Senator Craig: Guilty or Entrapped?

[Texas Proud]

ChrisC.... I don't see where anything I said proved your point that he got a heavier sentence because he was black... I stated that he did not clearly...

And how would you 'square' your thoughts on the 45 years we gave the white guy who was driving drunk (or course, a different jury).. did not kill anyone, in fact, was just pulled over driving drunk... but he had a prior felony, a prior DWI and was charged with felony DWI... did race figure into his 'light' sentence?? (BTW, it was after we found him guilty that we found out he had over 30 plea deals and had spent half his life in prison...)...

Now, the 'stats' might show that blacks get the raw end of the deal in aggregate... but none of the juries I have been on did race come up at all in deliberations... and since I did not base my decisions on it... well.. I stand by my statement...

Of course, you already know that you are right... so be it...

[bright eyed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Bright Eyed, This factoid caught my eye, but I couldn't find your source to do more research. "(Tong, 1990?)". I've got two questions on this: 1) Did the study determine whether/how much of the disproportionate rate of death sentences for black rapists was attributable to economic status? Poor people (black or white) do not get the quality of legal representation that wealthier people get, and blacks are disproportionately poor. I would guess there's a lot more similarity between the death penalty rates for poor white rapists and poor black rapists than between poor black rapists and rich black rapists. 2) Regarding the race of the victim and a higher proportion of death penalties: Did the study control for the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim? In general, rapes of spouses/ex spouses/girlfriends/etc are less likely to draw a death penalty than rape of a stranger. Both black and white men are more likely to date/marry within race. If they commit a rape of a stranger, the odds (not considering "opportunity issues") would say a black man (or a white man) is more likely to rape a white woman than a black woman (since there are approx 7x as many of them). Can you point me toward your source?

Sorry, i couldn't get that weird emoticon out of the Date...the source is this book, Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction...from 1998...i found several sources that said the same thing though, that book had more detail...

here's better info...from Amnesty:
The US Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for the rape of an adult woman in 1977 in Coker v Georgia on the grounds of disproportionality. It did not mention race in its decision, even though five years earlier, in the ruling (Furman v Georgia) which overturned all death penalty laws in the USA, Justice Marshall noted that of the 455 executions for rape since 1930, 405 (89%) were of blacks. In the vast majority of cases the rape victim was a white woman.

I didn't know that was why the death penalty was pulled off the table for rape convictions...even more compelling....

i don't think you can overcome an 89% bias...for any factor - income, etc...maybe if it was a 60/40 or something split you could argue other factors.

As for your second question...all the sources i found only make a general reference to the fact that in "the majority" of the cases the victim was white...so no relationship is discussed.

but again, if you look at the stats that UNC posted about the actual incidence of rape across races (around 3%) and then the conviction rate and severity of the penalties...you see the bias...(or at least me and the supreme court )...

[pfpelican]

From the Borowitz Report: http://www.borowitzreport.com/

Craig: I Will Not Blow This Job
Idaho Senator Withdraws Resignation

Less than one week after announcing his intention to resign from office, embattled Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) changed course today, telling reporters in Washington, “I will not blow this job.”

Over the past few days, there had been whispers in Republican circles that Sen. Craig had, in the words of one of the Idaho senator’s associates, “pulled out too early,”

“At the end of the day, Larry does not want to blow this job,” the associate said. “He will do whatever it takes to win back the support of his constituents, even if it means getting down on his knees.”

Another associate of Sen. Craig’s agreed that the Idaho senator announced his intention to vacate his Senate seat too hastily: “I think Larry now feels that to leave office on September 30 would be a premature evacuation.”

Sen. Craig got a key vote of support from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn), who held a press conference at the Senate today to call the charges against the Idaho senator a “bum rap.”

But even as Sen. Craig picked up the support of Sen. Specter, a source close to the Republican caucus indicated that most Republicans are “backing away” from Sen. Craig.

For his part, Sen. Craig told reporters that he would take whatever steps are necessary to find favor with his Republican colleagues: “I will absolutely bend over backwards.”

[ChrisC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Edited to add.... I said I am sure there were some that took into account he was black only because of prejudice.... I did not SEE or HEAR anythin in the jury room to support this... but by nature someone must have been thinking it... but I can say that the guy did not get any more of a sentence because he was black with 100% certainty...

