Commission Finds Blacks Disportionately Face Death Penalty

Share:
In recent weeks, Yolo County has seen the conviction of one man in a death penalty case for killing a police officer. Just three days after that sentence was handed down, another man gunned down a Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputy. The Vanguard at the time had had a lengthy discussion on the death penalty. Now, we look into the findings of a study on California’s Death Penalty by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (CCFAJ), a nonpartisan statewide advisory board.

What began as a simple question has evolved into a lengthy study about California’s death penalty, the results of which would be startlingly were it not for the fact that most people have known or at least suspected this problem all along.

Why is it that 87 percent of first-degree murders in California could be prosecuted as death-penalty case–but most are not? A state commission that attempt to discover whether race has played an inappropriate determining factor as to who gets the death penalty and who does not. The answer is that that data is not available. However, the commission, led by former Attorney General John Van de Kamp is now calling on legislation that requires prosecutors to collect and report all information on their decisions whether to seek the death penalty.

Here is what we do know about the death penalty in California and these findings are chilling.

  • Of 12,000 first-degree murders now in prison, only 5.6 percent of them have been sentenced to death.
  • Five times the percentage of blacks are on death row to their actual share of the state population. The national average is three to one.
  • Since 1977, when the death penalty was reinstated, death sentences have been disproportionate for black defendants to their overall population, to the rate of homicide convictions, to victim data, and to sentencing patterns of other states.
  • Blacks make up just under one-quarter of those arrested for homicide, yet blacks make up 36 percent of the current death row population. Compare that even to Latinos and you find, Latinos make up 46 percent of those arrested for homicide but only 20 percent of the current death row population.
  • It turns out, one of the biggest determinants of whether one faces the death penalty is the race of the victim. 59% of victims in death penalty cases are white. However, only 22 percent of homicide victims are white. This is true across the country–those who murder white victims are most likely to be sentenced to death nationally.
The report makes it clear that none of these numbers prove that race is the reason why some convicted of first degree murder receive a death sentence but others do not.

One possible explanation arises at the law enforcement level, where some have suggested that police investigators work harder to collect evidence in cases involving the deaths of white victims.

In fact this but one problem cited in the 116 page report from the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.

One of the other stunning findings is that the state spends an additional $117 million per year as the result of just 673 people on death row. That translates to nearly $175,000 per inmate, per year. On June 10th, the California State Auditor revealed that a proposed new death row facility will cost at least $395 million to build, and more than $1 billion to operate over the next 20 years.

The reports also faults the state for failing to provide adequate council.

“The appointment and performance of qualified trial counsel, and the resources available to counsel to adequately investigate and prepare the case, are subjects of serious concern in the administration of California’s death penalty law.”

Naturally groups such as the ACLU who have long fought against the death penalty for precisely the reasons highlighted in the report have had a strong reaction to this report.

Several groups have suggested that the death penalty actually makes it more difficult to fight crime because it saps resources that otherwise could be used toward more effective violence prevention programs.

Natasha Minsker from the ACLU who the Vanguard interviewed regarding the Topete Case a few weeks ago issued a statement on the ACLU website.

“We are pleased that the Commission has revealed the honest truth about the excessively high costs of California’s death penalty, and the many costly reforms that are still needed… But we are very disappointed that the Commission failed to call for immediate action to remedy racial and ethnic disparities in death sentencing in this state. Californians expect and demand a criminal justice system that treats all people equally, regardless of race and class… We cannot continue to ignore the evidence that our death penalty is not fairly applied.”

If there is a weakness in this report, it is that the commission did not provide for any remedies toward the immediate problem of apparent racial discrepancies in the rate of death penalty convictions. Instead it focused its recommendations on more expansive data collection in order to determine why some individuals are sentenced to death but others are not.

As the Sacramento Bee reported last week, even these remedies are being opposed by police, prosecutors, victims’ representatives.

These groups claim that there is no evidence found in the report to suggest abuse by prosecutors.

“The critics also don’t want prosecutors to adopt formal, written, public policies on when they’ll seek the death penalty, as the commission has recommended. Such documents would serve primarily to create new grounds for condemned prisoners to challenge their convictions, the critics say.”

However, those critics are missing a bigger picture here. The public’s support for the death penalty has been trending downward over the last decade. States like Illinois had stopped executing death row inmates while reviewing their system, others like New Jersey have outright abolished the death penalty altogether.

New Jersey’s death penalty study “recommended that the death penalty be abolished and replaced with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.”

