more blacks in prison...why?
Posted By: gt on 2005-10-01
In Reply to: The whole comment stems from the fact... - SM
Your post is a racist post. Tell me, why do blacks make up the majority in prison? Could it be bad cops sending innocent black people to prison..you bet..could it be no opportunites for blacks, you bet..Your statement trying to defend Bennetts undefensible comments make me wonder.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
More blacks are in prision because more blacks are poor in this country...sm
If you can't afford a get out of jail free card, you spend the time.
The legal system is a poor excuse. If you have money you can buy your way out. If not you're screwed. This is not even a black or white issue, except that most blacks can't afford to pay off the legal system.
I think Bush should go to PRISON.
nm
a federal prison where we pay taxes
to feed her, clothe her and provide her with medical care. She ought to be extricated to her own country. I wonder what the Mexican feds would do with her. I don't feel sorry for these people. They were in the wrong in the first place by sneaking into this country. They deserve whatever they get. As for the unborn child, if the mother wasn't so selfish, she would put the child up for adoption in the US where people who could afford to love and raise that child right would have the opportunity to.
He refused to be released from prison...
because there were men who had been there longer than he had and he felt using his dad's clout to get him out was wrong for those men, and it was, and that takes the kind of courage and integrity Barack Obama can only dream about.
How can you say he never regretted it? Does Obama regret throwing a friend and mentor, the man who baptized his children, under the bus for his political career? This is a man you should trust? Hello??
You're right--that's why noone ever goes to prison for murder. nm
nm
A mainland *supermax* prison
would be quite a change to the gitmo detainees. but it would also provide one benefit they don't have now, access to new recruits for jihad. unless they are sequestered from all other prisoners, these men will be enlisting other convicts to their cause. conversion to islam is rampant in our prison system. giving these terrorist suspects the opportunity spread their form of radical islam to other convicts, who might actually be released from prison, would be a big mistake.
Halliburton will build new prison on Guantanamo
Halliburton subsidiary gets $30 million to build new Guantanamo prison
ASSOCIATED PRESS
11:28 a.m. June 17, 2005
WASHINGTON – A subsidiary of Houston-based Halliburton has been awarded a $30 million contract to build an improved 220-bed prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Pentagon announced.
Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc. of Arlington, Va., is to build a two-story prison that includes day rooms, exercise areas, medical bays, air conditioning and a security control room, according to the Pentagon. It is to be completed by July 2006.
Congress previously approved the funding for the construction job. Some members, along with human rights groups, are now calling for Guantanamo to close because of reports of prisoner abuses there and because the foreign detainees are being held indefinitely with no charges filed.
KBR beat out two other bids for the job, the Pentagon said.
"The future detention facility will be based on prison models in the U.S. and is designed to be safer for the long-term detention of detainees and the guards," according to a statement provided by a Pentagon spokesman. "It is also expected to require less manpower to operate."
The new prison building, called Detention Camp {PI:EF}6, will replace some of the older facilities at the Navy base, which officials say are not adequate for holding prisoners for the long term.
The total contract could be worth up to $500 million through 2010, the Pentagon said. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic, in Norfolk, Va., is the contracting agency.
About 520 prisoners from the Bush administration's war on terrorism are held at Guantanamo. Already, $110 million has been spent on construction there, and the prison costs about $95 million a year to operate.
White House officials have said there are no plans to close the facility because the detainees being held there are too dangerous to release while the war on terror continues.
Report: 1 in 31 U.S. adults in prison system
Updated: 8:07 p.m. ET Nov. 2, 2005
WASHINGTON - Nearly 7 million adults were in U.S. prisons or on probation or parole at the end of last year, 30 percent more than in 1995, the Justice Department said Wednesday.
That was about one in every 31 adults under correctional supervision at the end of 2004, compared with about 1 in 36 adults in 1995 and about 1 adult in every 88 in 1980, said Allan J. Beck, who oversaw the preparation of the department’s annual report on probation and parole populations.
Beck attributed the overall rise in the number of people under correctional supervision to sentencing reforms of the 1990s. The nation’s incarcerated population has been increasing for more than 30 years, with sharp growth in the last decade.He said crime rates have fallen in recent years, which helps account for slower growth among people on probation — those allowed to live in the community with some restrictions rather than being incarcerated.
The number of people on probation in 2004 grew by 6,343 to about 4.2 million in 2004, the report said.
Nearly 50 percent of all probationers at the end of last year were convicted of a felony. Twenty-six percent were on probation for a drug-law violation, and 15 percent for driving while intoxicated, said the annual Justice Department report.