Texas Proud,

Did you not say that "by nature someone must have been thinking it" but yet your were 100 percent certain that the guy did not get any more of a sentence because he was black." You speak with a forked tongue Texas Proud when you say that someone was thinking that and yet you believe that person was able to discount the entire situation. Yes, I wasn't there, but you tell me that people are thinking this and yet ya so certain they are able to wipe their thoughts away.

I'm not pigheaded about being right or wrong; if it makes you feel better, I'll concede everything you have said in your posts.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisC Texas Proud, Did you not say that "by nature someone must have been thinking it" but yet your were 100 percent certain that the guy did not get any more of a sentence because he was black." You speak with a forked tongue Texas Proud when you say that someone was thinking that and yet you believe that person was able to discount the entire situation. Yes, I wasn't there, but you tell me that people are thinking this and yet ya so certain they are able to wipe their thoughts away. I'm not pigheaded about being right or wrong; if it makes you feel better, I'll concede everything you have said in your posts.

Yes, I conceeded to you that there was probably someone in the jury that had the thoughts that you seem to put to the whole jury... so be it... but the sentence is a consensus of all 12 so even if ONE or TWO were thinking it and voting to have a longer sentence the others were not and they would have to adjust. The minimum the guy could get was 20 years... the maximum was 99 or life... on the first vote, there were 3 low, 4 high and the rest in the middle...

And then people talk of why they think thier sentence is 'correct'.. and you move to a consensus... so, yes, I say his sentence would have been the same if he was white and the girl was black... 100% confident.. no forked tounge even though you seem to see one...

I will say that I was one of the long sentences and held out for as much as I could.. but not because he was black, but because of the crime... you do NOT want me on a jury if you are guilty, but you do want me if there is a weak case or the prosecutor makes a error...

And as I said, I was on a jury that gave a white guy 45 years for DWI... we can be harsh down here... (which I guess is another reason NOT to come to Texas... note REWahoo)....

[bright eyed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud And as I said, I was on a jury that gave a white guy 45 years for DWI... we can be harsh down here... (which I guess is another reason NOT to come to Texas... note REWahoo)....

[ChrisC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud And as I said, I was on a jury that gave a white guy 45 years for DWI... we can be harsh down here... (which I guess is another reason NOT to come to Texas... note REWahoo)....

Texas Proud, after this post I'm sure, quite sure, you will respond to this one as you will undoubtedly want to have the last word on this topic. I say, in jest, that your statement above and another one you made about sentencing this white guy to a harsh sentence proves absolutely nothing -- I'm fairly confident had this guy been black, he would have been given 50 years for the DWI charge! And as we say in the Old Dominion, "I might be crackin but I'm fackin."
l

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisC Texas Proud, after this post I'm sure, quite sure, you will respond to this one as you will undoubtedly want to have the last word on this topic. I say, in jest, that your statement above and another one you made about sentencing this white guy to a harsh sentence proves absolutely nothing -- I'm fairly confident had this guy been black, he would have been given 50 years for the DWI charge! And as we say in the Old Dominion, "I might be crackin but I'm fackin." l

ChrisC....

You are absolutely right... I have been hiding my true colors and we would have given the death penalty to this guy if he was black.... heck, we might have shot him right then and there if we could have...

I have no clue as to what happened in the jury room (even though I was jury foreman on both of them) and you know all.... I bow to you greater knowledge...

[ChrisC]

Gotcha!

[travelover]

This is a weird twist - the ACLU coming to Craig's defense.

Strange bedfellows: Sen. Larry Craig and the ACLU - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

[F-One]

Why is this a weird twist? This goes to the heart of the ACLU, according to part of the brief,

"Since the law the state has applied to this defendant makes it a crime to use offensive language, and since the use of offensive language alone cannot be made a crime, the law is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face," the ACLU claims in its amici curiae brief.

Furthermore Per ACLU:

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

• Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
• Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.
If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

This is what is missed by too many concerning the ACLU, they are fighting for the LAW, not for a specific person.

Please note: I am not trying to say Craig is or is not hypocritical or innocent or guilty. But I think it is important that people try to understand the ACLU's efforts - they are trying to preserve the rights of individuals under the Constitution.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by F-One Why is this a weird twist? ..........

I think it is a weird twist because Craig would have been the last one to admit any support for the ACLU, prior to this incident.

[Wags]

F-One thank you for the information on the ACLU.

As for the ACLU representing the poor devil known as Craig I am glad that somebody is looking out for his rights. The Republican Party was very quick to throw this poor devil under the bus and then they forced him to resign.

In the end the poor devil deserved better then what he got from the Republican party. Where was the loyalty and compassion?