Consider impact of systemic racism before sentencing black offenders, Canadian judges

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Rehabilitation is just one of the justice system components. I don't believe the system should be giving some components more focus than others. Not everyone needs rehabilitation after committing an offense or a crime and not everyone could be rehabilitated.


Mitigating factors are mitigating factors; no dispute here. I return to the same premise where we've started: all other things being equal, the proposed change could have the same judge sentence two criminals for the SAME crime differently based only on their cultural/racial background; thus, making their background a mitigating factor. That is wrong. I only argue that point.

Here's another example: a Palestinian immigrant desecrating a Canadian synagogue, because he is really angry about his family's difficult situation back in Gaza vs. a white supremacist doing the same thing out of simple hate. If I understand your line of argument correctly, the first guy's background should be given a special positive consideration in deliberating a verdict, severity of offense and sentencing, while the second guy should not be given this consideration. (BTW, I totally appreciate that one of them could be a repeat offender with history of similar incidents; granted.) But assuming that there are no such other factors, I argue they should both receive the same treatment by courts regardless of their cultural and racial background.

What is the white guys background? Alcoholic mother and absentee father who spent years teaching his kid to hate growing up without a support system or positive mail role model and became a white supremiscist as a function of his upbringing? Or some rich kid with too much time on his hands that should know better?

Race isn't the mitigating factors, it makes it more likely that mitigating factors exist but its not because of race that anyone is getting special treatment. Using your example the race of the person from Palestine likely doesn't matter. Anyone's whose family was blown up by rockets would likely have the same mitigating factors regardless of race. It just happens that that particular case would be more likely to occur to a Palestinian.

What I am saying is the law as written is a good law. It asks for the context that led to the crime be considered The law isn't about racial background of the person. The law applies to people regardless of race.

Do you believe that the background of a person (ignoring race completely) that led up to the committing of a crime be considered at all in sentencing? or should every act be just considered based on the act itself?

Essentially would Jean Vel Jean deserve special treatment because he stole bread to feed is starving family

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ToewsFan

PepsiFree, I can voice my opinion if choose to do so. What gives you the right to be a social justice warrior, and tell others to "grow up" for their opposing views? Maybe you need to accept that people will not have the same viewpoint as yourself. What would you do about systemic racism if you were in charge of things? How would you change things?

You're free to voice your opinion, but if you express it on a public forum you should be willing and ready to accept criticism of that opinion. Telling black people to move if they don't like racism is a stupid thing to say. I accept that as your viewpoint, but please accept that my viewpoint is that believing that is hateful or deeply ignorant (at least the second one can be changed through education and experience). Racism should not be catered to and protected. Calling others a social justice warrior as a defence to legitimise your own sour views doesn't work.

Simply being mindful of the fact that systemic racism exists is a good step that essentially anyone can take to begin to curb its effects. I'm not sure what sort of "in charge" you're talking about, because there's no one person who can completely dismantle it, but steps like the one in the article are part of it. Again, read the article, because I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt, since I don't believe your opinion matched up with proposal in the article.

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I have to disagree, If you need examples I'll be glad to post a bunch of em.

From the article? Feel free. I'm not aware of any, unless you consider the simple consideration of a systemic issue as "special treatment," which wouldn't make sense to me considering there are many other things considered in the exact same way during sentencing. Considering many factors that effect an individual's life is done all the time in sentencing, if you consider them each "special treatment" then fair point.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

What is the white guys background? Alcoholic mother and absentee father who spent years teaching his kid to hate growing up without a support system or positive mail role model and became a white supremiscist as a function of his upbringing? Or some rich kid with too much time on his hands that should know better?

Race isn't the mitigating factors, it makes it more likely that mitigating factors exist but its not because of race that anyone is getting special treatment. Using your example the race of the person from Palestine likely doesn't matter. Anyone's whose family was blown up by rockets would likely have the same mitigating factors regardless of race. It just happens that that particular case would be more likely to occur to a Palestinian.

What I am saying is the law as written is a good law. It asks for the context that led to the crime be considered The law isn't about racial background of the person. The law applies to people regardless of race.

Do you believe that the background of a person (ignoring race completely) that led up to the committing of a crime be considered at all in sentencing? or should every act be just considered based on the act itself?

Essentially would Jean Vel Jean deserve special treatment because he stole bread to feed is starving family

Maybe I'm wrong and a lawyer can correct me, but under the purist form of the law, its the act that is supposed to be judged and nothing else.

Again and its a question for a lawyer, but in a lot of trials that I've followed, defense lawyers fight tooth and nail to exclude any prior criminal history or acts from a current trial because it can prejudice a judge or a jury. Wouldn't the same be considered in terms of sentencing? Instead of creating multiple different standards under the law which is kind of what this is proposing, isn't the proper thing to reform the law so everyone is treated the same way based on the act or the crime?