High costs of prosecuting death penalty cases, lack of evidence that the death penalty deters future crime, in addition to discrepancies in the racial component of death row inmates, have led many to begin questioning the effectiveness and ethical nature of a practice when alternatives such as life imprisonment without parole have been shown to be just as effective at getting dangerous criminals off the streets and away from places where they pose a threat to the public.

Unfortunately, as the ACLU points out, the California commission stopped short of the recommendations by the New Jersey Death Penalty study. However, these findings may renew efforts to either reform or abolish the death penalty in California in the coming years.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

52 thoughts on “Commission Finds Blacks Disportionately Face Death Penalty”

  1. Anonymous

    If we would invest more in job training, diversion programs, and re-entry programs, versus just building jails, our inmate problems would be much less. This comes back to the fact that our society likes to be reactionary, and punitive, rather than visionary and pro-active.

  2. Anonymous

    If we would invest more in job training, diversion programs, and re-entry programs, versus just building jails, our inmate problems would be much less. This comes back to the fact that our society likes to be reactionary, and punitive, rather than visionary and pro-active.

  3. Anonymous

    If we would invest more in job training, diversion programs, and re-entry programs, versus just building jails, our inmate problems would be much less. This comes back to the fact that our society likes to be reactionary, and punitive, rather than visionary and pro-active.

  4. Anonymous

    If we would invest more in job training, diversion programs, and re-entry programs, versus just building jails, our inmate problems would be much less. This comes back to the fact that our society likes to be reactionary, and punitive, rather than visionary and pro-active.

  5. Member of the Bar

    I am not as concerned about trying to somehow reform criminals so they will not reoffend. The statistics show that criminals are a hard nut to crack when it comes to turning their lives around. The better approach is to institute programs like “Scared Straight”, where hardened juvenile delinquents are taken into maximum security prisons and shown what their future will be if they don’t straighten up.

    The notion of “Restorative Justice” that is being instituted in states like Vermont, has resulted in pedophiles being sentenced to a few weeks in jail for vicious child rape. The notion of “Restorative Justice” is being pushed by George Soros, as he spreads his money around to destroy our existing institutions from within. Sorry, but I don’t care to legalize drugs or coddle criminals, experiments they are attempting in Europe, with little success.

    Having said that, obviously I believe in being tough on crime. Only problem is that I have seen some things locally that make my hair stand on end. I have observed overzealous police corner a suspect alone, using every dirty tactic in the book to try and wrest a confession. The person involved almost felt compelled to confess just to escape the situation, but managed to hang in there and withstand the pressure. A person of less emotional strength may not have been able to, yet would be no less innocent.

    In another situation, a defendent was charged with multiple felony counts, which the District Attorney could not make stick. In consequence, the defendent was urged to plead guilty to one misdemeanor, so law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office could “save face”. Had the defendent not plead guilty, s/he was threatened with having the full force of the DA’s Office and a protracted trial as ammunition to make the defendent cave to pressure. The defendent plead guilty – for something that would probably put 99% of the population in jail.

    The power that law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office wields is frightening. And they have a huge amount of discretion as to whether they pursue someone or not. In another situation I was involved in, the District Attorney’s Office would not pursue the case, even though what was going on was criminal.

    Law enforcement/District Attorneys are NOT inherently evil, but do exercise a good deal of discretion when it comes to deciding whether to go after someone for criminal charges. And sometimes they abuse that discretion. It truly bothers me to think that someone could lose their life because law enforcement or the DA’s office made a mistake or abused their discretion. Look at the most recent outcome of the Jon Benet Ramsey case as an example.

    I do not think the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, but it is applied in such a way as to question its fairness. As I mentioned before, the FBI put a father of four in jail, knowing he was a completely innocent man, to protect an informant. This same informant, while out free, killed three people. When Congressional hearings were held, to try and hold the FBI accountable for imprisoning innocent people, the FBI agent involved was not the least apologetic. The innocent father of four was released from jail 25 years after the fact, and testified before Congress. His heartrending account did not move the FBI agent before him one iota. To the FBI, the end justified the means.

    With that sort of thinking out there, I just cannot support the death penalty. Even one mistake is one mistake too many.

  6. Member of the Bar

    I am not as concerned about trying to somehow reform criminals so they will not reoffend. The statistics show that criminals are a hard nut to crack when it comes to turning their lives around. The better approach is to institute programs like “Scared Straight”, where hardened juvenile delinquents are taken into maximum security prisons and shown what their future will be if they don’t straighten up.

