| Woogie Man | 07-07-2011 06:35 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseylovestosho
(Post 3588838)
I'm sorry, but your information is outdated. The sources show that they are from 1997. These are more current: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf What you need to understand is that the people are more likely to be put on death row for murdering a white person versus a non-white. That is the crucial information your are missing: Over 75% of the murder victims in cases resulting in an execution were white,
even though nationally only 50% of murder victims generally are white. A study in California found that those who killed whites were over 3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who
killed blacks and over 4 times more likely than those who killed Latinos. (Pierce & Radelet, Santa Clara Law Review 2005)
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Woogie Man
(Post 3588906)
This is really an inappropriate pursuit, IMO. Statistics can be interpreted in so many ways. The raw data you're putting up is very misleading.
Why point out the % of white victims in death penalty cases vs all murders of whites as a %? Obviously, not all murders are death penalty cases. There usually has to be some aggravating factor, such as murder in the commission of another crime.
Also, the comparison of those being executed more often for killing whites than others is misleading. Though there is far more black on black crime as a whole, the conviction rate is less for these crimes often due to lack of cooperation by witnesses.
While racism is not dead, it affects death penalty (really all) cases less than you imply IMO. The biggest factor is money...as in we have the best justice system that money can buy. Defendants relying on Public Defenders are convicted at a much higher rate than those that can afford good council.
I have no idea why this has been brought up, except for the mentioning of Casey being a 'pretty white girl'. OJ was not a pretty white girl, but he had excellent lawyers.
Frankly, I'm a little offended by the mention of all this. It had nothing to do with this trial, so why bring it up?
| Quote:
Originally Posted by roseylovestosho
(Post 3589024)
I don't think presenting statistics is inappropriate. You can go back and read everything that I said so that you don't feel so offended. I didn't disagree with anything the previous poster said, again if you had read. I copy pasted certain parts of the statistics because I wanted to emphasize certain points that I wanted to discuss with another poster...if I wanted to not provide all of the statistics presented there I could have simply not provided the link. If you go back a couple of posts, you would have read that I pleaded that my comments regarding race/ethnicity not offend anyone I wanted other people's input, which many people respectfully provided. Another poster provided statistics from 1997 and all I said was that it was outdated and I provided her with a more recent link that provides more recent figures, and I pointed out a statistics that I think is important to consider when evaluating it.
I would also like to add that I'm in a PhD program in which our research is solely based on statistical analysis and I know very well that statistics can be interpreted in different ways. Quite frankly I'm offended that you didn't read all of my posts before saying that what I brought up was "innapropriate" because I took great care into asking and making sure people understand what I was asking/why I was asking and that I meant to not offend anyone.
| I don't understand why you addressed my post to you by quoting a post I made to someone else rather than the one I directed at you. So, for clarity, I'm including my post that you are obviously responding to, along with your post that my comments were directed at.
What I bolded and underlined in your first quoted post is what I mean about this being inappropriate and offensive. You not only provide misleading data, you draw a conclusion and say that is what needs to be understood. That is your conclusion, not necessarily anyone else's. We are all adults here and don't need to be told what to think.
You're also assuming I didn't read other posts before commenting. Not true. Why do you think I would be less offended by reading more anyway? Another flawed conclusion. It still doesn't change what you said and the condescending manner in which you said it, so, your apparent assumption that I would have said something different just doesn't cut it. You revealed some sort of agenda by pointing out what you think needs to be understood, a feeling not shared by all. It may be your opinion, but it doesn't go any further than that.
I don't believe that one can post something offensive and ask that no one be offended by it, which is what you are doing. It really is a simple thing and doesn't need a third degree to be understood. The data is argumentative and your tone is condescending, a tone which you have carried over into your reply to me. We're not dummies here and are perfectly capable of comprehension.
Hope this is not too much of a rant, everyone, but I don't like personal agendas shoved down my throat and I don't like being talked down to.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread :). | 