DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Death penalty for drug dealers? Count Trump in

AND imagine the death sentence for drug dealers for a moment, do you think there is an ethnic group or two that might become targets?

I like the phrasing too, "targets"....almost like your saying the minority drug dealers will be victims.

Does it matter? If they are selling drugs, black white yellow brown they all should go down. (yes I intended that to rhyme).

I like the phrasing too, "targets"....almost like your saying the minority drug dealers will be victims.

Unfortunately, it's usually poor folks who get screwed in the justice system. I'm not sure if I buy into the outright racist thing, but poor folks get screwed.


DEA agent two towns over from me, in his 40's gets busted stealing heroin and pain killers from the evidence lockers in Fairfield CT.

Yet, I guarantee he won't get a harsh sentence. Not the same sentence that an 19 year old kid with no father, living in the projects, using a public defender would.

I know that.



So IMO, this doesn't work until we have real justice system reform, so that everyone is treated equally in our courts

Really? OMG. It's not the drug dealers I'm worried about. It's the 1 in 4 black males and whatever percentage of latino males that get charged and sent to prison for things white males get away with every day! You seriously don't think this would horribly impact communities of color? Now who is being naive.

Unfortunately, it's usually poor folks who get screwed in the justice system. I'm not sure if I buy into the outright racist thing, but poor folks get screwed.

DEA agent two towns over from me, in his 40's gets busted stealing heroin and pain killers from the evidence lockers in Fairfield CT.

Yet, I guarantee he won't get a harsh sentence. Not the same sentence that an 19 year old kid with no father, living in the projects, using a public defender would.

I know that.

It's the 1 in 4 black males and whatever percentage of latino males that get charged and sent to prison for things white males get away with every day!

Same crime should be the same time, no matter what. For some reason I don't think you feel the same.

+1

I think ALL drug dealers should get sentenced, don't care what color they are. You seem to be arguing that because white guys less a sentence, that the black/latino guys should go free. It doesn't work that way.

I am not familiar with the case, so I don't think its prudent to really respond.

I'll tell you what's going to happen to this guy, absolutely nothing. Just like what happened to the Governor of Connecticut's son when he got busted for robbing someone for drugs (and in turn gets probation).

Meanwhile, my buddy, poor kid, mother died of AIDS when he was 9, grew up in the projects with no father. He does the same exact crime and gets years of jail time.

said he got the idea from the leaders of China and Singapore.

Cant be angry about something that hasn't happened yet. I am not privy to the evidence, so I cannot make a determination. He was arrested though, so it seems that the system is working thus far in this particular case. Cannot comment until it goes along further. Keep us updated, I am very interested in following this. Feel free to PM me, since I don't think its national news.

Did he not deserve the time he got? He was found guilty, and senentenced. That is the point I am making, this kid chose to sell drugs, he knew what he was doing was illegal, and new people are dying from what he was selling. Sorry, but he deserves every day he received.

If death penalty is also on the table for opioid prescribers, then I might be swayed to be on board...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/11/health/prescription-opioid-payments-eprise/index.html

He got arrested, because he was caught and there's no way the police could look the other way.

Did he deserve what he got? I don't know. He's like a brother to me.

I can say that he's living a very successful life right now. And when other folks have been essentially given second chances, he was given none.

He worked his butt off to get where he's at, and I think if you knew him, you'd be impressed.

But my point is, in a world where everyone isn't dealt the same hand in a card game, at least make the rules equal for all. And they aren't.

Would you not understand him feeling pretty bitter seeing how he gets treated in the justice system verses others?

Two people go to court for the same crime. One gets nothing, the other gets the full punishment. Does this make sense?

Why should one person get treated different than another in the eyes of justice?

Thank you for the talk again, I enjoyed it.

J/C

I fail to understand why a proclaimed Christian nation allows the death penalty.

What happened to loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, etc.

Yet let’s argue the “sanctity of life” with abortions? Double standard, yo!

J/C

I fail to understand why a proclaimed Christian nation allows the death penalty.

What happened to loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, etc.

Yet let’s argue the “sanctity of life” with abortions? Double standard, yo!

J/C

I fail to understand why a proclaimed Christian nation allows the death penalty.

What happened to loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, etc.

Yet let’s argue the “sanctity of life” with abortions? Double standard, yo!

Absolutely, I don't think we'll come to an agreement on this. Both points have been made, and it's just a disagreement on principles. But that's fair.

But at least there's been a successful debate without things going to far or becoming personal

Willie and Petey, props on the exchange. It's refreshing to read.

I'll admit there are inequities in the legal system, some real, some perceived. I think the biggest barrier to solving the problem is a real lack of critical analysis of the issue. It's a very complex issue but what we often see is overly simplified conclusions that are trotted out as "proof", but ignore the bulk of how we get to that point.

For example, and I'm not picking on OCD or trying to call him out, just using a post he made as an example. He said that 1 in 4 people are going to be unfairly targeted and subjected to the system (or something to that effect.. I paraphrase).

