Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The DA stated that arresting minorities for marijuana possession doesn't contribute to the safety of his jurisdiction. He not only considered the violence of the crime, he addressed it in his speech. What else could be possibly have been referring to with the word "safety?"
The OPs attempt to compare marijuana possession with violent crime is ridiculous.
He's not comparing marijuana possession with violent crime.
What he's saying is that if disparate impact played a part whatsoever in this decision, that the same logic could follow to slow arrests for more serious crimes.
On the substance of the dispute I may even agree with you. The logic, that you don't enforce the law because of a disparate impact on thugs leaves me cold.
I hear your point but let's not assume for a second that there is already "fair treatment" by the NYPD towards all races. Or that if charged that they get equal criminal defense which is generally not the case due to $$$$.
I think if you take this into consideration, the DA's comments about REAL WORLD impacts is pretty much spot on as opposed to an "on paper" view of things where everyone is treated the same which isn't reality.
He's not comparing marijuana possession with violent crime.
What he's saying is that if disparate impact played a part whatsoever in this decision, that the same logic could follow to slow arrests for more serious crimes.
DA's come and go, but precedent lives forever.
Right, but it's not reasonable to assume that a precedent can be extrapolated to violent crime.
There are many examples of states with crowded prisons letting out non-violent offenders early....but they didn't just start letting murderers out.
The justice system is full of exceptions and actions like this that are never applied to the universe of the incarcerated.
Cyrus Vance, the New York County (Manhattan) DA has announced that New York County will no longer prosecute possession of small amounts of marijuana. His logic:
See also Race and the Drug War | Drug Policy Alliance("We believe that the mass criminalization of people of color, particularly young African Americans, is as profound a system of racial control as the Jim Crow laws were in this country until the mid-1960s.").
By the same logic, other violent crimes are more common among "people of color, particularly young African Americans." Should we also dial-down arrests for violent felonies such as assault and robbery?
Seems like a good idea to some people.
Seems like a good idea to New Yorkers, and other intelligent people. Probably seems like a bad idea to racists.
Quote:
While marijuana arrests have dropped significantly since the mayor took office, 86 percent of the people arrested for marijuana possession in the fifth degree during 2017 were people of color; 48 percent were black and 38 percent were Hispanic. Only 9 percent were white.
This is almost the same disparity as in 2016. The disproportionate number persists despite research that shows black and whites use marijuana in roughly the same rates.
There are other more in depth studies that show this even more clearly in specific neighborhoods.
If you lived in NY you would see white people walking down Manhattan streets smoking a J on a nearly daily basis. Literally walking down 5th avenue, or standing in front of a bar, and smoking weed. We're never afraid of getting arrested for it. Now, no one will need to be afraid. It's fantastic news.
Love how we have so many people not from NY telling us who and how people smoke weed here. Just last week there were 2 hippies in the middle of midtown handing out business cards telling people it was for a medical marijuana provider. I want a prescription, so I asked if they were recommending a doctor I couldk get one from.
They said you don't need a prescription for their stuff.
So you literally had 2 white peopel (guy and girl) in Midtown in broad daylight advertising and handing out business cards for their illegal marijuana delivery service.
Their brownies are Fiya!!
Right, but it's not reasonable to assume that a precedent can be extrapolated to violent crime.
Yes it is. That's the nature of a legal precedent. The logic itself is what is important. What it can be applied to is always in flux and always changing and often expanding. Ask any lawyer.
Quote:
There are many examples of states with crowded prisons letting out non-violent offenders early....but they didn't just start letting murderers out.
For space considerations, not over the politically charged issue of disparate impact. The disparate impact "issue" has the political wheels to expand such a precedent to other crimes. Moreover, using the most extreme crime that you can think of, murder, does not help our discussion. It would always be the last serious crime considered for leniency or exception.
Instead, how about domestic abuse? After all, Black people are treated poorly in this society, which causes an increased rate of domestic violence, and we don't want to split up more Black families because that would have a disparate impact not only on the number of people of each race arrested for spousal abuse but on the metrics concerning statistically successful family structure across races.
The children ultimately suffer, which leads to worse outcome statistics across races. We can't punish one generation for the actions of their parents. We have been seeing statistically positive outcomes in the Black community, since 2018, by refusing to prosecute drug use and possession. It has lessened the traditional community harming effect of the prison pipeline, and so it is of utmost importance that we take a hard look at the disparate impact on the Black community that comes from prosecuting other crimes.
See how that works?
I could easily reign a litany of that BS down on the head of anyone who wanted to prosecute Black people for almost any crime. The precedent is what matters.
Quote:
The justice system is full of exceptions and actions like this that are never applied to the universe of the incarcerated.
By "like this", do you mean a racially motivated exception to law breaking? No, the justice system is not "full" of actions and exceptions like this. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Yes it is. That's the nature of a legal precedent. The logic itself is what is important. What it can be applied to is always in flux and always changing and often expanding. Ask any lawyer.
By "like this", do you mean a racially motivated exception to law breaking? No, the justice system is not "full" of actions and exceptions like this. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Sorry but redactum ad absurdum in claiming precedents made with regards to certain levels of crime to all other levels of crime does not mean it happens.
That was already addressed. That's because they do it on the streets like dummies and commit other offenses while having MJ on them. They aren't just targeted for no reason just because they are black. It's their own stupidity that's getting them arrested, not their skin color.
Don't buy that. Put a narc in a concert. Have a field day.
This move fits right in with "Harm Reduction" techniques, which I fully support.
If everyone would forget color and race for a moment:
Everyone knows legalization is on the horizon, whether you agree with it or not. The biggest reason why it is happening is because it is causing more harm than it is preventing. The biggest reason why it hasn't happened already is government corruption, but that is slowly being overtaken by the unstoppable train known as legalization.
So, doesn't it make sense to enact ways to reduce the harm caused by prohibition, while we're waiting for our slower-than-molasses government to get on board the train and do away with it?
On the substance of the dispute I may even agree with you. The logic, that you don't enforce the law because of a disparate impact on thugs leaves me cold.
You don't seem to understand that the criminalization of marijuana was specifically designed to produce a disparate racial impact.
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." - Harry J. Anslinger
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice." - Harry J. Anslinger
“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men… [and] the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races,” said Harry Anslinger, according to legend, during a Narcotics Bureau conference. He also supposedly said, “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are negroes, hispanics, filipinos and entertainers. Their satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with negroes, entertainers and any others.”
But on the flip-side sometimes you pick up bail-jumpers for serious crimes by making low level arrests.
If you are caught smoking pot in SFL. they still give you a ticket, which I assume includes running the ID, as it does with traffic tickets. So, they still get the bail jumpers etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or that if charged that they get equal criminal defense which is generally not the case due to $$$$.
