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

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think it actually was. I read it as an argument to people who think policy in this area should be dictated by outcomes (which to be clear I'm not saying is the wrong approach). E.g., "aboriginal people are vastly overrepresented in Canadian prisons, what policy can we implement to ameliorate those outcomes". He was simply pointing out one outcome of the policy under discussion that would need to be taken into account.

You don't seriously believe that, do you, especially when the guy uses a term like "perverse" in the post? Pretty clear what his angle was.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You don't seriously believe that, do you, especially when the guy uses a term like "perverse" in the post? Pretty clear what his angle was.

Yes? What angle? I'm not trying to be obtuse. It seems like you're really sure about his underlying motive was in making that post and that it was invidious. Can you spell out exactly what your issue is with the logic being used? I mean, what's clear to me is the premises and the conclusion:

P1: Individuals from community X are more likely to be the targets of crime by members of community X;
P2: Recidivism is a problem;
P3: A policy that leads to members of community X being less likely to be given custodial sentences will lead to more criminal members of community X being out in the world;
C: The policy in question that calls for reduced or other sentences besides jail time will lead to crimes being perpetrated against innocent members of Community X by recidivist criminals who might otherwise be in prison.

That's just... valid. I know you said it was some form of emotional manipulation but I can't understand how that is or why you'd assume that. You can say those priorities are dwarfed by other concerns that are important in implementing sentencing policy, and there may be a good argument that the policy reduces crime overall at the end of the day (I have no idea). But he's still right, unless one of those premises is wrong.

[CaptainYooh]

So, in a situation where a person was murdered by someone claiming "honour killing", should the courts take cultural (racial?) background in consideration as a mitigating factor in evaluating findings and sentencing? Or do you think this request is only about special considerations for black and aboriginal offenders?

I am curious to hear opinions of people on both sides of the debate (yes, they should or no, they should not).

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

So, in a situation where a person was murdered by someone claiming "honour killing", should the courts take cultural (racial?) background in consideration as a mitigating factor in evaluating findings and sentencing? Or do you think this request is only about special considerations for black and aboriginal offenders?

I am curious to hear opinions of people on both sides of the debate (yes, they should or no, they should not).

No it shouldn't to me, serious violent crimes like murder and sexual assault should be truly color blind because they're completely unacceptable in our society no matter what your cultural or racial background is.

There's no excuse for murder, there's no excuse for sexual assault.

honor killing in your example is unacceptable at all levels, the courts did the right thing when they sentenced that family a few years back for murdering the daughters.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yes? What angle? I'm not trying to be obtuse. It seems like you're really sure about his underlying motive was in making that post and that it was invidious. Can you spell out exactly what your issue is with the logic being used? I mean, what's clear to me is the premises and the conclusion:

I didn't question the logic behind his statement, I questioned the motives. It's not as if it's unheard of for people to make totally valid arguments that are designed to elicit an emotional reaction.

C: The policy in question that calls for reduced or other sentences besides jail time will lead to crimes being perpetrated against innocent members of Community X by recidivist criminals who might otherwise be in prison.

Well I think that's the main question, right? If this policy leads to a more rehabilitative and less punitive treatment of blacks, the hope would be that it would lead to lower levels of recidivism, right?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

So, in a situation where a person was murdered by someone claiming "honour killing", should the courts take cultural (racial?) background in consideration as a mitigating factor in evaluating findings and sentencing? Or do you think this request is only about special considerations for black and aboriginal offenders?

I am curious to hear opinions of people on both sides of the debate (yes, they should or no, they should not).

Killing someone because your "culture" has normalized murder and misogyny is an entirely different beast than say committing theft because you were born into poverty and the system was stacked against you achieving your way out of it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I didn't question the logic behind his statement, I questioned the motives. It's not as if it's unheard of for people to make totally valid arguments that are designed to elicit an emotional reaction.



Well I think that's the main question, right? If this policy leads to a more rehabilitative and less punitive treatment of blacks, the hope would be that it would lead to lower levels of recidivism, right?

Have we proven that there is punitive treatment of blacks in the first place?

[northcrunk]

"Race" should not be considered in any sentencing. We only have 1 race. Human.

[nik-]

oh god

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I didn't question the logic behind his statement, I questioned the motives. It's not as if it's unheard of for people to make totally valid arguments that are designed to elicit an emotional reaction.

Yeah, I know. So first, I don't get why you decided that his motives were suspect, particularly given the validity of the post. Second, isn't this fallacious? If his statement is correct, would it even matter why he made it? Either way, I don't know how you managed to divine his intention, much less decided that it should be obvious to everyone.

Well I think that's the main question, right? If this policy leads to a more rehabilitative and less punitive treatment of blacks, the hope would be that it would lead to lower levels of recidivism, right?

