Start Your Divorce Today - Premium Divorce Online


Divorce Source Community Forums >> Stepfamily Issues

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 20327
Loc: Third rock from the sun
OMG - Racial Justice Act?!?
      #783597 - 04/21/12 10:15 AM

1994, a 23-year black man is convicted of 1st degree murder of a 17-year white kid and given 'death'.

Today his sentence has been set aside because...wait for it...not enough black jurors.



cnn.com/2012/04/21/justice/north-carolina-death-revoked/index.html?eref=igoogledmn_topstories

--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10213
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Gecko]
      #783654 - 04/23/12 07:41 AM


Not quite .

At the center of the judge's ruling is a finding that prosecutors across the state participated in the practice of excluding potential black jurors.

"Robinson introduced a wealth of evidence showing the persistent, pervasive and distorting role of race in jury selection throughout North Carolina," Weeks wrote in his ruling.

"The evidence, largely unrebutted by the State, requires relief in his case and should serve as a clear signal of the need for reform in capital jury selection proceedings in the future."

Try EXCLUDING blacks from juries .

--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 20327
Loc: Third rock from the sun
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: googledad]
      #783666 - 04/23/12 12:22 PM

Not quite.

---> No...quite. Just because you wrap a turd in clean linen, doesn't make it less a turd.

---> Prosecutors (and defense attorneys) across the NATION make it a practice of excluding ANY potential juror that might rule against them. Want to convict a white man for killing a black man...exclude white jurors. Want to convict a rich guy...exclude rich jurors. Want to convict a woman of killing her cheating husband...exclude female jurors. Want to convict a punk...load the jury with old folks. Age, gender, race, religion, marital status, dependents (or lack thereof), financial status, political affiliation, employment status, career field, personal experience, family/friend experience, criminal background...it ALL plays a part in jury selection.

---> All this is, is just another 'affirmative action' program allowing minorities to once again, receive 'special consideration'.

--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Debi
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 7155
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Gecko]
      #783667 - 04/23/12 01:24 PM

There is a difference between using your preemptory challenges to exclude someone who you think will hurt your case and excluding someone based on race. Of course the article doesn't say that was the sole reason. It says it was used as a "significant factor." Apparently little or nothing else could be tied to the exemptions. Lawyers are not in the practice of excluding any juror that might rule against them because they are only given so many preemptory exemptions. They are going to have to let some go that they may be iffy on in case someone they really don't want on the jury shows up. Since the judge ruled the way he did I'd say Robinson's lawyers proved their case.

It's not like they were saying the guy was innocent. He's not getting off on a technicallity. He is still spending life in prison without the possibility of parole. The same sentence he would have received in a state with no death penalty.

--------------------
When we were together, you said you'd die for me. Now, I think it's time you kept your promise.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 20327
Loc: Third rock from the sun
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Debi]
      #783676 - 04/23/12 06:21 PM

It's not like they were saying the guy was innocent. He's not getting off on a technicallity. He is still spending life in prison without the possibility of parole. The same sentence he would have received in a state with no death penalty.

---> That's not the point. You've heard the expression: give them an inch and they'll take mile? Why stop at death penalty cases, let's include 'life without parole'. And then Class 1 or A Felonies. And why stop at race? How about gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, etc?

--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 27388
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Gecko]
      #783678 - 04/23/12 06:28 PM

What was the race of the judge, what is a peremptory challenge, if the sentence was unjust, why was the verdict just? Should anyone be excluded, or included in the George Zimmerman jury based on these same reasons ?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10213
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Gecko]
      #783692 - 04/24/12 07:16 AM

Not quite.

---> No...quite. Just because you wrap a turd in clean linen, doesn't make it less a turd.

>>>>>>> Sure , cuz we KNOW racism has NEVER been a problem especially in the SOUTH .





Prosecutors (and defense attorneys) across the NATION make it a practice of excluding ANY potential juror that might rule against them. Want to convict a white man for killing a black man...exclude white jurors. Want to convict a rich guy...exclude rich jurors. Want to convict a woman of killing her cheating husband...exclude female jurors. Want to convict a punk...load the jury with old folks. Age, gender, race, religion, marital status, dependents (or lack thereof), financial status, political affiliation, employment status, career field, personal experience, family/friend experience, criminal background...it ALL plays a part in jury selection.

>>>>>>>>> Except you CANNOT exclude someone based on RACE . When 3 TIMES as many blacks are EXCLUDED , race may just have something to do with it .



All this is, is just another 'affirmative action' program allowing minorities to once again, receive 'special consideration'.

>>>>>>>>>> Cuz it's a PROVEN fact race plays no part in convictions or sentencing . OKAY . And if it does ?