Racial imbalance persists in probation
Whites made up 56 percent of the probation population and only 34 percent of the prison population, according to Wednesday’s report and another Justice Department report released last month.
“White people — for whatever reason — seem to have more access to community supervision than African Americans and Hispanics,” said Jason Ziedenberg, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute, which promotes alternatives to incarceration. He called probation a cheaper and more effective form of rehabilitation.
Blacks, he noted, comprised 30 percent of probationers and 41 percent of prisoners at the end of 2004. Hispanics made up 12 percent of the probation population and 19 percent of the prison population
Parolees grew fastest among those under correctional supervision. They are criminal offenders who rejoin society with restrictions for a time after they complete a prison term.
Number of parolees grows
The adult parole population grew 20,230, or 2.7 percent, during the year, more than twice the average annual increase of 1.3 percent since 1995, the report said. The total number of parolees at the end of 2004 was 765,355.
Beck said a late 1990s spike in prison populations is now showing up in the number of parolees, as the number of prisoners released rises.
The parole population grew during 2004 in 39 states, with double-digit growth in 10 states, led by Nebraska’s 24 percent increase. The number of people on parole decreased in nine states and didn’t change in Maine.
About 187,000, or 39 percent of discharged parolees went back to prison or jail in 2005. While the number has grown, the rate has held relatively stable since 1995, when 160,000, or 39 percent of discharged parolees returned to incarceration.
The total number of people incarcerated in the United States grew 1.9 percent in 2004 to 2,267,787 people, according to the report released last month.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Barney Frank in prison, is that that what you'd call
x
Blacks in Alaska.......
Well, I have several long-time very close friends who have lived in Alaska for 28+ years. My best friend married a native Alaskan. That conversation did come up one time and you know what her husband told me (this is a man who worked on the north slope for dozens of years). He said the blacks in Alaska are some of the most hard working people he has ever met. Blacks and whites work alongside one another on the slope and other hard jobs. He said many blacks came to Alaska to get higher paying jobs. The comments he would hear would be how they detested their black relatives/friends who sat on their butts and took government (taxpayer)handouts and used their color as an excuse not to better themselves. Their children all went to school together, played together, and helped one another. He also told us that a close friend of his who was from black/Alaskan heritage had told him he couldn't understand with all the advantages his generation and those still to come have, why they don't take advantage of them and why they continue to kill one another in gangs and spend so much time hating one another and "whites", blaming whites for all their problems. Now, this comes from a black man in Alaska. He said many of his friends came up after he suggested they could find higher paying jobs. They were hard working people who just wanted a better life and they refused to raise their children thinking they had to have handouts and they didn't want them "around" other blacks who were drug pushing and calling each other the "n" word in their schools. It wasn't the Republican whites they were trying to get away from. By the way, he thought social programs were a joke!! He felt social programs were one of the biggest problems in black society and that they encouraged handouts and free rides without offering a solution.
I have several black neighbors and we are in the south, that will not hesitate to tell you they "hate" social programs, they are sick and tired of paying for them, and suggest those that like them so much be the only ones who pay for them. They are hard working people like us who want to actually keep their money. One couple put two of their daughters through medical school without a single social program in their lives. They detest being taxed to pay for all these social programs when we can see in our own communities they are just unjustified, just throwing more money into a big pit.
Now, I'm not sure where you get your info from, but all republicans are not white...matter of fact the above mentioned blacks vote republican and think the democrats are the problem for the plight of the black man. Keep giving them handouts and making them believe they "need" help, can't do without the government, can't make their own decisions, and you will have nothing but a welfare state before long.
Rich republicans don't pay taxes? Who in the h*ll do you think pay for all those social programs now.....you? The 1% of rich republicans as you put it are the ones in the highest tax brackets, pay the most taxes, and fund the greatest majority of your social programs. Taxation is relevant to your income, not your political party. You make more, you pay more in taxes. How do you think they made more money....it fell from the skies? Yes, there are those who inherit a lot of money and have done nothing to deserve it (even though those they inherited it from worked their butts off for it), but in a free country, they are free to inherit it if it is given to them. I don't feel negative towards them for that. And there are those who have made fortunes from hard work, not coming home at 5, and have pretty much given up any life of their own to succeed to the level they feel they want to be. You say rich like it's a bad word. Should we fault people for being hard working and succeeding financially in life and making more than us? I know people who have lots of money and they have sacrificed a LOT to get there.