    The notion of “Restorative Justice” that is being instituted in states like Vermont, has resulted in pedophiles being sentenced to a few weeks in jail for vicious child rape. The notion of “Restorative Justice” is being pushed by George Soros, as he spreads his money around to destroy our existing institutions from within. Sorry, but I don’t care to legalize drugs or coddle criminals, experiments they are attempting in Europe, with little success.

    Having said that, obviously I believe in being tough on crime. Only problem is that I have seen some things locally that make my hair stand on end. I have observed overzealous police corner a suspect alone, using every dirty tactic in the book to try and wrest a confession. The person involved almost felt compelled to confess just to escape the situation, but managed to hang in there and withstand the pressure. A person of less emotional strength may not have been able to, yet would be no less innocent.

    In another situation, a defendent was charged with multiple felony counts, which the District Attorney could not make stick. In consequence, the defendent was urged to plead guilty to one misdemeanor, so law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office could “save face”. Had the defendent not plead guilty, s/he was threatened with having the full force of the DA’s Office and a protracted trial as ammunition to make the defendent cave to pressure. The defendent plead guilty – for something that would probably put 99% of the population in jail.

    The power that law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office wields is frightening. And they have a huge amount of discretion as to whether they pursue someone or not. In another situation I was involved in, the District Attorney’s Office would not pursue the case, even though what was going on was criminal.

    Law enforcement/District Attorneys are NOT inherently evil, but do exercise a good deal of discretion when it comes to deciding whether to go after someone for criminal charges. And sometimes they abuse that discretion. It truly bothers me to think that someone could lose their life because law enforcement or the DA’s office made a mistake or abused their discretion. Look at the most recent outcome of the Jon Benet Ramsey case as an example.

    I do not think the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, but it is applied in such a way as to question its fairness. As I mentioned before, the FBI put a father of four in jail, knowing he was a completely innocent man, to protect an informant. This same informant, while out free, killed three people. When Congressional hearings were held, to try and hold the FBI accountable for imprisoning innocent people, the FBI agent involved was not the least apologetic. The innocent father of four was released from jail 25 years after the fact, and testified before Congress. His heartrending account did not move the FBI agent before him one iota. To the FBI, the end justified the means.

    With that sort of thinking out there, I just cannot support the death penalty. Even one mistake is one mistake too many.

  7. Member of the Bar

    I am not as concerned about trying to somehow reform criminals so they will not reoffend. The statistics show that criminals are a hard nut to crack when it comes to turning their lives around. The better approach is to institute programs like “Scared Straight”, where hardened juvenile delinquents are taken into maximum security prisons and shown what their future will be if they don’t straighten up.

    The notion of “Restorative Justice” that is being instituted in states like Vermont, has resulted in pedophiles being sentenced to a few weeks in jail for vicious child rape. The notion of “Restorative Justice” is being pushed by George Soros, as he spreads his money around to destroy our existing institutions from within. Sorry, but I don’t care to legalize drugs or coddle criminals, experiments they are attempting in Europe, with little success.

    Having said that, obviously I believe in being tough on crime. Only problem is that I have seen some things locally that make my hair stand on end. I have observed overzealous police corner a suspect alone, using every dirty tactic in the book to try and wrest a confession. The person involved almost felt compelled to confess just to escape the situation, but managed to hang in there and withstand the pressure. A person of less emotional strength may not have been able to, yet would be no less innocent.

    In another situation, a defendent was charged with multiple felony counts, which the District Attorney could not make stick. In consequence, the defendent was urged to plead guilty to one misdemeanor, so law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office could “save face”. Had the defendent not plead guilty, s/he was threatened with having the full force of the DA’s Office and a protracted trial as ammunition to make the defendent cave to pressure. The defendent plead guilty – for something that would probably put 99% of the population in jail.

    The power that law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office wields is frightening. And they have a huge amount of discretion as to whether they pursue someone or not. In another situation I was involved in, the District Attorney’s Office would not pursue the case, even though what was going on was criminal.

    Law enforcement/District Attorneys are NOT inherently evil, but do exercise a good deal of discretion when it comes to deciding whether to go after someone for criminal charges. And sometimes they abuse that discretion. It truly bothers me to think that someone could lose their life because law enforcement or the DA’s office made a mistake or abused their discretion. Look at the most recent outcome of the Jon Benet Ramsey case as an example.

    I do not think the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, but it is applied in such a way as to question its fairness. As I mentioned before, the FBI put a father of four in jail, knowing he was a completely innocent man, to protect an informant. This same informant, while out free, killed three people. When Congressional hearings were held, to try and hold the FBI accountable for imprisoning innocent people, the FBI agent involved was not the least apologetic. The innocent father of four was released from jail 25 years after the fact, and testified before Congress. His heartrending account did not move the FBI agent before him one iota. To the FBI, the end justified the means.