--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 20327
Loc: Third rock from the sun
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: googledad]
      #783700 - 04/24/12 12:13 PM

Sure, cuz we KNOW racism has NEVER been a problem especially in the SOUTH.

---> And your point would be........?

Except you CANNOT exclude someone based on RACE.

---> Unless your race is 'white' and then it's 'okay' because it really isn't racism. And you're saying that it is 'okay' to exclude based on age, gender, etc?

When 3 TIMES as many blacks are EXCLUDED, race may just have something to do with it.

---> Are you sure? Just because you choose not to show up for the party, doesn't mean that you weren't invited.

---> This whole thing STINKS of Affirmative Action.

--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10213
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Gecko]
      #783728 - 04/25/12 07:43 AM

Sure, cuz we KNOW racism has NEVER been a problem especially in the SOUTH.

And your point would be........?

>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty simple , down south blacks were excluded from juries BECAUSE they are black . End of story .



Except you CANNOT exclude someone based on RACE.

Unless your race is 'white' and then it's 'okay' because it really isn't racism. And you're saying that it is 'okay' to exclude based on age, gender, etc?

>>>>>>>>> Have you an example where whites were excluded because they were WHITE ? Better yet , a DECADES long example ?


When 3 TIMES as many blacks are EXCLUDED, race may just have something to do with it.

Are you sure? Just because you choose not to show up for the party, doesn't mean that you weren't invited.

>>>>>>>>> Blacks dismissed didn't show up " for the party " ? Interesting analogy .



This whole thing STINKS of Affirmative Action.

>>>>>>>>> Yes , the " affirmative action " of having a sentence lowered from DEATH to LIFE IN PRISON .

--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 20327
Loc: Third rock from the sun
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: googledad]
      #783741 - 04/25/12 01:47 PM

Pretty simple, down south blacks were excluded from juries BECAUSE they are black. End of story.

---> The operative word being "WERE".

Have you an example where whites were excluded because they were WHITE?

---> RICCI ET AL. v. DESTEFANO ET AL. The USSC made it very clear that the City's action in discarding the tests, violated Title VII that prohibits intentional acts of employment discrimina-tion based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

Better yet, a DECADES long example?

---> Bakke v University of California, Davis School of Medicine (1974), McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. (1976), UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE (1978) [counter suit after Bakke won], Lucas v. Dole (1987), Harding v. Gray (1993), Middletown v. City of Flint (1996), Hopwood v. Texas (1996), Grutter v Bollinger (2003), Gratz V Bollinger (2003), PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS v. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ET AL. (2007), Friesen v City of Inglewood (2010), Fisher v. University of Texas (expected to be heard in 2013)

---> Mind you, these are just a few of the more 'public' cases. There are many MORE cases that are settled on state level or are settled out of court...like Benedict College and Broward County Florida and the San Francisco Police Department. And without a doubt there are thousands more, like mine, that never went anywhere because who is going to believe that a 'white' person is being discriminated against?

--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10213
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Gecko]
      #783771 - 04/26/12 07:38 AM

Pretty simple, down south blacks were excluded from juries BECAUSE they are black. End of story.

The operative word being "WERE".

>>>>>>>> Really ? When did it end ?



Have you an example where whites were excluded because they were WHITE?

---> RICCI ET AL. v. DESTEFANO ET AL. The USSC made it very clear that the City's action in discarding the tests, violated Title VII that prohibits intentional acts of employment discrimina-tion based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.


>>>>>>>>>> Oops , WRONG . Nothing to do with JURY DUTY .

Better yet, a DECADES long example?

Bakke v University of California, Davis School of Medicine (1974), McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. (1976), UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE (1978) [counter suit after Bakke won], Lucas v. Dole (1987), Harding v. Gray (1993), Middletown v. City of Flint (1996), Hopwood v. Texas (1996), Grutter v Bollinger (2003), Gratz V Bollinger (2003), PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS v. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ET AL. (2007), Friesen v City of Inglewood (2010), Fisher v. University of Texas (expected to be heard in 2013)

>>>>>> And what do they have to do with JURY DUTY ?


Mind you, these are just a few of the more 'public' cases. There are many MORE cases that are settled on state level or are settled out of court...like Benedict College and Broward County Florida and the San Francisco Police Department. And without a doubt there are thousands more, like mine, that never went anywhere because who is going to believe that a 'white' person is being discriminated against?

>>>>>>>> And all have NOTHING to do with JURY DUTY . BTW , how many upheld the right to DISCRIMINATE based on RACE ?

--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Debi
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 7155
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Gecko]
      #783787 - 04/26/12 12:12 PM

And why stop at race? How about gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, etc?