I feel pretty certain if you had lots of money you would certainly lavish it on your children. That would be your right. And you probably wouldn't want it taken from you to give to everyone else when you can make the decision to donate/give as you see fit.
Our government, however, feels they have the right to have death taxes, which by the way, Whoopie Goldberg, detests and thinks that is wrong (she's black and rich)and why does she think that's wrong? Because she wants to give her wealth to her family when she dies and that's how it should be, without government interference. They have no right to take it....they didn't make it. I don't hear her jumping on the bandwagon saying TAKE MY MONEY, PLEASE, and give it to anyone you want and pay for hundreds of social programs with it. After all, she made it and should give to those as she sees fit, not as our government sees fit. Matter of fact, I don't hear any rich blacks screaming take my money. I hear some of them backing Obama and say they believe in what he wants for this country, but they just don't want to pay for what he wants. Make up your mind...can't have it both ways!
Well, for ACORN it is about race....the more blacks
The blacks that have been truthful have spoken out and said that the corrupt group ACORN has PUSHED them to vote for Obama, telling them how much better their lives would be, etc., etc., and they will get a big 'ole check every month, courtesy of the hard working folks. And all they gotta do is sign on the dotted line. These are black people speaking out because they know something is very wrong with this picture.
Too bad the O lovers don't see anything wrong with this picture.
Current-day blacks are not slaves and never were.
nm
Why blacks voted for Prop 8
Interesting column from the Times, written by a black. I bring this here just as a matter of interest. I found it to be quite interesting.
Op-Ed Columnist
Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: November 29, 2008
We now know that blacks probably didn’t tip the balance for Proposition 8. Myth busted. However, the fact remains that a strikingly high percentage of blacks said they voted to ban same-sex marriage in California. Why?
There was one very telling (and virtually ignored) statistic in CNN’s exit poll data that may shed some light: There were far more black women than black men, and a higher percentage of them said that they voted for the measure than the men. How wide was the gap? According to the exit poll, 70 percent of all blacks said that they voted for the proposition. But 75 percent of black women did. There weren’t enough black men in the survey to provide a reliable percentage for them. However, one can mathematically deduce that of the raw number of survey respondents, nearly twice as many black women said that they voted for it than black men.
Why? Here are my theories:
(1) Blacks are much more likely than whites to attend church, according to a Gallup report, and black women are much more likely to attend church than black men. Anyone who has ever been to a black church can attest to the disparity in the pews. And black women’s church attendance may be increasing.
According to a report issued this spring by Child Trends, a nonprofit research center, weekly church attendance among black 12th graders rose 26 percent from 1993 to 2006, while weekly church attendance for white 12th graders remained virtually flat. In 2006, those black teenagers were nearly 50 percent more likely to attend church once a week than their white counterparts. And it is probably safe to assume that many of them were going to church with their mothers since Child Trends reported that around the time that they were born, nearly 70 percent of all black children were born to single mothers.
(2) This high rate of church attendance by blacks informs a very conservative moral view. While blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, an analysis of three years of national data from Gallup polls reveals that their views on moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Let’s just call them Afropublicrats.
(3) Marriage can be a sore subject for black women in general. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, black women are the least likely of all women to be married and the most likely to be divorced. Women who can’t find a man to marry might not be thrilled about the idea of men marrying each other.
Proponents of gay marriage would do well to focus on these women if they want to win black votes. A major reason is that black women vote at a higher rate than black men. In the CNN national exit poll, there were 40 percent more black women than black men, and in California there were 50 percent more. But gay marriage advocates need to hone their strategy to reach them.
First, comparing the struggles of legalizing interracial marriage with those to legalize gay marriage is a bad idea. Many black women do not seem to be big fans of interracial marriage either. They’re the least likely of all groups to intermarry, and many don’t look kindly on the black men who intermarry at nearly three times the rate that they do, according to a 2005 study of black intermarriage rates in the Wisconsin Law Review. Wrong reference. Don’t even go there.
Second, don’t debate the Bible. You can’t win. Religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it. Instead, decouple the legal right from the religious rite, and emphasize the idea of acceptance without endorsement.
Then, make it part of a broader discussion about the perils of rigidly applying yesterday’s sexual morality to today’s sexual mores. Show black women that it backfires. The stigma doesn’t erase the behavior, it pushes it into the shadows where, devoid of information and acceptance, it become more risky.
