Which drug laws are racist? The one that gave different terms to white powder cocaine and crack would be one, though even that i think race is a coincidence of poverty and not a direct factor, however are there any others?

If anyone is really interested in race and the drug war I suggest you read Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow. It's illuminating as to just how stacked the system is against poor people and minorities. The conclusions she draws are, IMO, a bit suspect, but the facts are startling.


Also, IIRC, Howard Stern got something like $5oo,ooo,ooo from his Sirius satellite radio deal, but a lot of that was in SIRI stock. (ETA: That was his first contract. His latest one is merely $4oo,ooo,ooo)

Excerpt from Alexander's The New Jim Crow:

Quote:

[...] Numerous studies have shown that prosecutors interpret and respond to identical criminal activity differently based on the race of the offender. One widely cited study was conducted by the San Jose Mercury News. The study reviewed 700,000 criminal cases that were matched by crime and criminal history of the defendant. The analysis revealed that similarly situated whites were far more successful than African Americans and Latinos in the plea bargaining process; in fact, "at virtually every stage of pretrial negotiation whites are more successful than nonwhites."


The most comprehensive studies of racial bias in the exercise of prosecutorial and judicial discretion involve the treatment of juveniles. These studies have shown that youth of color are more likely to be arrested, detained, formally charged, transferred to adult court, and confined to secure residential facilities than their white counterparts. A report in 2000 observed that among youth who have never been sent to a juvenile prison before, African Americans were more than six times as likely as whites to be sentenced to prison for identical crimes. A study sponsored by the US DoJ and several of the nation's leading foundations, published in 2007, found that the impact of the biased treatment is magnified with each additional step into the criminal justice system. African American youth account for 16% of all youth, 28% of all juvenile arrests, 35% of the youth waived to adult criminal court, and 58% of youth admitted to state adult prison. A major reason for these disparities is unconscious and conscious racial biases infecting decision making. In the state of Washington, for example, a review of juvenile sentencing reports found that prosecutors routinely described black and white offenders differently. Blacks committed crimes because of internal personality flaws such as disrespect. Whites did so because of external conditions such as family conflict.

That's from her discussion of Armstrong v US, in which the public defenders assigned to his case challenged (and lost) the equality of the federal crack prosecutions. In the years prior to taking Armstrong's case they'd noticed that every single person they were assigned to defend over the last year had been a minority (53 cases over 3 years, 38 were black, 5 hispanic, 0 white).

They sought to obtain records showing that whites were being unfairly shunted to the state system in which the penalties for crack were less severe. In support they offered affidavits and a list of 2000+ people charged in the prior year with federal crack violations. All but 11 were black, none were white. Their motions for discovery were denied because the Supreme Court ruled that the onus was on the defendant to show that a similarly situated white defendant who should have been tried in federal court but was not was necessary to prove the claim that the selective enforcement of the law makes it discriminatory. This is, obviously, a catch-22 since the discovery they were seeking is what is necessary to prove such a claim.


Anyway, it's thorough and well sourced, even she ascribes an intent to the lawmakers that, IMO, wasn't there.

Construction? Not in my experience. It's all norteño and tejano, with a bit of classic rot among the paler crews. Construction sites are too loud for talk radio.

From a common sense POV none of that is remotely shocking to me. A suburban white boy messing around with crack is likely to be viewed as a salvageable case and somehow let off the hook before it gets to mandatory federal sentencing stage. A black person, not so much. I'm not saying it's right at all. But I would be surprised if that wasn't the case.

Home renovation - whatever. Not all construction is hard-hats and girders with 200 people running around. There are plenty of quiet times.

Nit.

I have never heard talk radio on at any construction site/roofing job/landscaping/whateva.

Morning and afternoon drive is the highest ad buy on radio. People in a commute don't want an never ending stream of music, they want the weather/traffic/sports/news reports. And then there are the 3 hr blocks where the Rushbo dittoheads still have the tuner dialed in.

Right...and the suburban white boy probably has an actual lawyer, and may also have parents who are willing to go to bat and tell the judge they will send him to rehab et cetera. I mean, I couldn't be less surprised that whites are more successful than nonwhites in the pretrial stages.

Can't decide if presidential prediction thread poll (of which i have dibs) should be single or multiple selection based

Pretty sure you can just put Obama on there.

Wow, somewhat understand the intent, but easy for homeowners to go too far

IN House approves bill that allows homeowners to kill police officers they feel are trespassing

There is literally no logical intent with that bill. Assuming the words in the link reflect the bill itself.

A bill introduced in Iowa would do a similar thing. It allows you to kill anyone you think it committing, or about to commit, a serious felony or that you feel is threatening you or breaking into your home. It forbids prosecution or civil liability as long as you 'reasonably thought' any of the conditions for killing someone would be met.

That's a silly thing to say. There's obviously a logical intent (to reverse a court decision the legislature disagrees with, on the grounds that it is unjust to victims of police misconduct) even if you don't agree with it.

EDIT: Also, nyc's characterization of the bill is wrong. The homeowner is allowed use force that he reasonably believes is necessary to keep out a cop who is acting outside his lawful authority. The only subjective part of the standard regards the level of force, not the unlawfulness of police conduct.

Bill is here.

Didn't this argument already happen? I'm confused.

Edit: Oh, it was in the L&O2 thread. NC thread got slow ponied.

Isnt it already legal in America to use reasonable force to stop anyone from committing or about to commit a crime on your property even if that person is a cop acting outside of his authority?

Not in Indiana... that's the precise point of the bill.

Weird, i thought reasonable force was the minimum standard across all the states with some having the castle doctrine removing the need for force to be considered "reasonable".

In my state you are allowed to use deadly force on a police officer that is effectuating an unlawful arrest, but it never happens. So I don't think this is going to end up with people whacking cops left and right.

eta: should add the caveat that deadly force is allowed if such force is necessary to thwart the unlawful arrest

That's not an accurate description of the Barnes case holding.

hahahaohwow

Maybe it's a midwestern thing. I had a lot of laborer-type jobs in my youth and a boom-box blaring talk radio all day was very common. Could be sports, politics, Dr Drew, etc.