I'm sure jurors are excluded based on age and gender, although it would be harder to have a jury comprised of only males than a jury comprised of only white people. As for religion and sexual orientation that would be a little harder since I don't think those are questions the lawyers can ask to make juror determinations. (unless religion has something to do with the case)

For the record if I murdered my husband I would not have a jury of my peers if as a straight caucasian woman the jury were padded with gay black men would I?

--------------------
When we were together, you said you'd die for me. Now, I think it's time you kept your promise.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 20327
Loc: Third rock from the sun
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: googledad]
      #783790 - 04/26/12 01:01 PM

Really? When did it end?

---> YOU were the one that said 'were', so you tell me.

Oops, WRONG. Nothing to do with JURY DUTY.

---> You didn't specify, but there are 63 white guys who are filing under this new act.

BTW, how many upheld the right to DISCRIMINATE based on RACE?

---> Depends on who is being discriminated.

--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 20327
Loc: Third rock from the sun
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Debi]
      #783791 - 04/26/12 01:31 PM

And why stop at race? How about gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, etc?

---> I didn't...stop; see my post #783666.

--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 27388
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Gecko]
      #783792 - 04/26/12 01:41 PM

Why not just ask the question, are you racially biased, of every juror ? What was the race of the judge who took this convicted criminal off death row. How far down do you want to narrow your peer group before it is fair, should it just be human, should be human and gender, how about human, gender, and weight, and hair color, and height. It is all unfair at some point.

Of course you are excluding someone if you have to include someone. The only way to do that, is to exclude someone else. The only way this would have been fair would have been to have a jury pool, comprised entirely of blacks, and you have to select a number equal to the number of blacks in the general population, and the same system for whites, for natives.

Where is there any actual evidence of racial bias. This is second guessing the system, because something might have happened. We don't know if there was racism involved, but hey, we don't there isn't, right, I mean, ther emight have been, right. There was once, so there has to be all the time. What about the black people on the jury, what was their problem. I mean, didn't they vote on the same facts as the over abundance of white people and the native american on the jury. I don't even believe in the death peanlty, but this decision has nothing to do with justice. Who knows, maybe it is a form of reparations, but it sure is not justice. Keep the verdict, but change the sentence because the jury was selected with bias that may have existed, but we do not know........

I am glad he is not on death row, but he was saved from that sentence by a numbers game that people only love to play at certain times. Show me the bias, not just the possibility of bias, because there is just as much possibility that there wasn't. CRT in action.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 20327
Loc: Third rock from the sun
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Redlegg]
      #783796 - 04/26/12 03:23 PM

Why not just ask the question, are you racially biased, of every juror?

---> Can't do that...it's would be 'politically correct'.

I don't even believe in the death peanlty, but this decision has nothing to do with justice.

---> No...it doesn't. There were two men convicted of killing Erik Tornblom; Marcus Robinson and Roderick Sylvester Jr. Sylvester was given 'life', while Robinson was given 'death' because he is the one who pulled the trigger.

---> What gets me? IF 'race' was a factor in the sentence of 'death', why wasn't 'race' a factor in the overall verdict?

---> And IF 'race' was a factor in excluding blacks, then wouldn't it suggest that blacks are racist...that they wouldn't convict someone based on the color of their skin?

--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10213
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Gecko]
      #783815 - 04/27/12 07:33 AM

Really? When did it end?
YOU were the one that said 'were', so you tell me.

>>>>>>> Ahh , when you can't defend , argue SEMANTICS . BTW , the case in question from YOUR ARTICLE happened in 1993 .


Oops, WRONG. Nothing to do with JURY DUTY.

---> You didn't specify, but there are 63 white guys who are filing under this new act.

>>>>>>>>> Reading comprehension .


BTW, how many upheld the right to DISCRIMINATE based on RACE?

---> Depends on who is being discriminated.

>>>>>>>>> I'm sure some are seen as a remedy for PAST DISCRIMINATION .

So your argument is PROSECUTORS can discriminate based on race even though way back in 1873 SCOTUS said they COULDN'T ?

--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 20327
Loc: Third rock from the sun
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: googledad]
      #783845 - 04/27/12 12:20 PM

Ahh, when you can't defend, argue SEMANTICS.

---> Semantics can be important, just look to our government's excuse as to the lack of enforcement of illegal aliens. But be that as it many...yes, once upon a time, blacks WERE, as YOU noted in post #783728, excluded...from all sorts of things, but they haven't been excluded in a long time and therein lies the problem.

Reading comprehension.

---> 15th paragraph in the article: "Robinson is among 157 death row inmates -- 83 blacks, 63 whites and 12 other ethnicities -- who filed appeals under the Racial Justice Act, according to records from the North Carolina Department of Public Safety."

So your argument is PROSECUTORS can discriminate based on race even though way back in 1873 SCOTUS said they COULDN'T?