    With that sort of thinking out there, I just cannot support the death penalty. Even one mistake is one mistake too many.

  8. Member of the Bar

    I am not as concerned about trying to somehow reform criminals so they will not reoffend. The statistics show that criminals are a hard nut to crack when it comes to turning their lives around. The better approach is to institute programs like “Scared Straight”, where hardened juvenile delinquents are taken into maximum security prisons and shown what their future will be if they don’t straighten up.

    The notion of “Restorative Justice” that is being instituted in states like Vermont, has resulted in pedophiles being sentenced to a few weeks in jail for vicious child rape. The notion of “Restorative Justice” is being pushed by George Soros, as he spreads his money around to destroy our existing institutions from within. Sorry, but I don’t care to legalize drugs or coddle criminals, experiments they are attempting in Europe, with little success.

    Having said that, obviously I believe in being tough on crime. Only problem is that I have seen some things locally that make my hair stand on end. I have observed overzealous police corner a suspect alone, using every dirty tactic in the book to try and wrest a confession. The person involved almost felt compelled to confess just to escape the situation, but managed to hang in there and withstand the pressure. A person of less emotional strength may not have been able to, yet would be no less innocent.

    In another situation, a defendent was charged with multiple felony counts, which the District Attorney could not make stick. In consequence, the defendent was urged to plead guilty to one misdemeanor, so law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office could “save face”. Had the defendent not plead guilty, s/he was threatened with having the full force of the DA’s Office and a protracted trial as ammunition to make the defendent cave to pressure. The defendent plead guilty – for something that would probably put 99% of the population in jail.

    The power that law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office wields is frightening. And they have a huge amount of discretion as to whether they pursue someone or not. In another situation I was involved in, the District Attorney’s Office would not pursue the case, even though what was going on was criminal.

    Law enforcement/District Attorneys are NOT inherently evil, but do exercise a good deal of discretion when it comes to deciding whether to go after someone for criminal charges. And sometimes they abuse that discretion. It truly bothers me to think that someone could lose their life because law enforcement or the DA’s office made a mistake or abused their discretion. Look at the most recent outcome of the Jon Benet Ramsey case as an example.

    I do not think the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, but it is applied in such a way as to question its fairness. As I mentioned before, the FBI put a father of four in jail, knowing he was a completely innocent man, to protect an informant. This same informant, while out free, killed three people. When Congressional hearings were held, to try and hold the FBI accountable for imprisoning innocent people, the FBI agent involved was not the least apologetic. The innocent father of four was released from jail 25 years after the fact, and testified before Congress. His heartrending account did not move the FBI agent before him one iota. To the FBI, the end justified the means.

    With that sort of thinking out there, I just cannot support the death penalty. Even one mistake is one mistake too many.

  9. Mike

    I don’t really care if their father’s didn’t love them enough, or if society didn’t give them enough attention, or if the system doesn’t cut them enough breaks…

    The single greatest preventative measure ever taken in our societies history in reducing crime rates was legalized abortion. Statistics bear this fact out as a direct correlation.

    Perhaps the republican administration should reconsider their stance on this crime-fighting tool.

  10. Mike

    I don’t really care if their father’s didn’t love them enough, or if society didn’t give them enough attention, or if the system doesn’t cut them enough breaks…

    The single greatest preventative measure ever taken in our societies history in reducing crime rates was legalized abortion. Statistics bear this fact out as a direct correlation.

    Perhaps the republican administration should reconsider their stance on this crime-fighting tool.

  11. Mike

    I don’t really care if their father’s didn’t love them enough, or if society didn’t give them enough attention, or if the system doesn’t cut them enough breaks…

    The single greatest preventative measure ever taken in our societies history in reducing crime rates was legalized abortion. Statistics bear this fact out as a direct correlation.

    Perhaps the republican administration should reconsider their stance on this crime-fighting tool.

  12. Mike

    I don’t really care if their father’s didn’t love them enough, or if society didn’t give them enough attention, or if the system doesn’t cut them enough breaks…

    The single greatest preventative measure ever taken in our societies history in reducing crime rates was legalized abortion. Statistics bear this fact out as a direct correlation.

    Perhaps the republican administration should reconsider their stance on this crime-fighting tool.

  13. Doug Paul Davis

    “Statistics bear this fact out as a direct correlation.”

    I remember the study, it was intriguing in some respects, but there are too many variables in the equation and some critical errors. What’s most notable looking at the crime data is that crime among youths for whatever reason soared for a ten year period up until 1996 when it then reversed course. Crime was fairly stable before and after this period. So to me, the most compelling question is what caused crime to rise during this time rather than what caused it to decline after that time.