I love the Jean Vel Jean example of the man stealing bread to feed his family. We all feel sympathetic to this example and it maybe allows us to romanticize a criminal act as somewhat heroic, and the criminal as the victim. But its at least to me a flawed example, when he stole the bread did he deprive the person that he stole the bread from the ability to feed his family? Should we not in the purest sense say that the man stole a loaf of bread which is against the commonly accepted law and that a judge can only really judge on whether he broke the law or not and the sentencing is between this much time and this much time?

This is where my confusion lies. Do we view the Law now as a social services agency? Or is it the rules and guidelines that guide our society as a complete body regardless of race and color and influence.

Because if its the first, then the law has to be reformed and rewritten and made far more complex.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe I'm wrong and a lawyer can correct me, but under the purist form of the law, its the act that is supposed to be judged and nothing else.

We can say that, (and a lawyer can give a better answer here) but just looking at previous cases there are many, many times where sentencing of the offender is influenced by their life. I distinctly remember a "Walter white" case in Alberta where a man robbed a bank (didn't hurt anyone) but did it because he had cancer and was out of work and desperate to provide for his family. He received consideration for those circumstances that certainly impacted his judgement.

Youth and the homeless are given special consideration as well quite often. Someone who is 17 and 300 days can get a lighter sentence for he same crime as someone 70 days older. There are (negative) examples in the U.S. of rapists getting a light sentence because they were good college kids with promising athletic careers.

Agree of disagree, it makes sense that if other factors are considered, systemic racism should be one of the many.

In Canada, aside from the youth thing, I don't believe it directly effects the actual range of punishment (as in, X crime gets you between X and X) but it doesn't effect where on that range it falls. A serial murderer likely isn't going to get a lenient sentence, but someone on low level charges might be given more consideration.

That's just my take, happy to taken to the cleaners if I'm totally wrong.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Do you deny the existence of systemic racism Cliff? Because it seems like that's what you're getting at, or at very least denying the relevance of it in society.

Today, in 2017, I believe systemic racism has a marginal effect on social outcomes in Canada. I do not believe our laws and institutions systematically oppress people of colour. Even garden variety private bigotry seems to have little effect on outcomes. Otherwise how do we explain how well Asian-Canadians perform in school and in the workforce today?

Basically, I'm not a structuralist. I do not believe our systems and institutions are the only - or even the primary - determinants in the outcomes of groups and individuals. I believe culture plays a bigger role, including sub-cultures from communities right down to the family level.

Someone who grows up in a home with a single parent is likely to have worse outcomes than someone who grows up in a stable family with two parents. Someone whose extended family and community does not place a premium on education will have worse outcomes than someone in a community that does. Someone who grows up in a neighbourhood or culture that upholds honor-based values will likely be more violent than someone who grows up in a neighbourhood or culture that recognizes the authority of the state to hold a monopoly on violence.

Of course, some of those conditions may be the result of historical racism. But that's a different problem than systemic racism today. And we won't have success addressing those issues if we mis-diagnose their source. Changing college admissions criteria isn't going to knit families back together again.

The truth is it's actually easier, and more emotionally appealing, to behave as though modern-day racism is at fault. Then all we have to do is change our institutions and teach people not be racist and the bad outcomes will go away. But the real source of the problems are much more difficult to address. How do we put families back together? How do we encourage people to value education if they have no books in the house and no family history of pursuing education? How do we get people to move beyond toxic sub-cultures they grow up in?

Tough questions. Easier just to blame systemic racism.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Changing college admissions criteria isn't going to knit families back together again.

The truth is it's actually easier, and more emotionally appealing, to behave as though modern-day racism is at fault. Then all we have to do is change our institutions and teach people not be racist and the bad outcomes will go away. But the real source of the problems are much more difficult to address. How do we put families back together? How do we encourage people to value education if they have no books in the house and no family history of pursuing education? How do we get people to move beyond toxic sub-cultures they grow up in?

Tough questions. Easier just to blame systemic racism.

It might actually. Giving people a greater chance of education and financial success probably won't impact their parents much, but it'll impact them and their children. The "American dream" where the poor man becomes rich is generally false, as many people from certain positions in life never have the opportunities present to those above them. By providing a chance you present the opportunity for a more positive outcome. To classify the black community as the great un-read sea of broken families mired in toxic subcultures is somewhat racist in itself. As with any and all communities, there are those that may fit your description, and those who lack nothing more than opportunity.

