A little more then circumstantial. I can't find a more mainstream source but here is a blurb about the simulator study...
http://www.westword.com/news/target-practice-racism-and-police-shootings-are-no-game-5098269
Happens all the time, but there is only so much time in the day to report such matters. Black guy killed by the police is practically media gold these days. You don't see it, because they don't report it.
I heard of a recent study that showed cops were less likely to pull the trigger on a black person, from fear of being labeled a racist, and fired.
This is all circumstantial regardless.
In 2002, she and four colleagues published a report on their research in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. A year later, University of Washington psychologist Anthony Greenwald did his own study, putting college students in the role of plainclothes police officers in a computer simulation where potential targets of different races appeared from behind dumpsters as fellow officers, citizens or gun-wielding criminals. Players had greater difficulty distinguishing weapons from harmless objects when they were in the hands of blacks rather than whites, resulting in more wrongful shootings of black targets.
In 2002, Tracie Keesee spotted a small article in the Rocky Mountain News about a CU study demonstrating that participants playing a virtual-simulation scenario were quicker to fire at black male figures than at whites.
Agreed, but we can always justify doing nothing by pointing out that someone with money can get around it. At least mandatory minimums require two parties to get around, and usually at least one of those two parties is subject to voters.
Only thing wrong with burritos every day would be the lack of pizza.
After a couple of months of burritos every day, it would be a violation of WMD treaties to deport me.
But the public usually doesn't see what the more serious charge would be, whereas we do see the actual charge. And in any case, those with the means for high-priced legal talent are going to get it both ways, getting charged with lesser crimes and getting sentences less harshly. Why give them two chances to get off lightly? At least with mandatory minimums an honest prosecutor can overcome a dishonest or bleeding heart judge, whereas people can always lobby prosecutors for lesser charges or cop a plea in return for a lesser charge.I think that voters would be more pissed if a person is actually charged with the correct crime and given a lenient sentence then if the high priced lawyers get the charges reduced. In the latter the judge can easily claim that they followed the sentencing guidelines but in the former they have to explain why they let someone walk on a much more serious crime. You still haven't addressed the fact that they are much more likely to be used against poor people who don't deserve the lengthy minimum sentence.
Our system of justice is supposed to be based on "It's better to let 10 guilty men go free than to incarcerate one innocent man". I believe the same applies to the punishment of crimes. I'd rather see a few people who deserve worse sentences let off lightly than hundreds of people who don't deserve extremely long sentences forced to suffer them.
LMAO! Ain't that the truth.
We are not getting any stories I can recall of unarmed white people being shot/killed by police.
But the public usually doesn't see what the more serious charge would be, whereas we do see the actual charge. And in any case, those with the means for high-priced legal talent are going to get it both ways, getting charged with lesser crimes and getting sentences less harshly. Why give them two chances to get off lightly? At least with mandatory minimums an honest prosecutor can overcome a dishonest or bleeding heart judge, whereas people can always lobby prosecutors for lesser charges or cop a plea in return for a lesser charge.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/4728502154001/defense-attorney-affluenza-teen-is-sorry/?#sp=show-clips
OH now he is sorry. he should have been sorry after he got off with a slap on the wrist. before he ran off. still though is sounds like he going to get off with it.
By having the case transferred to the adult system, Couch will not face the possibility of decades in prison unless he violates probation in the future. He may, however, face up to several months in the county jail.
Sounds like a windfall. The article said if he had stayed in Juvy he could have been looking at a maximum of 10 years in prison after his birthday. By raising it to adult court, for whatever the reason, it looks like the most he could expect is a few months in county.
How the fuck does that make sense?
Its been talked about its essentially the way TX courts work. The Juvenile court would have freed him on his 18th birthday too. Moving him to adult court keeps all the previous crap in tact. I'd bet the local cops & sheriff will be all over this guy for any infringement.
Its been talked about its essentially the way TX courts work. The Juvenile court would have freed him on his 18th birthday too. Moving him to adult court keeps all the previous crap in tact. I'd bet the local cops & sheriff will be all over this guy for any infringement.
Arise chicken, arise!
News reports are that Texans paid most of the $200,000 cost of drug rehab for this poor little rich kid. Why? Because his parents couldn't afford it. Really... they say that's the reason.
What a waste of money.
Bernie Sanders Government.
-John
And this is Texas government. Not quite Bernie Sanders government. :hmm:
/this
the big thing is it stays. at 18 it would be sealed. now anything is going ot nail his ass