For instance, most blacks find premarital sex unacceptable, according to the Gallup data. But, according to data from a study by the Guttmacher Institute, blacks are 26 percent more likely than any other race to have had premarital sex by age 18, and the pregnancy rate for black teens is twice that of white teens. They still have premarital sex, but they do so uninformed and unprotected.
That leads to a bigger problem. According to a 2004 report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, black women have an abortion rate that is three times that of white women.
More specifically, blacks overwhelmingly say that homosexuality isn’t morally acceptable. So many black men hide their sexual orientations and engage in risky behavior. This has resulted in large part in black women’s becoming the fastest-growing group of people with H.I.V. In a 2003 study of H.I.V.-infected people, 34 percent of infected black men said they had sex with both men and women, while only 6 percent of infected black women thought their partners were bisexual. Tragic. (In contrast, only 13 percent of the white men in the study said they had sex with both men and women, while 14 percent of the white women said that they knew their partners were bisexual.)
So pitch it as a health issue. The more open blacks are to the idea of homosexuality, the more likely black men would be to discuss their sexual orientations and sexual histories. The more open they are, the less likely black women would be to put themselves at risk unwittingly. And, the more open blacks are to homosexuality over all, the more open they are likely to be to gay marriage. This way, everyone wins.
Minorities do make up a lopsided percentage of the prison population.
But just stating that as a fact which is self-evident pays no attention whatsoever to the root causes of minority tension in our nation, nor address the fact that rich people with their various crimes tend to be well-connected enough to keep their butts out of jail, thus disproportionately skewing the prison statistics. Many more reasons can be advanced to explain the sad state of America's penal system, but none of that matters in the subject at hand.
Bennett's conclusion (as a member of the wealthy, advataged and least-likely-to-go-to-prison-for-his-crimes club) is that mass genocide would solve our crime problems.
Don't you realize how frightening that is?
Germany seek charges against Rumsfeld for prison abuse sm
Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN
Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a special interrogation plan, personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .
A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.
Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.
Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides universal jurisdiction allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a a big, big problem. U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.
In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.
The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.
Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.
U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against war criminals could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.
For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.
You hate blacks AND gays? You think Fox is the news..
I am not answering any more of your racist, rude dumb posts. Talk to yourself, all 3 or more of your selves that you are posting here so obviously.
First of all, blacks received the right to vote after the civil war,
try 140 years ago (NOT 40) when the Reconstruction Ammendments were passed between 1865 and 1870. Women received the right vote with the 19th Ammendment in 1920 (88 years ago).
I think history has established that slavery is wrong. I refuse to believe that I, as a white person, must continually apologize to the black man or woman for slavery that happened to their ancestors centuries ago! I personally have never codoned or owned slaves and they personally have never been slaves. So I ask you, what does slavery have to do with Obama being elected president? What does slavery have to do with his compaign and this election? Who is making race an issue here? I'll answer the last one, YOU are by insinuating that Obama and all African-Americans deserve special accolades just because they are black. They did not suffer as slaves. They did not have to overcome slavery. And today's African-Americans receive more rights and more governmental assistant, then any white person I know. Just look at affirmative action for crying out loud!
You're right, most blacks have voted democrats
nm
First of all blacks AND whites live in Harlem
The ignorant comments you refer to came directly out of Harlem and was played for anyone and everyone to hear. Did you not hear the comments made by citizens there? Don't call others names if you don't know what we're talking about.
It's time for blacks to have a little celebration WHY DO YOU CARE? sm
White people never will understand, and I am white, what the blacks went through and still go through. Not only do we now have a brilliant loving, honest president, but he happens to be black. It is MAJORLY symbolic. Why do you rabids pick apart every good and loving thing that the rest of us are celebrating today. Go write a love letter to Anne Coulter!
BYEEEEE hahahah Obama WON.
*blacks* not blanks. Been working too long today! nm
x
Where on earth in this post do you get I hate blacks, Dems, or the poor?
I was quoting the mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin..who is black, and a Democrat, though not poor. Did I say I didn't like mayor Nagin? I am just saying he is acting a whole lot differently than he did during Katrina. And from that you get that I hate blacks, dems, and the poor? The dem talking points don't really fit this post...??? Now I am confused.
I don't hate Dems. I just don't agree with them. And I don't understand how they can say they are the party of the people and want to fight so hard for freedom of choice and individual rights, and then turn on one lone poster like a pack of snarling dogs for disagreeing with them. Don't you think what the party is supposed to stand for and the way theones on this board are acting is even SLIGHTLY contradictory?? lol
Imagine that simple statement being recited by a white man about blacks.
It would have been labeled a racist remark.
|