Otherwise this is all a bit soap-boxy for my taste. It's certainly easier to pretend that giving systemic racism consideration is just blaming all the problems on it as a way of dismissing the argument, but that's clearly not what is happening here. "If you can't fix all the problems, don't try" is never very compelling, even less so here. If you agree that systemic racism exists in even a small way, it makes sense to try to eliminate it or its effects.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

To classify the black community as the great un-read sea of broken families mired in toxic subcultures is somewhat racist in itself. As with any and all communities, there are those that may fit your description, and those who lack nothing more than opportunity.

No more racist than saying blacks are poorer as a group. Some are rich and some are poor. Some come from single-parent homes, some come from intact homes. But if we're going to look at the statistical likelihood of blacks being poor, then it's daft to ignore the statistical likelihood of blacks being raised in single-parent homes when we know being raised in a single-parent home correlates strongly to poverty.

We can't blot out whole avenues of rational inquiry and methodology just because it might make some people uncomfortable. Isn't that something the left mocks the conservative right over?

[ToewsFan]

PepsiFree have you ever thought about running for office?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No more racist than saying blacks are poorer as a group. Some are rich and some are poor. Some come from single-parent homes, some come from intact homes. But if we're going to look at the statistical likelihood of blacks being poor, then it's daft to ignore the statistical likelihood of blacks being raised in single-parent homes when we know being raised in a single-parent home correlates strongly to poverty.

We can't blot out whole avenues of rational inquiry and methodology just because it might make some people uncomfortable. Isn't that something the left mocks the conservative right over?

Except that you can make the case that the increased rate of single-parent homes is itself a result of systemic racism, namely the lower quality of education and health services available to black people, higher rates of incarceration, etc.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No more racist than saying blacks are poorer as a group. Some are rich and some are poor. Some come from single-parent homes, some come from intact homes. But if we're going to look at the statistical likelihood of blacks being poor, then it's daft to ignore the statistical likelihood of blacks being raised in single-parent homes when we know being raised in a single-parent home correlates strongly to poverty.

We can't blot out whole avenues of rational inquiry and methodology just because it might make some people uncomfortable. Isn't that something the left mocks the conservative right over?

The only issue I have with what you're saying is that you're dismissing things that help some people because they won't help all people. It's pretty short sighted. And yes, it is more racist than saying you're more likely to be poor if you're black, because you suggested making it easier for a black person to get into college doesn't matter because they don't have books in the house. As though there aren't vast exceptions to the rule in every community, or even every life situation. Opportunity is really the biggest thing that separates some people from others, regardless of other factors (even if those factors too have an impact).

And nobody is suggesting your second point, nobody is arguing that, and it's not even really relevant to the article... so it just seems like soapboxing. Who is suggesting we blot out rational inquiry? And in what world are you making this a left/conservative issue? What are you talking about?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It might actually.

If your aim is to eliminate the effects of systematic racism, saying that a lower bar for a black person is equivalent to a higher bar for a white person is self-defeating.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe I'm wrong and a lawyer can correct me, but under the purist form of the law, its the act that is supposed to be judged and nothing else.

With the caveat that I am not a criminal lawyer and have never worked a sentencing hearing, this isn't the case. Particularly when you get to sentencing, the goals are set out explicitly in the criminal code:

Purpose and Principles of Sentencing

Purpose

718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

• (a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
• (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
• (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
• (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
• (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
• (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

There are rules of evidence that govern what sorts of things judges can and cannot consider in general, but for the most part, it seems to me that evidence is going to be relevant and material to sentencing if it helps the sentencing judge to look at items (a) to (f) above and come up with a punishment that makes sense in the circumstances to promote those principles. There are going to be exceptions, but in general, having more facts at your disposal to help a judge to make the best decision is what we want.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Opportunity is really the biggest thing that separates some people from others, regardless of other factors (even if those factors too have an impact).

At the risk of dipping my toe in the water of an ongoing argument, this is fundamentally incorrect. Genes are by far - on the order of 75% - the biggest differentiators that separate some people from others. Denying this, given the data that exists, is basically like denying climate change.

Granted there's some overlap here (in the sense that if your parents and your parents' parents weren't blessed with those opportunities, there's a higher likelihood that you're not getting the genius IQ genes).

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

At the risk of dipping my toe in the water of an ongoing argument, this is fundamentally incorrect. Genes are by far - on the order of 75% - the biggest differentiators that separate some people from others. Denying this, given the data that exists, is basically like denying climate change.

Granted there's some overlap here (in the sense that if your parents and your parents' parents weren't blessed with those opportunities, there's a higher likelihood that you're not getting the genius IQ genes).

This isn't necessarily a counterpoint to your argument but I'm pretty sure there have been a few studies that basically suggest that gifted people who weren't born into privilege tend to not ascend as high as people with average or below-average intelligence who were.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

At the risk of dipping my toe in the water of an ongoing argument, this is fundamentally incorrect. Genes are by far - on the order of 75% - the biggest differentiators that separate some people from others. Denying this, given the data that exists, is basically like denying climate change.

