Victor ceuz: Calls for? Predicts? Zimmerman's death

[Jaric]

I don't really care. We're going to keep using it as long as it keeps working.

popcorn

Hush before I oppress you.

:Fart:

 

[Michigan Dave]

It comes into play because I said, "there is always a gap between races in whatever justice statistic I look at."

If all white juries convict blacks at higher percentages, that has nothing to do with economic factors, which you implied in your previous post.


Except the stats .:shrug_n:

That, and a basic understanding US History and criminal justice.

I'd say that the argument you're advancing here lacks that basic understanding. I'm also at a loss for where all white juries come into play.

 

[MAYHEM]

I'd say that the argument you're advancing here lacks that basic understanding.

It's your argument that the discrepancy between justice is based on "demographic make-up" of areas with high crime.

Perhaps you should better explain what it is you mean.

If you look at the areas with the highest concentration of crime, and the demographic make-up of those areas, for example, you have a huge head start in the numbers.

What numbers are you talking about? Conviction rates? If you are not implying economic factors being a reason why conviction rates are higher, then what are you implying?

The only numbers I brought up were that "73 percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white."

I'm also at a loss for where all white juries come into play.

I assumed you were bringing up demographic data for a reason. Demographic data is race/income/housing cost/ect. My point was that white juries convict blacks at higher rates than multi-racial juries, and that cannot be explained by economic factors.

 

[Jaric]

Mayhem, 90% of the time the person killing the black man is another black man. So where is the racism?

 

[Jaric]

Also, simply showing conviction rates proves nothing. If you want to argue that race is the reason you need to show wrongful conviction rates.

 

[MAYHEM]

Also, simply showing conviction rates proves nothing. If you want to argue that race is the reason you need to show wrongful conviction rates.

The use of DNA evidence showed a large discrepancy in wrongful convictions.

 

[duckstruck]

Can you tell me what percentage of whites rallied and rioted after OJ was acquitted compared to the percentage of blacks that are rallying and rioting with the Zimmerman acquittal?

 

[Michigan Dave]

It's your argument that the discrepancy between justice is based on "demographic make-up" of areas with high crime.

Perhaps you should better explain what it is you mean.

What numbers are you talking about? Conviction rates? If you are not implying economic factors being a reason why conviction rates are higher, then what are you implying?

The only numbers I brought up were that "73 percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white."


I assumed you were bringing up demographic data for a reason. Demographic data is race/income/housing cost/ect. My point was that white juries convict blacks at higher rates than multi-racial juries, and that cannot be explained by economic factors.

We'll break it down into simpler terms to convey that point. Here are Detroit's 2011/2012 crime statistics:

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/20493948/detroit-crime-stats-411-homicides-in-2012

It states that there were 377 homicides in Detroit in 2011.

Here is the 2010 Detroit Census data:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2622000.html

82.7% of the city was Black or African American.

Now, 377 homicides doesn't mean 377 convictions. But for the sake of making this easy, let's just say it was a perfect world and 1 for 1 conviction rate. If the conviction rate was proportionate to the demographics of the city, that would be 311 convictions of Black or African Americans.

This is the 2011 Michigan State Crime report. This indicates that there were 659 homicides in the state (add 9001, 9002, 9004 together).

If we just pretended that the homicides in Detroit were committed at a rate proportionate to the city's demographics, and EVERY OTHER HOMICIDE was committed by a non-Black or African-American, you would have 47.9% of the homicides in the state committed by a person who was Black or African American.

This is the 2010 Michigan census data:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html

This states that only 14.3% of the state is Black or African American. Which, on it's face, would translate to a grossly disproportionate amount of Michigan's homicides being committed by members of that demographic (state statistics would predict only about 95/659 homicides being committed by members of that demographic). In reality, the statistics need to be weighted to reflect the demographics of the communities in which the crimes are committed.

I know this is a bit skewed, but it represents why numbers need to be weighted. And if you're really going to analyze crime statistics, though, you need to remove convictions as a result of a plea deal, those where there was overwhelming evidence or a confession, and really compare apples to apples based on the facts of the case, how similar cases with similar jury makeup and fact patterns were decided, etc.

There's a lot to it. It's ignorant to say that there's never any bias or that prejudice doesn't play into the system--sadly it does. But I don't think it's the norm and I think it's ignorant to throw out a blanket statement about "white juries" without qualifying where, when, facts, selection, jury pool, etc. and without knowing how the juries were chosen. For example, if a person is convicted in West Bloomfield (an affluent suburb of Detroit) it is more likely than not that the jury will be mostly white. If there's an all white jury in Detroit, it would raise eyebrows.

Not to mention, multi-racial juries are more likely to be sitting in areas with a higher rate of crime (unfortunately, the most diverse areas are usually urban areas with more crime) and there's going to be both more convictions and more acquittals, diluting the conviction percentage.