Could be. Could also lead to culture shifts in the community that might be beneficial in terms of crime rates therein (though I'm not aware of the crime rates among African Canadians being anything remotely like what they are south of the border). I think that's also a factor underlying the aboriginal sentencing provisions - if you have a huge segment of the community being ex-cons who've done time, it seems intuitively obvious that that's going to impact the reserve culture detrimentally in ways that will not only lead to more crime but also have other bad effects. Is there any reason to think it will actually help, though? Seems like the jury's still out on that one.

... I'll show myself out.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Have we proven that there is punitive treatment of blacks in the first place?

Maybe I phrased that wrong but I don't think it's necessary to prove that there has been to establish that systemic racism could be a contributing factor to someone committing a crime. Though we may disagree on the degree to which black people are disadvantage, I think we can at least agree that, on average, it's probably easier to be a white person in Canada than a black person. The easiest example I always think of is that if I apply for a job, I can be virtually assured that the hiring manager won't consider my race when deciding upon my application. Even if you believe that 9/10 Canadians aren't racist, a black person probably doesn't have that same level of assurance.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I can be virtually assured that the hiring manager won't consider my race when deciding upon my application. Even if you believe that 9/10 Canadians aren't racist, a black person probably doesn't have that same level of assurance.

I mean, I'm wading into a minefield here, but you've just posited a 10% chance that a black person would be discriminated against in a hiring scenario. That seems high, but leaving that aside, is it offset by the likelihood that being black might be seen as a positive by a prospective employer? I know lots of workplaces, including mine, put a premium on diversity, and still look to the proportion of their workforce that identify as minorities in some way as a measure of that.

But probably more importantly, the connection between this and propensity for crime seems... tenuous.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, I know. So first, I don't get why you decided that his motives were suspect, particularly given the validity of the post. Second, isn't this fallacious? If his statement is correct, would it even matter why he made it? Either way, I don't know how you managed to divine his intention, much less decided that it should be obvious to everyone.

Probably the history of the poster in question. Seeing as the guy pretty consistently rails against identity politics, it seemed pretty suspicious that he would suddenly adopt an intersectional approach, but I could be wrong.

Could be. Could also lead to culture shifts in the community that might be beneficial in terms of crime rates therein (though I'm not aware of the crime rates among African Canadians being anything remotely like what they are south of the border). I think that's also a factor underlying the aboriginal sentencing provisions - if you have a huge segment of the community being ex-cons who've done time, it seems intuitively obvious that that's going to impact the reserve culture detrimentally in ways that will not only lead to more crime but also have other bad effects. Is there any reason to think it will actually help, though? Seems like the jury's still out on that one.

... I'll show myself out.

Yeah, this sort of what I'm wondering. Has this section of the criminal code, when applied appropriately, actually reduced recidivism?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Probably the history of the poster in question. Seeing as the guy pretty consistently rails against identity politics, it seemed pretty suspicious that he would suddenly adopt an intersectional approach, but I could be wrong.

I think so... the argument isn't really predicated on intersectionality, just base utilitarianism. Not to speak for Cliff, but there are similar arguments made vis a vis criticism of Islam (the main victims of conservative or regressive policies based in Muslim scripture are Muslim women, gays, or apostates in those societies), or even some arguments about the underlying causes of murder rates in the black community in the USA (a culture of distrust of police leads to never getting witnesses to testify which leads to never getting convictions which leaves murderers walking the streets, which is a vicious circle), for example.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I mean, I'm wading into a minefield here, but you've just posited a 10% chance that a black person would be discriminated against in a hiring scenario.

Try re-reading that. I posited that 10% of Canadians might be racist. I have no idea what the actual odds are of someone being discriminated against in a hiring scenario, especially accounting for the various screening programs corporations employ now, etc. It was just a very basic example. I wouldn't get too caught up in it.

But probably more importantly, the connection between this and
propensity for crime seems... tenuous.

Well I never suggested a connection to crime, just a connection to systemic racism, but if we assume that people in lower-income classes tend to commit more crimes (which seems to be backed up by various statistics), and assume that discriminatory hiring policies could be a reason (I'm speaking hypothetically here) why minorities are over-represented at lower-income levels then you could make that connection. The example really wasn't meant to be taken as literal as you took it.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Killing someone because your "culture" has normalized murder and misogyny is an entirely different beast than say committing theft because you were born into poverty and the system was stacked against you achieving your way out of it.

I always have an issue with using argument of the system being stacked against you and, therefore, you should be given special considerations to even things out. The system is always stacked against someone in some way (better health, better mind, better inheritance, better neighbourhood, better looks, better talents, better skills etc.) That's life. Where do these considerations start and end?

