembicated with a racial, a classist, etcist subtext. That institutions replicate prejudices shouldn't, I think, be a particularly controversial point.

I am however, unsurprised that some contest otherwise.

Magical thinking in the service of white supremacy has never been in short supply in the United States.

What would prevent the attorney of the defendant from having an impact on the void dire? Unless the attorney is terrible, it seems they could at least break up all white juries. (That said, I suppose we should pay our public defenders more to attract those that are better)

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Everyone is biased, it's human nature. I understand your side though.

Thank you. Humans are human and all have human nature, and assuming otherwise is foolish.

That;s all I'm trying to get across here.

Perhaps it would've been clearer had I said "the level of" but I think it was pretty obvious that I did not say black people are incapable of bias.

You're getting really defensive here.

Honestly you wouldn't because I find you wrong. I don't think white people are as racist as you think, and I don't think black people are as devoid of having biases against white people as you think. Unless you mean "people" as in "societies" as was proposed by TWD26.

I'm getting irritated at having to repeat myself, and frustrated with the seemingly circular nature of the discussion. Sorry if its putting a bit of an aggressive tone in my words. Perhaps a break would do some good.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I mean people and societies. I'm unclear as to why you're not able to grasp my meaning. I think you're right that you should back away for awhile because you're becoming clearly agitated, and - for whatever reason - you're the only one in the thread acting that way.