 

[Michigan Dave]

Can you tell me what percentage of whites rallied and rioted after OJ was acquitted compared to the percentage of blacks that are rallying and rioting with the Zimmerman acquittal?

When whites are a historically repressed minority, this will be an apt comparison.

 

[PatsFanLisa]

I think high price Lawyering has it's advantages. not saying it will win you every case but I will say it gives you better odds.

Here's the reality, Mikie. The highest-priced lawyers working for the best law firms in the country are the smartest lawyers. They got A's in law school, or went to Ivy League law schools, or made Law Review, perhaps clerked for a judge for a period of time, or interned at the best law firms. They're high priced for a reason.

And the ones that went to New England School of Law work for the D.A.'s office. They weren't the best in school, didn't make Law Review, didn't go to Harvard Law or Columbia Law or Michigan Law. They just got by and were lucky to pass the bar exam.

So it's not that the high-priced lawyers give you better odds; it's that they're the smartest and, therefore, do not have to work in the bowels of some district attorney's office making a pittance.

Also, to HSanders:

Falcons receiver Roddy White, who rarely bites his tongue, sounded off loudly on Twitter. ”F–king Zimmerman got away with murder today wow what kind of world do we live in,” White said. ”All them jurors should go home tonight and kill themselves for letting a grown man get away with killing a kid.”

What kind of world do we live in, Roddy? The kind where you get to make millions of dollars to play a game as an adult.

 

[midgar8784]

Can you tell me what percentage of whites rallied and rioted after OJ was acquitted compared to the percentage of blacks that are rallying and rioting with the Zimmerman acquittal?

Well, you are kinda right, but two different cases....and whites are not exactly a minority group that has been repressed for a number of years either. I think people got upset and overreacted because you heard unarmed 17 year old shot by guy who was following him when he did nothing wrong. people are going to react to that no matter what color, now, from there you have to get facts, in this case, there was not enough to say he broke the law so he was not convicted, but that might not end it for some who still think an injustice was done...and thats just how it is. I think Zimmerman was an idiot and wrong, but if there is not enough to convict him on, then you can't.

 

[dchester]

Here's the reality, Mikie. The highest-priced lawyers working for the best law firms in the country are the smartest lawyers. They got A's in law school, or went to Ivy League law schools, or made Law Review, perhaps clerked for a judge for a period of time, or interned at the best law firms. They're high priced for a reason.

And the ones that went to New England School of Law work for the D.A.'s office. They weren't the best in school, didn't make Law Review, didn't go to Harvard Law or Columbia Law or Michigan Law. They just got by and were lucky to pass the bar exam.

So it's not that the high-priced lawyers give you better odds; it's that they're the smartest and, therefore, do not have to work in the bowels of some district attorney's office making a pittance.

Also, to HSanders:


What kind of world do we live in, Roddy? The kind where you get to make millions of dollars to play a game as an adult.

Are you saying that the best, brightest, smartest lawyers don't give you a better chance to win than than some dimwit who had to take the bar exam several times before he passed, (and that MD is not worth what he charges for his services)?

 

[chevss454]

Can you tell me what percentage of whites rallied and rioted after OJ was acquitted compared to the percentage of blacks that are rallying and rioting with the Zimmerman acquittal?

Is there maybe another forum where this kind of discussion might fit better than here in the football forum?

:shrug:

 

[PatsFanLisa]

Are you saying that the best, brightest, smartest lawyers don't give you a better chance to win than than some dimwit who had to take the bar exam several times before he passed, (and that MD is not worth what he charges for his services)?

That's pretty much it it a nutshell. You pay the price for having the brightest. Wouldn't you rather have the physician that graduated Harvard Med. School cum laude, interned at Johns Hopkins, and practices at Mass. General than the kid that couldn't get into med school in the US, so he enrolled in U. of Grenada Med. School, came back here to practice and couldn't get board certified, so he hung out a shingle? Pretty much the same thing with lawyers.

And FWIW, as arrogant and smug as he is, and as much as it pains me to say this, MD is actually extremely intelligent, sharp witted, has a mind like a steel trap, and thinks very quickly, and could probably be a partner by now at Ropes & Gray had he not chosen corporate law. The fact that he dresses like Sonny Crockett and pretends he's Don Draper shouldn't be held against him.

 

[Michigan Dave]

That's pretty much it it a nutshell. You pay the price for having the brightest. Wouldn't you rather have the physician that graduated Harvard Med. School cum laude, interned at Johns Hopkins, and practices at Mass. General than the kid that couldn't get into med school in the US, so he enrolled in U. of Grenada Med. School, came back here to practice and couldn't get board certified, so he hung out a shingle? Pretty much the same thing with lawyers.