  14. Doug Paul Davis

    “Statistics bear this fact out as a direct correlation.”

    I remember the study, it was intriguing in some respects, but there are too many variables in the equation and some critical errors. What’s most notable looking at the crime data is that crime among youths for whatever reason soared for a ten year period up until 1996 when it then reversed course. Crime was fairly stable before and after this period. So to me, the most compelling question is what caused crime to rise during this time rather than what caused it to decline after that time.

  15. Doug Paul Davis

    “Statistics bear this fact out as a direct correlation.”

    I remember the study, it was intriguing in some respects, but there are too many variables in the equation and some critical errors. What’s most notable looking at the crime data is that crime among youths for whatever reason soared for a ten year period up until 1996 when it then reversed course. Crime was fairly stable before and after this period. So to me, the most compelling question is what caused crime to rise during this time rather than what caused it to decline after that time.

  16. Doug Paul Davis

    “Statistics bear this fact out as a direct correlation.”

    I remember the study, it was intriguing in some respects, but there are too many variables in the equation and some critical errors. What’s most notable looking at the crime data is that crime among youths for whatever reason soared for a ten year period up until 1996 when it then reversed course. Crime was fairly stable before and after this period. So to me, the most compelling question is what caused crime to rise during this time rather than what caused it to decline after that time.

  17. Mike

    DPD- you are right that there was significant disagreement after the study about the long-term benefits of legalized abortion. The statistical fact that he “neglected” is the one anti-abortionists are most upset by; simply put, that abortion being available actually increased the incidence of pregnancies that had to be aborted. They are upset that people had more sex and thus got pregnant more often, thus having to increase the number of abortions. Once this phantom increase is accounted for they argue, the net impact is negligible from this “phantom generation” of unwanted children. I understand the argument, but don’t accept the position that anti-abortion folks have advanced. I feel quite comfortable with the basic direct statistics as opposed to the per-capita calculations they advance.

    Lets start with at least the basic position that it would be easier as a society to focus our efforts on children that their parents want and move on from there.

    It sounds from your article that later term abortions (18-30 years late) are pretty expensive…

  18. Mike

    DPD- you are right that there was significant disagreement after the study about the long-term benefits of legalized abortion. The statistical fact that he “neglected” is the one anti-abortionists are most upset by; simply put, that abortion being available actually increased the incidence of pregnancies that had to be aborted. They are upset that people had more sex and thus got pregnant more often, thus having to increase the number of abortions. Once this phantom increase is accounted for they argue, the net impact is negligible from this “phantom generation” of unwanted children. I understand the argument, but don’t accept the position that anti-abortion folks have advanced. I feel quite comfortable with the basic direct statistics as opposed to the per-capita calculations they advance.

    Lets start with at least the basic position that it would be easier as a society to focus our efforts on children that their parents want and move on from there.

    It sounds from your article that later term abortions (18-30 years late) are pretty expensive…

  19. Mike

    DPD- you are right that there was significant disagreement after the study about the long-term benefits of legalized abortion. The statistical fact that he “neglected” is the one anti-abortionists are most upset by; simply put, that abortion being available actually increased the incidence of pregnancies that had to be aborted. They are upset that people had more sex and thus got pregnant more often, thus having to increase the number of abortions. Once this phantom increase is accounted for they argue, the net impact is negligible from this “phantom generation” of unwanted children. I understand the argument, but don’t accept the position that anti-abortion folks have advanced. I feel quite comfortable with the basic direct statistics as opposed to the per-capita calculations they advance.

    Lets start with at least the basic position that it would be easier as a society to focus our efforts on children that their parents want and move on from there.

    It sounds from your article that later term abortions (18-30 years late) are pretty expensive…

  20. Mike

    DPD- you are right that there was significant disagreement after the study about the long-term benefits of legalized abortion. The statistical fact that he “neglected” is the one anti-abortionists are most upset by; simply put, that abortion being available actually increased the incidence of pregnancies that had to be aborted. They are upset that people had more sex and thus got pregnant more often, thus having to increase the number of abortions. Once this phantom increase is accounted for they argue, the net impact is negligible from this “phantom generation” of unwanted children. I understand the argument, but don’t accept the position that anti-abortion folks have advanced. I feel quite comfortable with the basic direct statistics as opposed to the per-capita calculations they advance.

    Lets start with at least the basic position that it would be easier as a society to focus our efforts on children that their parents want and move on from there.

