Study Finds Racial Imbalance on Death Row

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
SAN FRANCISCO - More condemned men and women are on California's death row for killing whites than for murdering people of any other race, despite there being more black and Hispanic murder victims, according to a new study. The study, to be published in the Santa Clara Law Review, tallied the races of California homicide victims in the 1990s.
It concluded suspects who murdered whites were almost four times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed Hispanics, and three times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks.

"To put it bluntly, there's apparently different values being placed on victims from different racial and ethnic groups," said Northeastern University criminal justice professor Glenn Pierce, a co-author of the study. "That's what the pattern would suggest."
Source - more
 
No.

It's more whining.

What percentage of the blacks/Hispanics/Asians killed are involved in drug deals or other crimes at the time they are "murdered"?
 
I'd also be real curious to see how many victims of that eternal buzz word "hate crimes" are minorities. If a black kills a white, it isn't a hate crime. If a white kills a black, it is.

This is all a bunch of shit, always has been, and always will be. Wanna stay off death row? Don't kill NOBODY.
 
Prof -
The study focused on 263 California death sentences in the 1990s. There were 302 death sentences issued during that time, but the study eliminated 39 cases that involved multiple victims of different races or ethnic groups.

Of the 263 sentences, 142 were handed down for killing whites, 44 for killing blacks, 52 for killing Hispanics and 25 for killing victims of other races.

During the same period, killed were 8,136 whites, 9,338 blacks, 14,089 Hispanics and 2,037 victims of other races.
seems pretty straight-forward. Where'd they 'fudge' it exactly?


It also says nothing about the race of the people on Death Row.

Doesn't talk about 'hate crimes' either, SnP.

It says that..."If you kill a white person (regardless of the reason or the perpetrator's race) you are more likely to be sentenced to death row."
Speaks more of the rightious indignation of the jury and judge who sentenced the perp than anything else.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
What percentage of the blacks/Hispanics/Asians killed are involved in drug deals or other crimes at the time they are "murdered"?
Does the circumstances of where the victim met his demise play a part as to whether someone will be sentenced to death or not?

If you blow someone's brains out in a back alley, isn't it being treated the same as if you'd blown their brains out in a church?
 
No, and you know it isn't the same. If a Blood offs a Crip, I doubt anyone will be clamoring for the death penalty.

Death cases are jury trials almost all the time. Prosecutors go for what they think they can get. Do you want to try and convince 12 law abiding citizens that some dope dealing thug who got himself killed while pimping out somebody's daughter had a life? Would it be easier to convince this jury if the victim were an employed single parent on their way home from work?

We live in a world. It makes its own rules.
 
Bish, might I suggest you print this thread out, as is, and present it to a lawyer and file suit against Concordia for fraud.

Alternately, print it out, name a bar, and buy me a beer, and I'll try to explain it to you.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Would it be easier to convince this jury if the victim were an employed single parent on their way home from work?

We live in a world. It makes its own rules.
Life sucks don't it?

Prof-the conclusions taken might be erronious, but the methodology is correct. They used 100% of a stated population, narrowed it down to 'single victim cases' , and did a straight poll. They also stated that the overall number of murder cases (by race of victim) was not a factor in their end calculations by showing no correlation between how many of each racial type died vs. number of death-row inmates (in relation to which racial type they'd killed).

If those stats had shown that the victims (overall) were seperated into different races in a 75%/15%/10% and the death row inmates were seperated by 'race killed' in a 75%/15%/10% raio as well... then their conclusion would be erronious. It'd be just a matter of x% of murders lead to the death penalty.

If they'd taken the 39 cases (multiple races killed) and shoved them within the category of 'white victims' - now THAT'd be fudging the stats.

If they hadn't used 100% of the population or used a much smaller ratio of the overall population...that'd be innacurate...and maybe fudging.

If they'd picked and chosen who they polled - that'd be fudging.

The methodology seems fairly clear to me. The conclusion may well be incorrect, but that's often the case.