Granted there's some overlap here (in the sense that if your parents and your parents' parents weren't blessed with those opportunities, there's a higher likelihood that you're not getting the genius IQ genes).

Did I fall into some sort of logic warp where "some people" in my post meant all people? or most people? or the majority of people? Maybe I'm wrong, but "genes are the biggest differentiators for 75% of people" doesn't contract "opportunity is the biggest differentiator for some people" in any way.

Again, who is arguing that factors outside of this aren't an issue? Who? Did anyone deny the effects of genes or community? Why are you bringing up climate change? Why is Cliff making this a left/right issue?

I feel like I've gone insane.

[ToewsFan]

Asian Canadians, the Japanese in particular, disprove this theory. In the 40s, Japanese Canadians were sent to internment camps as virtual POW's. Asians were subjected to racism far before there was a substantial African Canadian population. Recently, Muslims have been subject to systemic racism that would make whatever African Canadians go through look like Disneyland.
Why is it that Asians and Muslims aren't committing crimes in dramatic numbers like Black Canadians? Going back a little further, Jews and the Irish were subjected to open racism for decades. Why are all the other ethnic groups that went through the same dilemmas as Black Canadians, have average or below average incarceration rates?

I think this is a case of the true problem being within the Black community itself, and their inability to deal with any real or perceived systemic racism. Look at every single First World country. People of African descent have a higher incarceration rate compared to the general population in North America and Europe. They have to adhere to our laws. Why should we bend over backwards for an ethnic group that has a history of encounters with the legal system greater than any other ethnic group.

It would be an insult to all other ethnic groups who have been victim of equal or greater systemic racism, to give African Canadians special treatment in the justice system. The Irish, Japanese, Jews, East Indians, Muslims, and Chinese have endured the same problems, and not had problems with incarceration.

I think it's time the leaders of the Black community addressed this issue, and took responsibility for the actions of their members.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

If your aim is to eliminate the effects of systematic racism, saying that a lower bar for a black person is equivalent to a higher bar for a white person is self-defeating.

Seriously? If you asked two sprinters to run 100M but only put hurdles in one lane, should the runner with the hurdles be expected to finish with the same time?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by SebC

If your aim is to eliminate the effects of systematic racism, saying that a lower bar for a black person is equivalent to a higher bar for a white person is self-defeating.

Agreed. I would change the way we look at the bar entirely on both sides and instead of any affirmative action type of policy, set in an a way that gives disadvantaged people of any race ample opportunity.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Agreed. I would change the way we look at the bar entirely on both sides and instead of any affirmative action type of policy, set in an a way that gives disadvantaged people of any race ample opportunity.

Standardized testing, grading, etc. could be entire thread of its own.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Standardized testing, grading, etc. could be entire thread of its own.

What would that solve? Are you saying we need to treat all ethnic groups as having different subsets of disabilities?

Standardized testing works. The research is in, and it is overwhelming. If you are worried about some ethnic groups being behind the median, then look at changing social arrangements within those groups, or exposing those groups to more cohesive education.

Don't move the bar down a few rungs just so that they can see some false progress. That doesn't fix anything.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This isn't necessarily a counterpoint to your argument but I'm pretty sure there have been a few studies that basically suggest that gifted people who weren't born into privilege tend to not ascend as high as people with average or below-average intelligence who were.

You're right, I think I was knee-jerk interpreting Pepsifree's sentence referring to "differences between people" to mean inherent differences, not outcome differences. That is, to mean that if you took person A and person B, having more or less equivalent life experiences, and gave them each a full ride to Harvard and told them "go be a surgeon or a lawyer or a rocket scientist", their success in that venture would be roughly similar because they've been given similar opportunities. That's not the case. It's not even close to being the case.

If you're talking outcomes, I don't disagree at all that how high you rise or how far you fall is linked in a big way to where you start. That might have been what he meant, too, in which case, fair.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Did I fall into some sort of logic warp where "some people" in my post meant all people? or most people? or the majority of people? Maybe I'm wrong, but "genes are the biggest differentiators for 75% of people"

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but that's not what I meant - I mean genes are a more dominant differentiator for all human beings, by virtue of biology, on the order of 75-25. Who you end up being is less a factor of what happens to you than your genetic makeup. Which is an uncomfortable fact for some people.

Why are you bringing up climate change?

Again, without getting involved for the moment (maybe later because it's way more interesting than the American Politics thread right now) in your argument with Cliff, I was bringing it up to analogize it to the evidence supporting the above statement about how influential genetic makeup is. There are quite a lot of people who for ideological reasons resist those conclusions, much like they do in the case of climate change. Or just psychological reasons; it's hard to hear that no matter what you do or how we try to better peoples' circumstances, most of who they end up being is already set in stone.