    It sounds from your article that later term abortions (18-30 years late) are pretty expensive…

  21. public education

    “If we would invest more in job training, diversion programs, and re-entry programs, versus just building jails, our inmate problems would be much less. This comes back to the fact that our society likes to be reactionary, and punitive, rather than visionary and pro-active.”

    Or take a more serious look at how we fund and structure education. The 1980’s and early 90’s were some of the worst years for California education. In more recent years it has started to get a little better.

    Doing a poor job in public K-12 education is probably one of the more effective ways to raise the crime rate.

  22. public education

    “If we would invest more in job training, diversion programs, and re-entry programs, versus just building jails, our inmate problems would be much less. This comes back to the fact that our society likes to be reactionary, and punitive, rather than visionary and pro-active.”

    Or take a more serious look at how we fund and structure education. The 1980’s and early 90’s were some of the worst years for California education. In more recent years it has started to get a little better.

    Doing a poor job in public K-12 education is probably one of the more effective ways to raise the crime rate.

  23. public education

    “If we would invest more in job training, diversion programs, and re-entry programs, versus just building jails, our inmate problems would be much less. This comes back to the fact that our society likes to be reactionary, and punitive, rather than visionary and pro-active.”

    Or take a more serious look at how we fund and structure education. The 1980’s and early 90’s were some of the worst years for California education. In more recent years it has started to get a little better.

    Doing a poor job in public K-12 education is probably one of the more effective ways to raise the crime rate.

  24. public education

    “If we would invest more in job training, diversion programs, and re-entry programs, versus just building jails, our inmate problems would be much less. This comes back to the fact that our society likes to be reactionary, and punitive, rather than visionary and pro-active.”

    Or take a more serious look at how we fund and structure education. The 1980’s and early 90’s were some of the worst years for California education. In more recent years it has started to get a little better.

    Doing a poor job in public K-12 education is probably one of the more effective ways to raise the crime rate.

  25. Anonymous

    “It sounds from your article that later term abortions (18-30 years late) are pretty expensive…”

    Wow!!! a very good way to frame the issue. I’m impressed. If that framing were used more publicly and frequently, I think main stream conservatives (against abortion, for death penalty) would rethink their position.

  26. Anonymous

    “It sounds from your article that later term abortions (18-30 years late) are pretty expensive…”

    Wow!!! a very good way to frame the issue. I’m impressed. If that framing were used more publicly and frequently, I think main stream conservatives (against abortion, for death penalty) would rethink their position.

  27. Anonymous

    “It sounds from your article that later term abortions (18-30 years late) are pretty expensive…”

    Wow!!! a very good way to frame the issue. I’m impressed. If that framing were used more publicly and frequently, I think main stream conservatives (against abortion, for death penalty) would rethink their position.

  28. Anonymous

    “It sounds from your article that later term abortions (18-30 years late) are pretty expensive…”

    Wow!!! a very good way to frame the issue. I’m impressed. If that framing were used more publicly and frequently, I think main stream conservatives (against abortion, for death penalty) would rethink their position.

  29. Anonymous

    The simple fact is that we should not look at crime and punishment on a racial basis. However when you look at black children in the U.S. about 70% don’t have a father.

    When you examine the crime in Sacramento more than 80% plus of the felonies committed there are done by gang members. Mostly the children of illegal mexican immigrants. Most of these young criminals don’t have a father either,(he went back to mexico after a few years and left mom and kids to fend for themselves).

    There is no question that minorities commit a huge proportion of crimes compared to their numbers. What does that have to do with anything? So race should be ignored in any criminal case and the victim(s) and nature of the crime be put first.

    It takes far too long to execute a convicted murderer in Calif. Those delays belong to the poor legal process, self serving attorneys,(most of them), and of course the often clueless aclu.

    If they were executed in a timely manner we would’nt be paying the high dollar amount. If those potential candidates for death row could see an efficient and quick process it would deter them, and save money.

    It only works if you use it properly. And most of all don’t forget the hundreds of thousands of victims the criminal garbage caused a lifetime of grief for.

  30. Anonymous

    The simple fact is that we should not look at crime and punishment on a racial basis. However when you look at black children in the U.S. about 70% don’t have a father.

    When you examine the crime in Sacramento more than 80% plus of the felonies committed there are done by gang members. Mostly the children of illegal mexican immigrants. Most of these young criminals don’t have a father either,(he went back to mexico after a few years and left mom and kids to fend for themselves).

    There is no question that minorities commit a huge proportion of crimes compared to their numbers. What does that have to do with anything? So race should be ignored in any criminal case and the victim(s) and nature of the crime be put first.