---> Not sure which 1873 case you are talking, but here are some of the more notorious 'racist' cases of the SCOTUS that occurred AFTER 1873:

Pace v. Alabama (1883), The Civil Rights Cases (1883), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Cumming v. Richmond (1899), Ozawa v. United States (1922), United States v. Thind (1923), Lum v. Rice (1927), Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) and Korematsu v. United States (1944).

---> And no, I am NOT arguing/saying that it's 'okay' for prosecutors (or defense attorneys) to discriminate based on race. I'm saying/arguing that it's all bullcatmonkeyshit because it's NOT about racism or bigotry or discrimination, it's about BUSINESS. I'm also saying that this "Racial Justice Act" is just another EXCUSE for minorities NOT to be held accountable.

--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10213
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Gecko]
      #784151 - 05/01/12 08:02 AM

Semantics can be important

>>>>>>> Nope . Flawed logic .

just look to our government's excuse as to the lack of enforcement of illegal aliens. But be that as it many

>>>>>>>> That would be a decision based on COST , plus other factors , we've ALWAYS had a problem with
" illegal immigrants " . You cannot find EVERY singlr one without TRAMPLING on a citizens' rights .

blacks WERE, as YOU noted in post #783728, excluded...from all sorts of things, but they haven't been excluded in a long time and therein lies the problem.


>>>>>>>>> Apparently they're EXCLUDED from southern juries .

And no, I am NOT arguing/saying that it's 'okay' for prosecutors (or defense attorneys) to discriminate based on race. I'm saying/arguing that it's all bullcatmonkeyshit because it's NOT about racism or bigotry or discrimination, it's about BUSINESS.

>>>>>>>>> HUH ?

I'm also saying that this "Racial Justice Act" is just another EXCUSE for minorities NOT to be held accountable.

>>>>>>>> So the whites filing under the law are doing it to not hold black's accountable ?

Thanks for playing .

--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 20327
Loc: Third rock from the sun
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: googledad]
      #784165 - 05/01/12 01:17 PM

You cannot find EVERY singlr one without TRAMPLING on a citizens' rights.

---> In what way is proving citizenship 'trampling' on someone's 'rights'?

HUH?

---> Do you honestly think that our legal system is about 'justice'? It's a 'business'...the prosecution is in the 'business' of convicting criminals and the defense in is the 'business' of getting them off. As with any business, it's not always enough that you have a good product or service, you have to have a good marketing strategy, and that means reaching out to the right people so they will buy your product or service. When your 'business' is prosecuting criminals, you're going want to reach out (see my post #783666) to those potential jurors who you think will convict.

So the whites filing under the law are doing it to not hold black's accountable?

---> And here I thought you were smarter than that. No hon...it's about exploiting a potential whatever that will keep them from being held accountable.

--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
**

Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10213
Re: OMG - Racial Justice Act?!? [Re: Gecko]
      #784217 - 05/02/12 07:41 AM

In what way is proving citizenship 'trampling' on someone's 'rights'?

>>>>>>>> Well there are those unnecessary Constitutional safeguards like " unnecessary search & seizure " .

---> Do you honestly think that our legal system is about 'justice'? It's a 'business'...the prosecution is in the 'business' of convicting criminals and the defense in is the 'business' of getting them off. As with any business, it's not always enough that you have a good product or service, you have to have a good marketing strategy, and that means reaching out to the right people so they will buy your product or service. When your 'business' is prosecuting criminals, you're going want to reach out (see my post #783666) to those potential jurors who you think will convict.

>>>>>>> Too bad you can't discriminate based on RACE .

So the whites filing under the law are doing it to not hold black's accountable?

---> And here I thought you were smarter than that. No hon...it's about exploiting a potential whatever that will keep them from being held accountable.

>>>>>>>>> And it just so happens WHITES can use the same law to not be held accountable ?

Thanks for playing AGAIN .

--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)



Extra information
3 registered and 48 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  dsAdmin 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is disabled

Rating: ***
Topic views: 2107

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us Divorce Source Home

*
UBB.threads™ 6.5.1.1


Resources & Tools
Start Your Divorce Online Start Your Divorce
Several Options to Get Started Today.
Divorce Tools Online Divorce Tools
Keeping it Simple to Get the Job Done.
Divorce Downloads Download Center
Instantly Download Books, Guides & Forms.
Divorce and Custody Books Discount Books
Over 100 of the Best Divorce & Custody Books.
Negotiate Online Negotiate Online
Settle your Divorce and Save.
Custody and Support Tracking Custody Scheduling
Make Sure You Document Everything.

Easily Connect With a Lawyer or Mediator
Have Divorce Professionals from Your Area Contact You!
Enter Your Zip Code: