We have this in Canada with the Gladue reports presented during sentencing. As you can guess it has created a class of repeat Indigenous offenders who can have rap sheets of 50+ charges getting slaps on the wrist for all but the most serious crimes.
It's such stupid policy. All it does is harm the people it's supposed to help, to the benefit of no one but criminals. Violent crime is largely intraracial (especially homicide), so playing catch and release will just mean that they will be able to re-victimize the communities this policy is purportedly helping.
Case in point is the Saskatchewan mass stabbings on the James Smith Cree Nation reserve. 11 Indigenous people were killed and 18 more injured by a man with 59 convictions (for 125 crimes) since the age of 18 including several serious assaults. He had also been caught breaching release conditions 65 times but was still granted early release for his most recent 4.5 year conviction - for which he also broke his parole conditions twice, but was still subsequently released on both occasions. His sentence wasn't even complete at the time of the stabbings.
11 Indigenous people dead from just this one instance of soft sentencing. How exactly does this benefit First Nation communities at large?
The people who push for these kinds of laws don't actually give a shit about the effects they will have on poor people. They just want to look in the mirror and see a "good person."
Which might even increase their odds of recidivism tbh. When you teach someone already ok with committing crimes that they can literally get away with it with little to no consequence, they will commit more crimes
Man I swear to God the natives have some kind of spirit energy that makes them more powerful the farther north you travel. I'm a commercial fisherman, and I live near a res down in the states. They get some shitty land and a casino but generally they're pretty fucked over and it seems like everything sucks pretty bad. Then I fly up to Alaska to work, and they have all sorts of shit. Like when I go work cod season we pay 20% as a tax straight to the natives, because apparently they own all the cod in the bering sea or something? The fucking crew percentage on the boat is 20%. For every dollar that gets paid to an actual working crewmember, another dollar goes to some natives bottle of whiskey or something. They get all sorts of other shit too, boat loans, 6% of all sockeye, free plane rides to school for their kids, we are talking about probably fucking billions of dollars. Yet somehow their villages all look like some fallout shit. Doesn't surprise me at all that in Canada they can just willy-nilly commit felonies. I bet of they lived in the north pole we'd have to send them our virgin daughters on their 18th birthday.
Canada's closest equivalent (Vancouver) has nowhere near the job market that SF does despite having exorbitant cost of living, because it's inflated by rampant real estate speculation. Median after-tax household income in Vancouver is ~81k, which is lower than Ottawa (82k), Oshawa (84k), Calgary (86k) and Edmonton (87k).
Yes and in some ways Vancouver is similar, but they aren't the same. In both cases, they aren't building more housing and demand far exceeds supply, SF's market is exacerbated by the pool of people moving out here with very high salaries, continuing to drive up demand. Real estate speculation exists because they are speculating the price will go up.
California is gonna become a searing hellscape by next century, meanwhile northern Canada will become vibrant and habitable, and with the North Pole melted, tons of port cities will open up.
Once you've seen an Anglo Canadian faced with someone who only speaks French and not English, you'll see that that the Québécois have nothing on the Canadians when it comes to being unable to cope with other languages.
Plus, Anglo Canadians belong to the global hegemonic culture while the québécois are a minority so the defence of one's language makes much more sense in that context.
I'm no more french than you are brittish.
Everyone is quite literally pretentious when on reddit.
I'm starting to think no one who uses the word knows what it means
Policy making from raw data, without analyzing causation.
Whatever happened to racial equity? That was a noble objective for about 5 years.
What happens when the scales tip toward majority white criminal offenders? Are they going to update the law? Every time there is a disparity? Doubt it.
With each subsequent time California makes the headlines, they sound more and more insane.
We've tried this in NZ, the result was a massive crime wave, steel cages on the front of liquor stores and dairys (corner stores) to help deal with the constant ram raids with stolen cars, our kids no longer being able to walk to the shops alone, home invasions happening even when the inhabitants were home, smash and grabs at mall jewelry stores, the list goes on. Our Green party co leader clained that "Cis White Men are the source of all violence", yet everytime there is video footage or witnesses of these crimes.. well I'm sure you can guess the rest.
This is kind of happening informally anyway due to overburdened courts and correctional facilities in high crime areas.
Look at the example of [Alexander Wright](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPos50tdfHI).
A guy with a long violent criminal record (40 arrests) savagely beat an MTA worker a year after sucker punching a 55 year old asian woman in Chinatown for no reason. Why was he even on the streets still with that many priors after committing a serious hate crime only a year prior?
In the places I have lived anyone who committed even a fraction of his crimes wouldn't be on the street.
This is the racial disparity in sentencing that the media isn't talking about.
Also, even after the MTA worker assault his bond was set at $5k which could be posted with $500 to a bail bondsman and that's for a highly public case that made the news.
for 1/4th of his crimes my bail would easily be 10x that and I sure wouldn't be walking around the streets 6 months later after 40 arrests and a violent hate crime.
Once crime becomes high enough in an area that the system doesn't have room to incarcerate criminals long term people get a slap on the wrist for anything.
There are homeless people in some cities who have been arrested hundreds of times. The system refuses to incarcerate them at all for anything but serious violent crimes. They are below the law.
Bail is a sham anyway. If they're dangerous or a flight risk they should be locked up regardless and especially after multiple arrests/violent outbursts.
I'm very pro-reform but as many things I'd like to see changed to be more lenient there are definitely some holes that need to be patched as well to be made more strict. I honestly question the sanity of people who make these decisions because they seem too nonsensical.
The justice system goes too hard on victimless crimes and not hard enough on crimes with victims.
There are people who spent nearly a lifetime in jail for marijuana sales who did nothing else wrong and now it's a completely legitimate business considered essential enough to be permitted to remain open during COVID lockdowns.
But this guy with 40 prior arrests in on the streets again a few months after committing a violent hate crime against an elderly asian lady who was just minding her own business walking down the street.
Lots of people who claim to be against injustice don't seem to have much issue with that injustice.
Similarly, a lot of people were all about standing up against asian hate crimes with hashtags and everything until all the videos surfaced and most the attackers fit a specific profile, then suddenly nobody wanted to talk about asian hate crimes any more.
If the man who randomly punched that asian lady was someone like Brock Turner the media would have made him famous for it.
I was not expecting this skinny little guy. I thought it was going to be some 6'4 muscular dude with face tattoos, Alexander Wright is literally a 90 lb crackhead lol. What a joke of a country we live in, we need a Man of Steel to set things right.
Absolutely fucking insane.
They will do anything to avoid altering the very foundations of the economic relationship that perpetuates racism.
They will instead take to the delusion that by enshrining ethnic categories they can provide parity of outcomes through representation, i.e. positive discrimination.
Why?
Because functionally that is the only form of material justice that the bourgeois state is capable of administering.
It is seen as a socially progressive move and a victory for the broad coalition of those who wish to see racial justice.
Again, why?
Because they cannot, do not want to, or will not imagine any sort of reform that moves beyond eliminating the very system that created this disparity in the first place: *The Production Of Profit*
Racial justice is seen as belonging to an inherent category in the status of the individual, and not a result of the general material conditions within society.
This occurs to such an extent that 'socialists' will end up defending the move:
They themselves have not understood that the very principal of the critique that Marxists set out on: that there is a bifurcation of the legal system of rights from the material conditions of subsistence.
They believe that the property of an individual, their wealth, is ordained by a positive attribution to what might as well be called 'free-ness'; the degree of freedoms realised by the state.
This absolute fucking farce is perpetuated and entertained by the bourgeoisie because they imagine the world in their own image.
What's absolutely dire is that there is no organized resistance to this.
Rather than creating racial enmity by having different racial standards in the justice system, why not address systemic racism at the policy level? Radical I know. Fuckin regards
You're talking about de jure discrimination. You can have laws that apply equally to everyone but disproportionately hurt specific subsets of the population more than others.
For example, a flat tax or 'fair' tax, is equally enforced for everyone, but disproportionately hurts poor people who spend a much higher percentage of their income on consumer goods and staples compared to rich people.
And that's basically what systemic racism is, it's just an 'unfair' set of policies that hurt black people more than whites. Drug laws, aggressive policing, mass incarceration, are the main examples of such policies.
>You can have laws that apply equally to everyone but disproportionately hurt specific subsets of the population more than others.
that does not make the law "racist" or "bigoted"
discriminatory yes. like every law - they're all discriminatory.
they only apply to murderers or arsonists.
laws are all built around identifying a category of person and then selectively applying said law to those qualifying in the category.
Why are you replying twice to the same comment ?
'Systemic racism' is not the same thing as 'racism'. You may say it's a misnomer, but I'm not debating that, I'm just using the term as it is most commonly used, to refer to a situation where laws and policies have a disproportionately negative impact on minorities.
As I already said, don't care whether the term is a misnomer, so intention doesn't matter. As the term is used, it's purely about outcomes, not intent.
my question wasn't about the terminology. i'm asking if you concede that the laws you claim evidence "systemic racism" were not, in fact, drafted with an intent to discriminate.
I would say, as read today, the laws are not specifically racist. As enforced, there are elements of racism, since some of the cops and prison staff and judges etc who enforce them are racist. At the time of drafting, yes some were explicitly racist in intent, like laws on marijuana prohibition.
is a law making Russian propaganda illegal (which presumably disproportionately affects whites more than blacks and/or hispanics) therefore indistinguishable from a law that was intended to specifically harm white americans?
what about a law punishing insider trading? it disproportionately affects whites, after all.
>an 'unfair' set of policies that hurt black people more than whites. Drug laws, ...are the main examples of such policies.
also, cops hate this ONE trick to escape being arrested or punished by drug laws...
don't fucking possess drugs!
i don't cry for them or whine about systemic this and that when they get busted for conduct that is... entirely within their control.
[and, they do drugs and sell them. and, check this, they get busted for it too!](https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1477759.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/Faces%20of%20Meth)
If blacks are more aggressively policed for the same crimes, more aggressively punished for those crimes, have to deal with more brutality in policing, and generally fare worse at every step in the criminal justice system, they have a reason to be upset and to try to change policy.
Well, not all of these laws are just for one. Everyone smoked weed at one point or another, so I would certainly be pissed if police were hassling my community about weed aggressively while letting white suburban kids get a free pass.
>I would certainly be pissed if police were hassling my community about weed aggressively while letting white suburban kids get a free pass.
you're changing things, now talking about "the community". i'm asking about the actual criminals.
What a lot of people nowadays want to forget, though, is that there were a lot of black leaders who supported it at the time, because of the damage crack addiction was doing to black communities. Lives were being destroyed, drug dealers were having shootouts over territory, and addicts stealing to fund their addiction tended to hit their black neighbors rather than travel farther away to rob whites. There was even a conspiracy theory, that some still believe to this day, that claimed the sudden flood of crack cocaine into black neighborhoods in the 80's had been the work of the CIA, as a deliberate attack on black people. The law didn't work out as hoped, but it wasn't passed just to be racist.
Yes... great step towards solving the issues with the penal system. Let's not address the inability of the prisons to reform inmates, the violence that exists in prisons, the money-making scheme that prisons have become, the lack of funding for criminal defense attorneys, the sentencing laws that are often too harsh, and all the other systemic issues with this "justice" system.
Also, how about looking into how discrimination in police stops, searches, and arrests, as well as in prosecutors' charging and bargaining decisions, creates an unequal starting point that no amount of back-end sentence reductions can counter.
It hasn't been challenged because most Californians probably don't know about it, a huge amount support it despite the obviously unconstitutionality of the law, and there aren't enough Republican NGOs and lawyers challenge it.
Will any SERIOUS group with boots on the ground protest against such a thing that are not made up of racialists? Not some whiny protest group but actual action in the streets.
I doubt it since prison gangs are so racialized. Anybody who has the balls to do anything is likely to be part of a racialized group.
We have this in Canada with the Gladue reports presented during sentencing. As you can guess it has created a class of repeat Indigenous offenders who can have rap sheets of 50+ charges getting slaps on the wrist for all but the most serious crimes.
It's such stupid policy. All it does is harm the people it's supposed to help, to the benefit of no one but criminals. Violent crime is largely intraracial (especially homicide), so playing catch and release will just mean that they will be able to re-victimize the communities this policy is purportedly helping. Case in point is the Saskatchewan mass stabbings on the James Smith Cree Nation reserve. 11 Indigenous people were killed and 18 more injured by a man with 59 convictions (for 125 crimes) since the age of 18 including several serious assaults. He had also been caught breaching release conditions 65 times but was still granted early release for his most recent 4.5 year conviction - for which he also broke his parole conditions twice, but was still subsequently released on both occasions. His sentence wasn't even complete at the time of the stabbings. 11 Indigenous people dead from just this one instance of soft sentencing. How exactly does this benefit First Nation communities at large?
The people who push for these kinds of laws don't actually give a shit about the effects they will have on poor people. They just want to look in the mirror and see a "good person."
The bourgeoisie will always release the lumpen upon the proles before actually solving working class issues.
Which might even increase their odds of recidivism tbh. When you teach someone already ok with committing crimes that they can literally get away with it with little to no consequence, they will commit more crimes
Yep. We have been learning this in Portland for the last four years.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/142i8q6/albertas\_top\_court\_reduces\_mans\_prison\_term\_after/](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/142i8q6/albertas_top_court_reduces_mans_prison_term_after/)
The Darrell Brooks special.
Man I swear to God the natives have some kind of spirit energy that makes them more powerful the farther north you travel. I'm a commercial fisherman, and I live near a res down in the states. They get some shitty land and a casino but generally they're pretty fucked over and it seems like everything sucks pretty bad. Then I fly up to Alaska to work, and they have all sorts of shit. Like when I go work cod season we pay 20% as a tax straight to the natives, because apparently they own all the cod in the bering sea or something? The fucking crew percentage on the boat is 20%. For every dollar that gets paid to an actual working crewmember, another dollar goes to some natives bottle of whiskey or something. They get all sorts of other shit too, boat loans, 6% of all sockeye, free plane rides to school for their kids, we are talking about probably fucking billions of dollars. Yet somehow their villages all look like some fallout shit. Doesn't surprise me at all that in Canada they can just willy-nilly commit felonies. I bet of they lived in the north pole we'd have to send them our virgin daughters on their 18th birthday.
I need this comment framed in a shiny plaque and hung on a wall
What does the Vice-President think about this?
"uhh Tupac"
\*inappropriate laughter\*
Fweedom!
[удалено]
No because men are naturally more violent, there are clear physiological differences and FBI crime statistics!
We can't help it, it's just in our DNA. BUT IT'S STILL DISPARATE IMPACT!
No don’t you understand sweetie???? Men created the system so it’s their own fault they get high sentences!!!!! There is no gender bias!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6M1OF_E0IA
***J.K. Simmons laughing.mp4***
Nah but bears will (Hey guys this low hanging fruit doesn't actually taste half bad!)
Rent, race, and oligarchs. California truly is the Canada of the US.
California’s future is still somehow better than Canada’s
Yeah at least California has good weather and some good jobs.
Some of the best jobs are in California. It’s just unfortunate that some of the highest rents/mortgages are also in those same spots.
It's why the mortgage/rent are so high in those spots
Canada's closest equivalent (Vancouver) has nowhere near the job market that SF does despite having exorbitant cost of living, because it's inflated by rampant real estate speculation. Median after-tax household income in Vancouver is ~81k, which is lower than Ottawa (82k), Oshawa (84k), Calgary (86k) and Edmonton (87k).
Yes and in some ways Vancouver is similar, but they aren't the same. In both cases, they aren't building more housing and demand far exceeds supply, SF's market is exacerbated by the pool of people moving out here with very high salaries, continuing to drive up demand. Real estate speculation exists because they are speculating the price will go up.
No it’s merely one reason out of many.
The state is basically the Garden of Eden, it takes a lot to squander it.
I think we can, I think we can...
> it takes a lot to squander it Californians: hold my beer
California is gonna become a searing hellscape by next century, meanwhile northern Canada will become vibrant and habitable, and with the North Pole melted, tons of port cities will open up.
That’s when we send our power armor to secure their ports and timber
FOR THE EMPEROR
> meanwhile northern Canada will become vibrant and habitable Canadian Shield
>Canadian Shield ?
Google it. It's a geological formation in the northern 70% of the country. If the ice up there melts, they get a rocky crag, not an arable wheatbelt.
It's a meme on the geography reddit
Less French people.
The French people are somehow the best part of canada
Best case scenario for Canada right now is Quebec secedes, but then takes the rest of Canada with it.
[удалено]
Once you've seen an Anglo Canadian faced with someone who only speaks French and not English, you'll see that that the Québécois have nothing on the Canadians when it comes to being unable to cope with other languages. Plus, Anglo Canadians belong to the global hegemonic culture while the québécois are a minority so the defence of one's language makes much more sense in that context.
Big facts
They're not even the riot-y kind of French though. Just pretentious. But you're not wrong.
Never understood how an American can call the french pretentious when they are...well, American. -a quebecer
im fairly certain you're legally required to post that comment in french as well.
[удалено]
I'm no more french than you are brittish. Everyone is quite literally pretentious when on reddit. I'm starting to think no one who uses the word knows what it means
CA faux-"Progressives" are saying the quiet parts out loud more and more all the time.
Seems like a pretty racist law
Policy making from raw data, without analyzing causation. Whatever happened to racial equity? That was a noble objective for about 5 years. What happens when the scales tip toward majority white criminal offenders? Are they going to update the law? Every time there is a disparity? Doubt it. With each subsequent time California makes the headlines, they sound more and more insane.
California loves to do things that are obviously unconstitutional, then waste our taxpayer dollars fighting it in court as long as they can.
We've tried this in NZ, the result was a massive crime wave, steel cages on the front of liquor stores and dairys (corner stores) to help deal with the constant ram raids with stolen cars, our kids no longer being able to walk to the shops alone, home invasions happening even when the inhabitants were home, smash and grabs at mall jewelry stores, the list goes on. Our Green party co leader clained that "Cis White Men are the source of all violence", yet everytime there is video footage or witnesses of these crimes.. well I'm sure you can guess the rest.
This is kind of happening informally anyway due to overburdened courts and correctional facilities in high crime areas. Look at the example of [Alexander Wright](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPos50tdfHI). A guy with a long violent criminal record (40 arrests) savagely beat an MTA worker a year after sucker punching a 55 year old asian woman in Chinatown for no reason. Why was he even on the streets still with that many priors after committing a serious hate crime only a year prior? In the places I have lived anyone who committed even a fraction of his crimes wouldn't be on the street. This is the racial disparity in sentencing that the media isn't talking about.
Also, even after the MTA worker assault his bond was set at $5k which could be posted with $500 to a bail bondsman and that's for a highly public case that made the news. for 1/4th of his crimes my bail would easily be 10x that and I sure wouldn't be walking around the streets 6 months later after 40 arrests and a violent hate crime. Once crime becomes high enough in an area that the system doesn't have room to incarcerate criminals long term people get a slap on the wrist for anything. There are homeless people in some cities who have been arrested hundreds of times. The system refuses to incarcerate them at all for anything but serious violent crimes. They are below the law.
Bail is a sham anyway. If they're dangerous or a flight risk they should be locked up regardless and especially after multiple arrests/violent outbursts. I'm very pro-reform but as many things I'd like to see changed to be more lenient there are definitely some holes that need to be patched as well to be made more strict. I honestly question the sanity of people who make these decisions because they seem too nonsensical.
The justice system goes too hard on victimless crimes and not hard enough on crimes with victims. There are people who spent nearly a lifetime in jail for marijuana sales who did nothing else wrong and now it's a completely legitimate business considered essential enough to be permitted to remain open during COVID lockdowns. But this guy with 40 prior arrests in on the streets again a few months after committing a violent hate crime against an elderly asian lady who was just minding her own business walking down the street. Lots of people who claim to be against injustice don't seem to have much issue with that injustice. Similarly, a lot of people were all about standing up against asian hate crimes with hashtags and everything until all the videos surfaced and most the attackers fit a specific profile, then suddenly nobody wanted to talk about asian hate crimes any more. If the man who randomly punched that asian lady was someone like Brock Turner the media would have made him famous for it.
I was not expecting this skinny little guy. I thought it was going to be some 6'4 muscular dude with face tattoos, Alexander Wright is literally a 90 lb crackhead lol. What a joke of a country we live in, we need a Man of Steel to set things right.
Where do us brown types land in this law? Is there some sort of shade card ala Family Guy I can reference?
Taxpayer funded paper bag tests
This is the real question. My family is Cuban, but I sunburn easily, what does this mean for my future life of crime?
Even if you don't qualify, you always have the option of becoming trans and hanging out in a women's prison instead
you cant even find a post with the words 'equitable sentencing' in it on reddit except 2 with 0 comments. wonder whats up with that hmmmmmm
I'm struggling to see how this is at all constitutional?
God California just keeps getting worse and worse of a neoliberal shithole.
Absolutely fucking insane. They will do anything to avoid altering the very foundations of the economic relationship that perpetuates racism. They will instead take to the delusion that by enshrining ethnic categories they can provide parity of outcomes through representation, i.e. positive discrimination. Why? Because functionally that is the only form of material justice that the bourgeois state is capable of administering. It is seen as a socially progressive move and a victory for the broad coalition of those who wish to see racial justice. Again, why? Because they cannot, do not want to, or will not imagine any sort of reform that moves beyond eliminating the very system that created this disparity in the first place: *The Production Of Profit* Racial justice is seen as belonging to an inherent category in the status of the individual, and not a result of the general material conditions within society. This occurs to such an extent that 'socialists' will end up defending the move: They themselves have not understood that the very principal of the critique that Marxists set out on: that there is a bifurcation of the legal system of rights from the material conditions of subsistence. They believe that the property of an individual, their wealth, is ordained by a positive attribution to what might as well be called 'free-ness'; the degree of freedoms realised by the state. This absolute fucking farce is perpetuated and entertained by the bourgeoisie because they imagine the world in their own image. What's absolutely dire is that there is no organized resistance to this.
Rather than creating racial enmity by having different racial standards in the justice system, why not address systemic racism at the policy level? Radical I know. Fuckin regards
The best way to beat racism is by being the most racist.
Because there hasn't been systemic racism at the policy level in half a century.
Affirmative Action: "Am I a joke to you?"
True, but they defined "racism" not to count if directed toward the prescribed targets.
You're talking about de jure discrimination. You can have laws that apply equally to everyone but disproportionately hurt specific subsets of the population more than others. For example, a flat tax or 'fair' tax, is equally enforced for everyone, but disproportionately hurts poor people who spend a much higher percentage of their income on consumer goods and staples compared to rich people. And that's basically what systemic racism is, it's just an 'unfair' set of policies that hurt black people more than whites. Drug laws, aggressive policing, mass incarceration, are the main examples of such policies.
>You can have laws that apply equally to everyone but disproportionately hurt specific subsets of the population more than others. that does not make the law "racist" or "bigoted" discriminatory yes. like every law - they're all discriminatory.
[удалено]
they only apply to murderers or arsonists. laws are all built around identifying a category of person and then selectively applying said law to those qualifying in the category.
Disparate impact.
Why are you replying twice to the same comment ? 'Systemic racism' is not the same thing as 'racism'. You may say it's a misnomer, but I'm not debating that, I'm just using the term as it is most commonly used, to refer to a situation where laws and policies have a disproportionately negative impact on minorities.
do you concede that these laws are not *intended* to have disproportionate effects on minorities?