*This was just an interesting study with a fairly open to interpretation conclusion. The prof in question might just as easily have said something like
"Those who killed white people are obviously too poor to hire good defence lawyers."
 
Bish, I said all I'm gonna say above. You wanna make a fool of yourself in public, you'll do it without me. I've tried before to point out the obvious to you about a stat, and gotten nothing but nonsense for it. If you want me to got through all that again, I will, but only where I can smack you behind the head when you get think again.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Would it be easier to convince this jury if the victim were an employed single parent on their way home from work?

We live in a world. It makes its own rules.
That's kid of what he is saying...cept that instead of saying 'employed single parent on their way home from work' he's saying 'white person regardless of the race of who killed them and why.'
 
Professur said:
Bish, I said all I'm gonna say above. You wanna make a fool of yourself in public, you'll do it without me. I've tried before to point out the obvious to you about a stat, and gotten nothing but nonsense for it. If you want me to got through all that again, I will, but only where I can smack you behind the head when you get think again.
Again...in this case. I'm defending the method, not the conclusion. You're saying they fudged the stats. I'm saying that it looks clean. If you've got access to the real numbers or can point to where they placed the figures into the incorrect categories..that'd be something. The rest is plain math.
 
I will go on record, right here, right now. I will try to be perfectly crystal clear.

The life of my wife, my parents, my coworkers, my friends, my pastor, the guy who delivers the mail to my house, the chick that sacked up the cheeseburger I had for lunch 26 days ago, the IRS agent who processed my 1992 tax return...any of these is more valuable than a dope dealing, unemployed by choice, criminal pimping no account good for nothing gangster wanna be thug. Period dot semicolon. With feeeeling.

Clear enough?
 
MrBishop said:
Again...in this case. I'm defending the method, not the conclusion. You're saying they fudged the stats. I'm saying that it looks clean. If you've got access to the real numbers or can point to where they placed the figures into the incorrect categories..that'd be something. The rest is plain math.


Bish, do the words apples and oranges mean anything to you? anything at all? Didn't think so.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
I will go on record, right here, right now. I will try to be perfectly crystal clear.

The life of my wife, my parents, my coworkers, my friends, my pastor, the guy who delivers the mail to my house, the chick that sacked up the cheeseburger I had for lunch 26 days ago, the IRS agent who processed my 1992 tax return...any of these is more valuable than a dope dealing, unemployed by choice, criminal pimping no account good for nothing gangster wanna be thug. Period dot semicolon. With feeeeling.

Clear enough?
Yes..but what does that have to do with race? Unless you're saying that most good for nothing ganster wanna be thugs are...

Nope not going to go there.

;)

I get where you're going though.
 
Professur said:
Bish, do the words apples and oranges mean anything to you? anything at all? Didn't think so.
I don't think that I can go any further without insulting you in some way so... I won't.
 
MrBishop said:
Yes..but what does that have to do with race? Unless you're saying that most good for nothing ganster wanna be thugs are...

Nope not going to go there.

;)

I get where you're going though.

No more calls please, we have a winner.

My eyes tell me all I need to know.
 
MrBishop said:
I don't think that I can go any further without insulting you in some way so... I won't.


Knock yourself out, pal. Better men than you have tried to insult me, and I'm still waiting to be impressed.
 
Professur said:
Knock yourself out, pal. Better men than you have tried to insult me, and I'm still waiting to be impressed.
That's not the point...

I'm trying not to insult you.

as opposed to

I'm not trying to insult you.
 
That's interesting, but I'm not really surprised at all. I think there must be something to SnP's explanation that the black people were killed while dealing drugs or being in gang related activities. Obviously, there aren't any whites in gangs or dealing drugs, are there? I mean, surely the pure white bread people of California don't deal drugs or belong to gangs, do they?

SnP, I have thought it before, but now it's locked up. You need to get out of your backwoods county and see real life for awhile. Black does not equal drug dealer. Mexican does not equal Gang member. The entire premise you are suggesting is not only racist, it's small minded.
 
Back
Top