And FWIW, as arrogant and smug as he is, and as much as it pains me to say this, MD is actually extremely intelligent, sharp witted, has a mind like a steel trap, and thinks very quickly, and could probably be a partner by now at Ropes & Gray had he not chosen corporate law. The fact that he dresses like Sonny Crockett and pretends he's Don Draper shouldn't be held against him.

It's true that MD's awesomeness knows no bounds.

 

[PatsFanLisa]

It's true that MD's awesomeness knows no bounds.

Right on cue.

ROFL

 

[dchester]

That's pretty much it it a nutshell. You pay the price for having the brightest. Wouldn't you rather have the physician that graduated Harvard Med. School cum laude, interned at Johns Hopkins, and practices at Mass. General than the kid that couldn't get into med school in the US, so he enrolled in U. of Grenada Med. School, came back here to practice and couldn't get board certified, so he hung out a shingle? Pretty much the same thing with lawyers.

So now you seem to be agreeing with me, that the best and brightest doctors give you a better chance for living, just like the best and brightest lawyers give you a better chance of winning.

 

[Michigan Dave]

So now you seem to be agreeing with me, that the best and brightest doctors give you a better chance for living, just like the best and brightest lawyers give you a better chance of winning.

I'd hope so.

Otherwise, we'll have Lisa start the "replace Brady with Skelton" movement.

 

[PatsFanLisa]

So now you seem to be agreeing with me, that the best and brightest doctors give you a better chance for living, just like the best and brightest lawyers give you a better chance of winning.

Yes, of course. The point is that some people claim things like money can buy you the best defense, as though that was an issue. Isn't that what you would want? I mean, whose going to say, hell no, I can afford it but I want the cheapest lawyer possible and take my chances.

I'd hope so.

Otherwise, we'll have Lisa start the "replace Brady with Skelton" movement.

Very funny #SmartAss

 

[MAYHEM]

We'll break it down into simpler terms to convey that point. Here are Detroit's 2011/2012 crime statistics:

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/20493948/detroit-crime-stats-411-homicides-in-2012

It states that there were 377 homicides in Detroit in 2011.

Here is the 2010 Detroit Census data:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2622000.html

82.7% of the city was Black or African American.

Now, 377 homicides doesn't mean 377 convictions. But for the sake of making this easy, let's just say it was a perfect world and 1 for 1 conviction rate. If the conviction rate was proportionate to the demographics of the city, that would be 311 convictions of Black or African Americans.

This is the 2011 Michigan State Crime report. This indicates that there were 659 homicides in the state (add 9001, 9002, 9004 together).

If we just pretended that the homicides in Detroit were committed at a rate proportionate to the city's demographics, and EVERY OTHER HOMICIDE was committed by a non-Black or African-American, you would have 47.9% of the homicides in the state committed by a person who was Black or African American.

This is the 2010 Michigan census data:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html

This states that only 14.3% of the state is Black or African American. Which, on it's face, would translate to a grossly disproportionate amount of Michigan's homicides being committed by members of that demographic (state statistics would predict only about 95/659 homicides being committed by members of that demographic). In reality, the statistics need to be weighted to reflect the demographics of the communities in which the crimes are committed.

I know this is a bit skewed, but it represents why numbers need to be weighted. And if you're really going to analyze crime statistics, though, you need to remove convictions as a result of a plea deal, those where there was overwhelming evidence or a confession, and really compare apples to apples based on the facts of the case, how similar cases with similar jury makeup and fact patterns were decided, etc.

Data should be standardized, yes, but I still don't understand what point you are making with crime data(homicide ex) and what that has to with discrepancy in justice statistics. The state as an administrative boundary for analyzing crime data isn't very useful unless comparing states. Okay to use cities, better by county, even better by census tract.

What I infer from your post is that there is more crime in higher populated low income areas, poor minorities live in those same areas, and in many areas those variables show multicollinearity.

There's a lot to it. It's ignorant to say that there's never any bias or that prejudice doesn't play into the system--sadly it does. But I don't think it's the norm and I think it's ignorant to throw out a blanket statement about "white juries" without qualifying where, when, facts, selection, jury pool, etc. and without knowing how the juries were chosen. For example, if a person is convicted in West Bloomfield (an affluent suburb of Detroit) it is more likely than not that the jury will be mostly white. If there's an all white jury in Detroit, it would raise eyebrows.

Not to mention, multi-racial juries are more likely to be sitting in areas with a higher rate of crime (unfortunately, the most diverse areas are usually urban areas with more crime) and there's going to be both more convictions and more acquittals, diluting the conviction percentage.

I haven't analyzed jury stats myself, I pulled that from a random study, but you may be right about treating "white jury" as an independent variable. I think juries can be prejudice/racist even if the law is written fairly. I wouldn't say it's that prevalent, but it's not insignificant either.