Honor, murder and "the law".

**reed11b** · 11-29-2008

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

I'd be curious to hear some views on that specific point - particularly from the folks in law enforcement. I'm thinking about lower class, black teens who grow up in the ghetto, who seem to identify themselves as members of a class that is oppressed by the government - particularly the law enforcement personnel. Because their identity is in large part based upon opposition to law enforcement, going to jail is a badge of honor. It is respectable to earn a living in a manner that is illegal or otherwise flaunts society's norms. Any law directed at their anti-social behavior is immediately viewed as a government reprisal against their way of life (for example, laws against possession of crack were argued to be biased against blacks rather than against crack possessors). Am I way off base with this?

There was some justification too the argument that "crack" laws were biased against blacks. This was based on the fact the punishment for an equal amount of crack to an equal amount of cocaine was disproportionately heavier for the crack possessor. Since crack was primarily used by urban black poor and cocaine was used by middle class whites and the addictive/physical damaging properties of both drugs are similar, there likely was a bias.
Reed

**jmm99** · 11-29-2008

Yup, they do exist - the lawyers' equivalent of HTTs. Very expensive and sometimes more voodoo than useful.

Mine was the country boy version - which works in small counties (i.e., Northern Michigan, whose congressional district covers 1/2 of Michigan's landmass). The idea is networking.

If juror 32 is from a small community, you call up your friends there (swear them to absolute secrecy - actually they are more worried about you telling the world what they say) and find out everything they are willing to tell you about juror 32, that person's friends, family, enemies, etc. Basically, a list of pretty standard questions depending on the case.

If the case was in a county where I had no or little network, I'd associate a lawyer there who had a network and knew how to use it. The bottom line is that you end up with a list of Yes, Probably Yes, Don't Know, Probably No, No. You then become better informed when you meet the jurors at the voir dire when the jury is selected.

Let us be clear. A trial lawyer is not looking for a "fair and impartial" jury. E.g., if I represented Gus Hall in the 1950's, I'd want a jury of Communists or as near as I could get to them. If I represented Tom Metzger or David Duke more recently, I would want Stormfronters or as near as I could get to them.

I would get neither because the guy on the other side would be knocking them out by challenges - as would I to "his jurors". So, assuming the jury array (all prospective jurors) is inclusive of the community's demographics, the net result is as close to a "fair and impartial" jury as we can get.

All this is not news to you, Slap, but it may be informative to those here who have not been involved in litigation.

**Uboat509** · 11-30-2008

Originally Posted by reed11b

There was some justification too the argument that "crack" laws were biased against blacks. This was based on the fact the punishment for an equal amount of crack to an equal amount of cocaine was disproportionately heavier for the crack possessor. Since crack was primarily used by urban black poor and cocaine was used by middle class whites and the addictive/physical damaging properties of both drugs are similar, there likely was a bias.
Reed

The question to ask before a declaration of racism is, "which drug has lead to more crime being committed?" Are more middle class whites committing crimes to get their coke or are poor urban blacks committing more crime to get their crack? I am always skeptical when I hear the R word being thrown around. Sometimes it is fully justified. Sometimes it is not. When I was going through the Q course there was an editorial being passed around where the author stated that Special Forces was a racist organization because they would not do away with the swim test as an application requirement. To my mind it is more racist to suggest that black people can't learn to swim than it is to have a swim test as an entrance requirement, but what do I know, I'm just a white guy from suburban Pennsylvania.

SFC W

**120mm** · 11-30-2008

Originally Posted by Uboat509

The question to ask before a declaration of racism is, "which drug has lead to more crime being committed?" Are more middle class whites committing crimes to get their coke or are poor urban blacks committing more crime to get their crack? I am always skeptical when I hear the R word being thrown around. Sometimes it is fully justified. Sometimes it is not. When I was going through the Q course there was an editorial being passed around where the author stated that Special Forces was a racist organization because they would not do away with the swim test as an application requirement. To my mind it is more racist to suggest that black people can't learn to swim than it is to have a swim test as an entrance requirement, but what do I know, I'm just a white guy from suburban Pennsylvania.

SFC W

Would that make you a "bitter clinger"...