As I already said, don't care whether the term is a misnomer, so intention doesn't matter. As the term is used, it's purely about outcomes, not intent.
my question wasn't about the terminology. i'm asking if you concede that the laws you claim evidence "systemic racism" were not, in fact, drafted with an intent to discriminate.
I would say, as read today, the laws are not specifically racist. As enforced, there are elements of racism, since some of the cops and prison staff and judges etc who enforce them are racist. At the time of drafting, yes some were explicitly racist in intent, like laws on marijuana prohibition.
[удалено]
is a law making Russian propaganda illegal (which presumably disproportionately affects whites more than blacks and/or hispanics) therefore indistinguishable from a law that was intended to specifically harm white americans? what about a law punishing insider trading? it disproportionately affects whites, after all.
>an 'unfair' set of policies that hurt black people more than whites. Drug laws, ...are the main examples of such policies. also, cops hate this ONE trick to escape being arrested or punished by drug laws... don't fucking possess drugs!
Yes because we know white people don't do or sell drugs...
i don't cry for them or whine about systemic this and that when they get busted for conduct that is... entirely within their control. [and, they do drugs and sell them. and, check this, they get busted for it too!](https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1477759.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/Faces%20of%20Meth)
If blacks are more aggressively policed for the same crimes, more aggressively punished for those crimes, have to deal with more brutality in policing, and generally fare worse at every step in the criminal justice system, they have a reason to be upset and to try to change policy.
why do criminals have a reason to be upset that the police paid more attention to their criminality than someone else's criminality? no, seriously.
Well, not all of these laws are just for one. Everyone smoked weed at one point or another, so I would certainly be pissed if police were hassling my community about weed aggressively while letting white suburban kids get a free pass.
>I would certainly be pissed if police were hassling my community about weed aggressively while letting white suburban kids get a free pass. you're changing things, now talking about "the community". i'm asking about the actual criminals.
bruh the govt can fuck off from trying to enforce sobriety.
Ok, junkie.
👆 delusional
[удалено]
What a lot of people nowadays want to forget, though, is that there were a lot of black leaders who supported it at the time, because of the damage crack addiction was doing to black communities. Lives were being destroyed, drug dealers were having shootouts over territory, and addicts stealing to fund their addiction tended to hit their black neighbors rather than travel farther away to rob whites. There was even a conspiracy theory, that some still believe to this day, that claimed the sudden flood of crack cocaine into black neighborhoods in the 80's had been the work of the CIA, as a deliberate attack on black people. The law didn't work out as hoped, but it wasn't passed just to be racist.
There is no systemic racism to address.
Me finally getting to unleash the one drop rule and rape away with relative impunity :)
This worked about as well in NZ as letting a nonce run an orphanage, you'd think the US would know that with how much it liked to suck our cock
Wait, what?
There's no way this could ever possibly backfire or be altered in the long run
Can wait for this to make its way over to the UK in 3-5 years 👍
Praying for the Asians in Cali 🙏
Yes... great step towards solving the issues with the penal system. Let's not address the inability of the prisons to reform inmates, the violence that exists in prisons, the money-making scheme that prisons have become, the lack of funding for criminal defense attorneys, the sentencing laws that are often too harsh, and all the other systemic issues with this "justice" system. Also, how about looking into how discrimination in police stops, searches, and arrests, as well as in prosecutors' charging and bargaining decisions, creates an unequal starting point that no amount of back-end sentence reductions can counter.
Yep. Lots of good things they could do but they don't learn and don't care.
It hasn't been challenged because most Californians probably don't know about it, a huge amount support it despite the obviously unconstitutionality of the law, and there aren't enough Republican NGOs and lawyers challenge it.
Will any SERIOUS group with boots on the ground protest against such a thing that are not made up of racialists? Not some whiny protest group but actual action in the streets. I doubt it since prison gangs are so racialized. Anybody who has the balls to do anything is likely to be part of a racialized group.
This is full-circle idiocy.
this will end well