Ahhh..lets be fair here Bill. We are all in agreement on the study that shows Blacks get longer sentences and/or are arrested more often. Why dont YOU cite some sources that prove that its unfair? Or that its due to unfair treatment by the police or the justice system?
People spout those studies off as proof of some sort of bias in and of themselves but I dont think its that easy. Those links address many issues...they may not cite any proofs, but your implication that these sentences are due to some sort of bias isnt showing any citations either.
The problem with proving bias is that it is impossible to prove or to disprove. If one points out that blacks receive, in general, harsher sentences for the same offenses also committed by whites (which I did), then others say well, the blacks more often have prior criminal records. But then you can say well, WHY do the blacks more often have prior criminal records? Is it because they often live in low-income areas which are prone to crime? Is it because they often turn to drugs because they cannot find work? Is it because they are inferior to whites, or prone to lawlessness in general? Do the police tend to arrest blacks more often than white, thus beginning their lifetimes of criminal history, which will later be used in sentencing? In other words, even if one were to somehow prove that the disparity in sentencing is not racist in and of itself, then one has to turn to the reasons for crime in the first place and whether or not any of them are racist.
One set of studies that have definitively put the racist label on sentencing laws is recent, and involves crack cocaine versus cocaine itself. Until recently, laws for possession and sale of crack were much higher than those for cocaine - but crack is cocaine, just cooked into a different chemical form. Why is this racist? Because crack cocaine is the drug of choice amongst the poorest members of our society, whilst cocaine itself remains a drug that can only be afforded by the relatively wealthy.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/crackreform.aspx
Since the majority of the poor in America are black, the disparity in sentencing laws meant that the result was effectively racist, even if it was not targeted at blacks in hatred.
However, let's get back to the point. The statements made expressed outrage that a violent attack on whites by blacks was not trumpeted in the news as a hate crime. The OP expressed resentment that whites-as-victims-of-blacks are not treated the same way as blacks-as-victims-of-whites when it comes to being considered a racist crime.
My response was that the media may well slant it that way - I can't disagree - but that the media does not bring charges. Furthermore, as you said, it is a known fact that blacks convicted of violent crimes such as assault are more likely to receive longer sentences than whites convicted of the same crime - regardless of the reason, this is a true statement.
Since both could generate outrage over the potential 'racism' inherent in them, my question to the OP and sympathizers was: where is your outrage over the OTHER side of the question?
The response to date has been to pretend it doesn't happen the other way. Whites are the victims, blacks are not. Period.
There are people who believe such things, and there is a word that describes them.