    It takes far too long to execute a convicted murderer in Calif. Those delays belong to the poor legal process, self serving attorneys,(most of them), and of course the often clueless aclu.

    If they were executed in a timely manner we would’nt be paying the high dollar amount. If those potential candidates for death row could see an efficient and quick process it would deter them, and save money.

    It only works if you use it properly. And most of all don’t forget the hundreds of thousands of victims the criminal garbage caused a lifetime of grief for.

  31. Anonymous

    The simple fact is that we should not look at crime and punishment on a racial basis. However when you look at black children in the U.S. about 70% don’t have a father.

    When you examine the crime in Sacramento more than 80% plus of the felonies committed there are done by gang members. Mostly the children of illegal mexican immigrants. Most of these young criminals don’t have a father either,(he went back to mexico after a few years and left mom and kids to fend for themselves).

    There is no question that minorities commit a huge proportion of crimes compared to their numbers. What does that have to do with anything? So race should be ignored in any criminal case and the victim(s) and nature of the crime be put first.

    It takes far too long to execute a convicted murderer in Calif. Those delays belong to the poor legal process, self serving attorneys,(most of them), and of course the often clueless aclu.

    If they were executed in a timely manner we would’nt be paying the high dollar amount. If those potential candidates for death row could see an efficient and quick process it would deter them, and save money.

    It only works if you use it properly. And most of all don’t forget the hundreds of thousands of victims the criminal garbage caused a lifetime of grief for.

  32. Anonymous

    The simple fact is that we should not look at crime and punishment on a racial basis. However when you look at black children in the U.S. about 70% don’t have a father.

    When you examine the crime in Sacramento more than 80% plus of the felonies committed there are done by gang members. Mostly the children of illegal mexican immigrants. Most of these young criminals don’t have a father either,(he went back to mexico after a few years and left mom and kids to fend for themselves).

    There is no question that minorities commit a huge proportion of crimes compared to their numbers. What does that have to do with anything? So race should be ignored in any criminal case and the victim(s) and nature of the crime be put first.

    It takes far too long to execute a convicted murderer in Calif. Those delays belong to the poor legal process, self serving attorneys,(most of them), and of course the often clueless aclu.

    If they were executed in a timely manner we would’nt be paying the high dollar amount. If those potential candidates for death row could see an efficient and quick process it would deter them, and save money.

    It only works if you use it properly. And most of all don’t forget the hundreds of thousands of victims the criminal garbage caused a lifetime of grief for.

  33. Anonymous

    ‘member of the bar’ proves my point about the punitive nature of conservatives.
    yes, George Soros is trying to destroy American, right….not that all the right-wing nutjob.com ‘think tanks’ and Rupert Murdoch aren’t a million times more destructive to our society than one person funding progressive agendas.
    More like moron of the bar.

  34. Anonymous

    ‘member of the bar’ proves my point about the punitive nature of conservatives.
    yes, George Soros is trying to destroy American, right….not that all the right-wing nutjob.com ‘think tanks’ and Rupert Murdoch aren’t a million times more destructive to our society than one person funding progressive agendas.
    More like moron of the bar.

  35. Anonymous

    ‘member of the bar’ proves my point about the punitive nature of conservatives.
    yes, George Soros is trying to destroy American, right….not that all the right-wing nutjob.com ‘think tanks’ and Rupert Murdoch aren’t a million times more destructive to our society than one person funding progressive agendas.
    More like moron of the bar.

  36. Anonymous

    ‘member of the bar’ proves my point about the punitive nature of conservatives.
    yes, George Soros is trying to destroy American, right….not that all the right-wing nutjob.com ‘think tanks’ and Rupert Murdoch aren’t a million times more destructive to our society than one person funding progressive agendas.
    More like moron of the bar.

  37. Anonymous

    To prevent Blacks from disportionately facing the death penalty. we should promote abortions so that potential ” criminals” are not even born? Wow! I mean correct me if I am missing the gist of this specific response to the issue.
    However, it appears that social eugenics is the answer to the disportionate numbers.
    How about looking at the disparities in the systems that historically perpetuated the disintegration of the black family (yes I am going all the way back there). Perhaps, you also need to be reminded that the Civil Rights Act was passed in 64 and Brown and the Board of Education in 54; that there was (and still is) widespread racial discrimination in the schools (children receive a quality of education based on where they reside); employment and housing(steering still exists); law enforecement (profiling and harassment) and judicial systems (harsher sentences for men of color).Wow…..
    How about showing children that they are worth something and providing them a fair share of the opportunities so that they can excel? How about acknowledging that the disparity is not caused by a gene or only by an impoverished background. How about the reality that many children of middle and upper middle socioeconomic status have parents who can-and do-pay their way out of trouble.

