WRT to OJ trial; I believe that OJ killed them, I believe there was enough evidence to convict, and I believe that the cops planted evidence to try to make sure he was convicted, a plan that backfired. One glove being found at the crimescene and the other at his house seems a little far-fetched to me.
Bull****, bull**** and bull****. gr8-1 made a comment about the Byrd case suggesting that since he was pissed about that, race couldn't be a factor in his anger regarding the OJ case. So I asked gr8-1, not you, not everyone on the board, just gr8-1 some more direct questions trying to get him to realize that perhaps race is more of a factor in his life than he see's. I shouldn't have done that, and I appologized for it. I was speaking to him as if we were the only two talking when in fact we are far from it. So again, Sorry gr8-1. Let me clear this up for you Refman. I do not, nor have I ever, thought that everyone in America is a racist. I do think however, that the race of someone matters to everyone, no matter how little. I think we as Americans have been raised in a culture of racism, and have lingering effects no matter how hard we try to deny it. In fact the point of my saying this is that I think by denying it we keep it alive. Burying our heads in the sand and pretending that when we overheard grandpa, uncle Pete or who the hell ever call someone a ******, chink or wetback didn't have an effect on our lives isn't rising above anything, its called denial. Nothing ever gets better when you stay in denial.
i heard my grandfather use the "n" word once...it had an effect on me...it caused me to realize he grew up in an era where that kind of bullcrap was accepted...and made me thankful i didn't grow up in that era...and admittedly made me think less of my grandfather.
You said what you said. I don't give a damn who you said it to...you said it publicly. So if you've been in interracial relationships or have biracial children in your family it makes it more likely that race really doesn't matter to you? How is that different from saying that it disproves racism? I appreciate the fact that you realize you shouldn't have said that...but you said what you said...no need to backtrack now.
Do we remember the concept behind this picture? Just wondering... I also seem to recall that two wrongs don't make a right... Skin color be damned...I feel he was guilty, and that he bought his way out of it...just like anybody with the bucks can buy their way out of it. Society made this into a race issue.
You hit the nail on the head...... I believe OJ did it but the cops tampered with the evidence....... ( stupid ! )
Statistically, defendants who are convicted of murdering whites are given much harsher sentences than those who murder blacks. Based on that evidence, I don't think it's a reach to say that if OJ's victims had not been white that a substantial number of white people would have cared less about his acquittal.
Search is disabled so I can't find the one I was thinking of but here's some stuff. http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9312&c=62 Nationwide, a 1990 General Accounting Office (GAO) report reviewed numerous studies of patterns of racial discrimination in death penalty sentencing. Their review found that for homicides committed under otherwise similar circumstances, and where defendants had similar criminal histories, a defendant was several times more likely to receive the death penalty if the victim was white than if his victim was African American. The DOJ study also revealed the influence that the race of the victim has in determining potential capital cases. U.S. Attorneys recommended the death penalty in 36 % of the cases with black defendants and non-black victims, but only recommended the death penalty in 20 % of the cases with black defendants and black victims.
These statistics were compiled in the early 1990's? Assuming they're valid, wasn't that a really big time for gang violence? Crips and Bloods and whatnot? Weren't there a lot of gang murders? I guess technically, one life is as valuable as another, but I also think human nature would have most people giving...say....a Jack Ruby a much lighter sentence than a Lee Harvey Oswald. Aren't death penalties harder to pursue? What would be easier; to pursue a death penalty against someone who killed a school teacher/doctor/mother or against someone who killed a rival street gang member? I'm not sure if that's even relevant, but statistics aren't usually compiled "just for the heck of it." They're usually compiled to prove a certain point. Because of this, certain factors are often obscured. But of course, everyone knows that.
How very Trent Lott of you. The DOJ study was done in the fall of 2000, GAO in 1990. The government compiles statistics for all kinds of things. In this case I'm sure the DOJ received complaints on the unfair application of the death penalty nationwide and these were the results.
Well now, a comment like that is certainly going to make me dig a little deeper, so I went and read the story in your link a little closer. It seems the following is the last paragraph: ________ The DOJ study left many questions unanswered, prompting calls for a more thorough review. In June 2000, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the follow-up review of 950 cases had shown no evidence of racial bias. These results are unreliable because they were not based on the total number of cases that prosecutors could have submitted to former Attorney General Janet Reno for review, but only on those that were actually submitted. Following hearings chaired by Senator Feingold on oversight of the federal death penalty in June 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft ordered the National Institute of Justice to undergo a study on the possibility of racial and geographic biases in the federal death penalty. _________ The two paragraphs preceding this one went into how there was such a racial bias in the findings, and the last paragraph (that I just pasted above) goes on to say that the later findings found no racial bias. These findings are summarily dismissed though because "These results are unreliable because they were not based on the total number of cases that prosecutors could have submitted to former Attorney General Janet Reno for review, but only on those that were actually submitted." What strikes me as funny here is that the ACLU was all too happy to point out the racial bias found in an "initial survey" but when a more comprehensive study was done with a larger sample, they simply dismissed the findings (because it didn't tell them what they wanted to hear.) Ahhhh statistics. Take what you need....throw out the rest.
The "real killers" of the mother of his children are still out there and OJ is feverishly searching for them day in and day out, so no I'm not pissed.
Blacks getting the death penalty at nearly twice the rate of whites is not racial bias? In June 2001, after Ashcroft found no evidence of racial bias, he orders a study on the possibility of racial or geographic biases. Why would he bother other than because he was wrong in his finding and was told to conduct a new study? Also, you didn't even address the other evidence in that link from the GAO, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and North Carolina. I guess Ashcroft can't qet his hands on everything now can he.
Why be pissed ???? What Oj did has absolutely no effect on my life.It's a waste to spend time being "pissed" over things beyond your control. Kind of like the people who piss and moan over the team on a daily basis.
let me guess ... your dad is a and your mom is a ba-duh-duh. Feel free to use that in your act AB. btw, I'd just like to point out that the ye olde racial debate still = 100 replies easy. Yippee!