In of itself that may be the data point, but it's not enough to simply state that and say it's proof of anything. It's too overly simplified to be able to stand on it's own and it be readily apparent what exactly the problem is.

-it ignores things like recitivism
-it ignores things like guilty pleas to drug offenses in order to avoid conviction on more serious offenses
-it ignores things like what the community actuallywants? The focus is often on the guy getting jammed up for loitering and having a little weed in his pocket. But what do you tell the residents and store owners who don't want them there and actually want the cops to enforce those laws?
-it ignores concepts like geography and proximity. I'll use the Chicago example to illustrate this point because we are all familiar with it. Last year nearly 500 people were killed, and another 2000 were victims of crimes that the could have been killed but lived. Most of these people will be minorities, both suspect and victim. Geographically speaking, you have to cover probably multiple states in order to get equivalent numbers from other demographics. And before anyone jumps my ass about it, no, I'm not saying anyone group is more violent or some such BS. I'm just pointing out that geography and proximity to crimes is what is going to require the higher concentration of police resources.

*Now just how those police resources are deployed and implemented is absolutely a relevant and important conversation to have. But that too is a complex issue that requires critical analysis.

That list is by no means complete, and different points are going to be more or less important to different people. But again, it's a complex issue. We have to guard against minimizing the another person's viewpoint simply because it isn't one we care about or subjectively think is irrelevant.

Willie- You make some very valid points that in many of these cases, the fact remains they still committed the crime. One of the concerns often expressed is whether or not defendants have proper and effective legal representation. The view is often that just because you have money, you're going to go free. I;m not sure I understand that particular gripe. I mean, I get that people are upset someone like OJ gets off, but on the same token they want other people who have (likely) committed heinous crimes to have access to their own version of Johnny Cochran.

First, I can tell you guys from witnessing it every month, even your privately retained defense attorneys spend most of their time in court arranging plea deals.

Second, you have to remember that most of your lawyers in the Public Defenders Office are young and inexperienced. Which given the fact that most of the cases they deal with are lower level offenses that aren't all that tricky to prosecute, may be a nominal issue.

But for the more serious offenses?

A possible solution I've batted around in my head is to have a group of private attorneys enter in to contract with the State. Any capital punishment or similar level cases would tap this group of people instead of the Public Defenders Office. These guys likely aren't going to do the case Pro Bono, but either a contract rate can be negotiated OR maybe that attorney/law office could write off what they bill for that case in that years taxes. Something. That group can be renewed or re-negotiated periodically and maybe there's a way to have a minimum standard so you aren't getting any schmuck attorney signing up. I think this solves a couple issues: ensuring the defendant has competent legal council and also fulfills the obligations of the State to provide a defense attorney.


Petey, man I'm not sure what to say about your experience. The thing about ethics is that it requires all involved to hold themselves to it. I'm not quite sure what to do with the "buddy buddy" stuff. I've also seen in my own county where a judge was removed from the bench and the lawyer was disbarred and did some jail time for their buddy buddy shenanigans.

Above I talked about the importance of critical analysis. I'd be concerned that someone might say "Well Petey, you experience is anecdotal and therefor isn't relevant because that's not how the system is as a whole". That would be a wrong to say. The vast majority of people are going to only a minimal experience with the legal system, if at all. There's no reason for you to believe the system is any different simply because some tells you. I wouldn't. But even if your experience is minimal or "anecdotal" it still provides great value because someone like you is going to be more apt to ask questions from the viewpoint of an "outside observer" so to speak. Questions that say someone like me may not think to ask or even take for granted being involved as I am with the system. Your skepticism is going to push for more thoughtful answers and accountability.

But we are all going to have to be willing to accept that no matter what position we take, we're going to hear things we aren't going to like. It's that moment when conversations tend to fly off the rails.

Does it matter? If they are selling drugs, black white yellow brown they all should go down. (yes I intended that to rhyme).

I like the phrasing too, "targets"....almost like your saying the minority drug dealers will be victims.

doesn't the bible state eye for an eye?

It might sound like an eye for an eye justifies harsh and exacting retribution in the eyes of God - but that is not the actual meaning or intent.

A possible solution I've batted around in my head is to have a group of private attorneys enter in to contract with the State. Any capital punishment or similar level cases would tap this group of people instead of the Public Defenders Office.

The bible does say an eye for an eye - but it is actually a restriction of personal retaliation or retribution. It's intention is to limit compensation or sentencing - "only an eye for an eye" "tooth for a tooth" etc. You don't get to take an eye for someone knocking out your tooth. You don't get to take a life because someone put you in a wheelchair....

The same quote is used to actually encourage turning the other cheek:

Matthew 5:38-48 New International Version (NIV)
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

It might sound like an eye for an eye justifies harsh and exacting retribution in the eyes of God - but that is not the actual meaning or intent.