So, if someone is raised in a culture where honour killing is, well, honourable, why should he not be given a special consideration? Obviously, you draw the consideration line at killing and sexual crimes. But why there? Why not at beating someone up for speaking to the police because that's what we always do to rats in this community? Or at ruining someone's property out of envy?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Your post makes absolutely zero sense. Because I am concerned with racism against black people, that must mean I don't care about the "Japanese, Chinese, and Pakistani" people? Get a grip.

it's your generalizing that because black people have been victims of racism in this country for hundreds of years, it should be taken into consideration when black people are getting sentenced.

shouldn't that apply to more than black people, from which I'm inferring you mean "afro-Canadians"?
shouldn't it be the same for all people of colour in this country that have likely been targets of systematic racism?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I always have an issue with using argument of the system being stacked against you and, therefore, you should be given special considerations to even things out. The system is always stacked against someone in some way (better health, better mind, better inheritance, better neighbourhood, better looks, better talents, better skills etc.) That's life. Where do these considerations start and end?

So, if someone is raised in a culture where honour killing is, well, honourable, why should he not be given a special consideration? Obviously, you draw the consideration line at killing and sexual crimes. But why there? Why not at beating someone up for speaking to the police because that's what we always do to rats in this community? Or at ruining someone's property out of envy?

Doesn't considering their culture (one with honour killings) better enable a judge to make a judgement? Wouldn't this be considered a substantial piece of information no different than history, lifestyle, mental state?

Is anyone advocating for reduced or flat out light prison terms for crimes because of race or culture? Because not even the article suggests that, sentencing is more than the charge of guilty or not guilty. In fact, I believe sentencing happens after a verdict is reached. Considering the culture of the person who murders someone will not change the guilty of murder verdict, but it may impact how they're sentenced. Isn't that a good thing?

It's not like a honour killing scenario is going to see someone walk away with probation here, let's stick to the actual recommendation and not slippery slope fantasies that are often nothing more than that.

If circumstances beyond the act itself weren't considered, sentencing wouldn't existed. It'd simply be X years for X crimes if found guilty, period.

EDIT: And I don't think this should be viewed as (or argued as) some "making amends" for racism thing, it's not. It's pretty simply acknowledging that systemic racism exists and considering it when looking at the whole picture during sentencing. That seems incredibly fair and straightforward.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I always have an issue with using argument of the system being stacked against you and, therefore, you should be given special considerations to even things out. The system is always stacked against someone in some way (better health, better mind, better inheritance, better neighbourhood, better looks, better talents, better skills etc.) That's life. Where do these considerations start and end?

You might have an issue with it but that's how it usually works out. There are certain environmental factors which are statistically correlated with certain behaviours, criminal behaviour included. If the system is stacked against you in a way that says you're more likely to grow up in a home with an abusive parent, and/or develop PTSD and addiction problems, or other issues, should they not be considered when the those things are very commonly linked to delinquent behaviour?

So, if someone is raised in a culture where honour killing is, well, honourable, why should he not be given a special consideration? Obviously, you draw the consideration line at killing and sexual crimes. But why there? Why not at beating someone up for speaking to the police because that's what we always do to rats in this community? Or at ruining someone's property out of envy?

If someone grew up locked in a room and was never taught that killing was wrong, and there was therefore a path to rehabilitation, then I might be inclined to consider it.

I also don't think cultural or racial considerations should be a blanket "get out of jail free" card, as we've been repeating over and over in this thread. If you've done something truly heinous and you represent a continued threat to society, you should be locked away.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Maybe I phrased that wrong but I don't think it's necessary to prove that there has been to establish that systemic racism could be a contributing factor to someone committing a crime. Though we may disagree on the degree to which black people are disadvantage, I think we can at least agree that, on average, it's probably easier to be a white person in Canada than a black person.

It's also easier to be affluent than poor. To come from a stable two-parent family than be raised by a single parent. To be sober than an addict. To have grown up surrounded by high-achievers than surrounded by slackers. To be educated rather than ignorant.

I don't know which of those background influences are admissible in sentencing. But if one (race) were to be treated fundamentally different from others, I'd want to see some credible evidence to support why it's fundamentally different and more egregious than the others. And some thought given to the outcomes of such a policy (such as the effect on the victims on crime in those communities).

Originally Posted by rubecube

Probably the history of the poster in question. Seeing as the guy pretty consistently rails against identity politics, it seemed pretty suspicious that he would suddenly adopt an intersectional approach, but I could be wrong.

I don't see what intersectionality has to do with it. I 'rail' against identity politics because it's illiberal and irrational. It's ultimately rooted in the same psychological soil as racism itself, and runs against the principles that have made Western countries like Canada the most liberal, diverse, and tolerant the world has ever seen.