  38. Anonymous

    To prevent Blacks from disportionately facing the death penalty. we should promote abortions so that potential ” criminals” are not even born? Wow! I mean correct me if I am missing the gist of this specific response to the issue.
    However, it appears that social eugenics is the answer to the disportionate numbers.
    How about looking at the disparities in the systems that historically perpetuated the disintegration of the black family (yes I am going all the way back there). Perhaps, you also need to be reminded that the Civil Rights Act was passed in 64 and Brown and the Board of Education in 54; that there was (and still is) widespread racial discrimination in the schools (children receive a quality of education based on where they reside); employment and housing(steering still exists); law enforecement (profiling and harassment) and judicial systems (harsher sentences for men of color).Wow…..
    How about showing children that they are worth something and providing them a fair share of the opportunities so that they can excel? How about acknowledging that the disparity is not caused by a gene or only by an impoverished background. How about the reality that many children of middle and upper middle socioeconomic status have parents who can-and do-pay their way out of trouble.

  39. Anonymous

    To prevent Blacks from disportionately facing the death penalty. we should promote abortions so that potential ” criminals” are not even born? Wow! I mean correct me if I am missing the gist of this specific response to the issue.
    However, it appears that social eugenics is the answer to the disportionate numbers.
    How about looking at the disparities in the systems that historically perpetuated the disintegration of the black family (yes I am going all the way back there). Perhaps, you also need to be reminded that the Civil Rights Act was passed in 64 and Brown and the Board of Education in 54; that there was (and still is) widespread racial discrimination in the schools (children receive a quality of education based on where they reside); employment and housing(steering still exists); law enforecement (profiling and harassment) and judicial systems (harsher sentences for men of color).Wow…..
    How about showing children that they are worth something and providing them a fair share of the opportunities so that they can excel? How about acknowledging that the disparity is not caused by a gene or only by an impoverished background. How about the reality that many children of middle and upper middle socioeconomic status have parents who can-and do-pay their way out of trouble.

  40. Anonymous

    To prevent Blacks from disportionately facing the death penalty. we should promote abortions so that potential ” criminals” are not even born? Wow! I mean correct me if I am missing the gist of this specific response to the issue.
    However, it appears that social eugenics is the answer to the disportionate numbers.
    How about looking at the disparities in the systems that historically perpetuated the disintegration of the black family (yes I am going all the way back there). Perhaps, you also need to be reminded that the Civil Rights Act was passed in 64 and Brown and the Board of Education in 54; that there was (and still is) widespread racial discrimination in the schools (children receive a quality of education based on where they reside); employment and housing(steering still exists); law enforecement (profiling and harassment) and judicial systems (harsher sentences for men of color).Wow…..
    How about showing children that they are worth something and providing them a fair share of the opportunities so that they can excel? How about acknowledging that the disparity is not caused by a gene or only by an impoverished background. How about the reality that many children of middle and upper middle socioeconomic status have parents who can-and do-pay their way out of trouble.

  41. Anonymous

    “How about showing children that they are worth something and providing them a fair share of the opportunities so that they can excel? How about acknowledging that the disparity is not caused by a gene or only by an impoverished background. How about the reality that many children of middle and upper middle socioeconomic status have parents who can-and do-pay their way out of trouble.”

    Adequate and stable funding for public education would help a lot here.

  42. Anonymous

    “How about showing children that they are worth something and providing them a fair share of the opportunities so that they can excel? How about acknowledging that the disparity is not caused by a gene or only by an impoverished background. How about the reality that many children of middle and upper middle socioeconomic status have parents who can-and do-pay their way out of trouble.”

    Adequate and stable funding for public education would help a lot here.

  43. Anonymous

    “How about showing children that they are worth something and providing them a fair share of the opportunities so that they can excel? How about acknowledging that the disparity is not caused by a gene or only by an impoverished background. How about the reality that many children of middle and upper middle socioeconomic status have parents who can-and do-pay their way out of trouble.”

    Adequate and stable funding for public education would help a lot here.

  44. Anonymous

    “How about showing children that they are worth something and providing them a fair share of the opportunities so that they can excel? How about acknowledging that the disparity is not caused by a gene or only by an impoverished background. How about the reality that many children of middle and upper middle socioeconomic status have parents who can-and do-pay their way out of trouble.”

    Adequate and stable funding for public education would help a lot here.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for