Trump pardons sherrife that arrested drug dealers

The post that was quoted here has been removed

As a Jew, I certainly know what it is like to face bias views from hateful people like yourself. But rather than picture the whole world as being filled with endless invisible barriers, I understand that most people like yourself are completely inconsequential and that rather than make excuses, I just go out and achieve. Life really isn't that complex.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You repeat the same lies and think they are true. You found one person who minimizes credential typically found in Jews and overemphasizes credentials found in Asians.
You like the result (because you have no problem openly displaying your hatred for Jews) so you decide this fool is right and Harvard and other universities are racist. Thankfully, Harvard does not listen to morons like yourself so you can most on meaningless forums like this and Jews can go to places like Harvard and continue to achieve greatness.

Originally posted by @quackquack
IThe fact that the Nazi's may have endorsed it is completely irrelevant and doesn't change that it is good advise.

Bloody hell. How is it possible anybody has reached this level of stupidity?

Originally posted by @finnegan
There are lots of ways to demonstrate racism in sentencing. In 2010, in the USA, the chances of being in prison were 450 per 100,000 if your were White, 831 per 100,000 if you were Hispanic, 2,306 if you were Black.

The statistics alone should make you question what is happening. They are fkg astonishing.

Looking through Obama's pardons, take t ...[text shortened]... innocent Americans.

If you cannot see the difference, that reflects on you very badly indeed.

100 kgs is rather a lot. I think that sentences for possession with intent to supply in the UK start at about 5 years. Questions regarding whether cannabis ought to be illegal aren't a matter for the court, I'm guessing that the relevant legislation specifies a range of sentences, so given that cannabis is illegal in that jurisdiction and that he was caught with a lot of it I don't think the police and courts were going to treat him differently. I don't think that this example illustrates an injustice, or an indictment of the US justice system given that he'd probably get a harsher sentence in the UK.

Plenty of people have tried cannabis, but very few ever possess more than an ounce of the stuff at a time.

Originally posted by @deepthought
100 kgs is rather a lot. I think that sentences for possession with intent to supply in the UK start at about 5 years. Questions regarding whether cannabis ought to be illegal aren't a matter for the court, I'm guessing that the relevant legislation specifies a range of sentences, so given that cannabis is illegal in that jurisdiction and that he was ...[text shortened]... people have tried cannabis, but very few ever possess more than an ounce of the stuff at a time.

I defer to your specialist exprtise here. That said, the best information I could find on this pardon was that it was one of many in which the sentence was judged to be excessive, but it was not easy to find detail. What I gave was therefore my own personal opinion as to why 9 years is an excessive penalty but in the crazy world of drug laws I am sure you are right that even the UK (which is not paradise) cheerfully locks people up for pointless, futile years to no useful purpose.

Having said that we do not even know on what basis he was convicted of this specific offence. What we do know is that it was highly unikely to have been by means of a fair trial. The USA has given up even pretending to do fair trials - if they ever did for Black defendents. Take this source for example:

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The Constitution further guarantees that at the trial, the accused will have the assistance of counsel, who can confront and cross-examine his accusers and present evidence on the accused’s behalf. He may be convicted only if an impartial jury of his peers is unanimously of the view that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and so states, publicly, in its verdict.

The drama inherent in these guarantees is regularly portrayed in movies and television programs as an open battle played out in public before a judge and jury. But this is all a mirage. In actuality, our criminal justice system is almost exclusively a system of plea bargaining, negotiated behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight. The outcome is very largely determined by the prosecutor alone.

In 2013, while 8 percent of all federal criminal charges were dismissed (either because of a mistake in fact or law or because the defendant had decided to cooperate), more than 97 percent of the remainder were resolved through plea bargains, and fewer than 3 percent went to trial. The plea bargains largely determined the sentences imposed.

While corresponding statistics for the fifty states combined are not available, it is a rare state where plea bargains do not similarly account for the resolution of at least 95 percent of the felony cases that are not dismissed; and again, the plea bargains usually determine the sentences, sometimes as a matter of law and otherwise as a matter of practice. Furthermore, in both the state and federal systems, the power to determine the terms of the plea bargain is, as a practical matter, lodged largely in the prosecutor, with the defense counsel having little say and the judge even less.

.....whereas in 1980, 19 percent of all federal defendants went to trial, by 2000 the number had decreased to less than 6 percent and by 2010 to less than 3 percent, where it has remained ever since.

The reason for this is that the guidelines, like the mandatory minimums, provide prosecutors with weapons to bludgeon defendants into effectively coerced plea bargains. In the majority of criminal cases, a defense lawyer only meets her client when or shortly after the client is arrested, so that, at the outset, she is at a considerable informational disadvantage to the prosecutor. If, as is very often the case (despite the constitutional prohibition of “excessive bail” ), bail is set so high that the client is detained, the defense lawyer has only modest opportunities, within the limited visiting hours and other arduous restrictions imposed by most jails, to interview her client and find out his version of the facts.

The prosecutor, by contrast, will typically have a full police report, complete with witness interviews and other evidence, shortly followed by grand jury testimony, forensic test reports, and follow-up investigations. While much of this may be one-sided and inaccurate—the National Academy of Science’s recently released report on the unreliability of eyewitness identification well illustrates the danger—it not only gives the prosecutor a huge advantage over the defense counsel but also makes the prosecutor confident, maybe overconfident, of the strength of his case.

Against this background, the information-deprived defense lawyer, typically within a few days after the arrest, meets with the overconfident prosecutor, who makes clear that, unless the case can be promptly resolved by a plea bargain, he intends to charge the defendant with the most severe offenses he can prove. Indeed, until late last year, federal prosecutors were under orders from a series of attorney generals to charge the defendant with the most serious charges that could be proved—unless, of course, the defendant was willing to enter into a plea bargain. If, however, the defendant wants to plead guilty, the prosecutor will offer him a considerably reduced charge—but only if the plea is agreed to promptly (thus saving the prosecutor valuable resources). Otherwise, he will charge the maximum, and, while he will not close the door to any later plea bargain, it will be to a higher-level offense than the one offered at the outset of the case.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/

As you see it is a rare case that actually goes to court for a properly defended trial. The horror stories emerging of the way prosecutors stitch people up in this process would make you weep and gnash your teeth.


Notice that if anyone has the temerity to defend themselves in court, the prosecutor will hit them with the most severe possible charges and demand the maximum possible penalties and even the judge can do nothing about it. I left out paragraphs about mandatory sentencing that you might like to read too. Incredibly, and certainly in conflict with the law in English courts as far as I know, people are penalised for exercising their right to a fair trial. That is obscene and tyrannical. What is the fkg matter with Americans? Do they not give a sht about their own civil rights??? Are White Americans really this confident that it will not be their turn next?

This may also help to clarify the horror of people like Sheriff Arpaio in the system, who have awesome power to stitch citizens up and package them off to a private prison with very limited scrutiny.