Got Brown Skin? Get Out of Jail Quicker!

[New Octopucta]

I regard that as entirely irrelevant. The two factors are inextricably linked. The next step is an unavoidable implication, that by being disadvantaged economically as a discriminated minority, he's not only more likely to be involved in crime, he has less resources available at his disposal to defend himself, and is more likely to be stigmatized and subject to racially motivated conviction or sentencing.

How could it possibly be irrelevant? This is the argument of the person we're talking about. I agree that racism contributed both to the circumstances of many of the Maori people and to their treatment by the justice system, but it's ridiculous to dismiss the former simply because it is commonly linked to the latter. I'm quite certain that there exist Maori who have committed crimes and gotten sentences in line with the national average, which would make this a separate issue from the issue of Maori being pressured into crime.

[Costa Alegria]

I'm quite certain that there exist Maori who have committed crimes and gotten sentences in line with the national average, which would make this a separate issue from the issue of Maori being pressured into crime.

Let's look at this case. The defendant was sentenced to a total of six years and nine months. The average sentence length for an adult is five years. Maori as a group are disproportionate when it comes to poverty and crime statistics, owing to the sad fact that the majority of Maori live in poverty and are involved in crime. Which ultimately brings them into conflict with the law and thus gives us a disproportionate number in prison.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

And spending less time is somehow going to make it fair to the Maori criminals? That doesn't sound very fair at all. He did the crime, he pays in time.

One's racial background is no excuse to justify their crimes. If that were the case, we would have to be "fair" to those Klansmen who lynch blacks. After all, only white people can be racist, right? They must have a genetic and social predisposition to be racist, and therefore, it is inevitable that whites will lynch others.

Nonsense.

[Costa Alegria]

And spending less time is somehow going to make it fair to the Maori criminals? That doesn't sound very fair at all. He did the crime, he pays in time.

It's simply "Maori". Don't use the word "the" in front as Maori is both a singular and plural term.

[Trotskylvania]

You can believe that if you want. I choose not to based on these two gems:

It's simply undeniable that the law comes down harder, with greater regularity, on people of colour.

People of colour, whether its Maori in New Zealand or blacks in the US, get convicted more often, and sentenced more harshly for equivalent crimes than white defendants.

You're saying in broad terms that something is happening. You have provided no proof of this. You're implying, specifically, that this is happening here. You've provided no proof of that either.

Yes, I say this without resorting to the tired game of picking a source at random on the internet, just the same as I tend to say things like "the sky tends to be blue" and "evolution occurs according to natural selection" without citing a journal article to prove it. Because outside of science denialist circles, they are entirely uncontroversial and have been for decades. For example, a search on JSTOR for (institutional racism) AND (New Zealand) returns 2209 peer reviewed journal articles, reviews, etc. on the subject. If that's too daunting, try Belinda A. E. Borell, Amanda S. Gregory, Tim N. McCreanor, Victoria G. L. Jensen and Helen E. Moewaka Barnes. "'It's Hard at the Top but It's a Whole Lot Easier than Being at the Bottom:' The Role of Privilege in Understanding Disparities in Aotearoa/New Zealand." Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts. Vol. 3, No. 1 (Autumn, 2009), pp. 29-50.

That's not what I was saying. When I said, "Not because the judge was racist" what I was saying was, "His lawyer is not saying that Mika was sentenced more harshly because a biased judge". You've taken it as saying, "The judge was not being racist when he sentenced Mika".

You seized upon an idea that was not present and now it's affecting your interpretation of what others are saying.

No, I've made it pretty clear that the lawyer's limited appeal is part of a much larger context that is inextricably linked.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

And spending less time is somehow going to make it fair to the Maori criminals? That doesn't sound very fair at all. He did the crime, he pays in time.

It's simply "Maori". Don't use the word "the" in front as Maori is both a singular and plural term.

Completely irrelevant to my post.

I shall say what I wish.

[Trotskylvania]

I regard that as entirely irrelevant. The two factors are inextricably linked. The next step is an unavoidable implication, that by being disadvantaged economically as a discriminated minority, he's not only more likely to be involved in crime, he has less resources available at his disposal to defend himself, and is more likely to be stigmatized and subject to racially motivated conviction or sentencing.

How could it possibly be irrelevant? This is the argument of the person we're talking about. I agree that racism contributed both to the circumstances of many of the Maori people and to their treatment by the justice system, but it's ridiculous to dismiss the former simply because it is commonly linked to the latter. I'm quite certain that there exist Maori who have committed crimes and gotten sentences in line with the national average, which would make this a separate issue from the issue of Maori being pressured into crime.

You misunderstand. I wasn't entirely clear, but I was responding to the argument that because the lawyer's case was more limited, the racial disparity in conviction and sentencing argument should be chucked out. The limits the lawyer placed on his own case are what I implied were irrelevant; the racial disparity in sentencing is specifically measurable.

[Costa Alegria]

I shall say what I wish.

It's grammatically incorrect though.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

I shall say what I wish.

It's grammatically incorrect though.

And?

Maybe I like being a grammer Jew.

[Saiwania]

This is simply White guilt at work.

[GCMG]

You make the claim, you must provide the proof.

Or, to translate to NSG--ish.

Source?

Knock yourself out.

According to this report a whopping 10% or so of Maori (and NZ adults generally) feel discriminated against on a racial basis.

Asians, unsurprisingly, are the most likely to feel discriminated against (at nearly 20%). I would imagine that anti-immigration sentiments (often held by Maori and NZ Europeans) are responsible for that.

Really, I wouldn't look too fondly on your claim.

It's simply "Maori". Don't use the word "the" in front as Maori is both a singular and plural term.

Completely irrelevant to my post.

I shall say what I wish.

I would disagree with Costa's description of it as "grammatically incorrect". The issue is that "the X" is a short step away from "your X" and "you people". Yes, that's whether it's "The British", "The Chinese", "The Jews" or "The Maori". The former seems more normal but that's only because it doesn't have associations with the way that your stereotypical Victorian would have spoken and thought. And hopefully that example shows the point.

Yes, I say this without resorting to the tired game of picking a source at random on the internet, just the same as I tend to say things like "the sky tends to be blue" and "evolution occurs according to natural selection" without citing a journal article to prove it. Because outside of science denialist circles, they are entirely uncontroversial and have been for decades. For example, a search on JSTOR for (institutional racism) AND (New Zealand) returns 2209 peer reviewed journal articles, reviews, etc. on the subject. If that's too daunting, try Belinda A. E. Borell, Amanda S. Gregory, Tim N. McCreanor, Victoria G. L. Jensen and Helen E. Moewaka Barnes. "'It's Hard at the Top but It's a Whole Lot Easier than Being at the Bottom:' The Role of Privilege in Understanding Disparities in Aotearoa/New Zealand." Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts. Vol. 3, No. 1 (Autumn, 2009), pp. 29-50.

JSTOR is, for most people, "pay walled" and finding that book is quite problematic. This is exactly why internet sources are used, especially Wiki. What you've done is pretend you're being clever by jumping up to fancier stuff but really you're hiding behind things that are a) harder to come by and b) not actually necessary for this sort of discussion.

No-one is saying that these things don't exist. What we are saying is that if it's happening, you should be able to show that it is happening here. We are also saying, that you have said it is happening here by a) mentioning the broader issues and b) through that and your general tone are suggesting that it is happening here specifically. We are additionally saying that you're continuing along this path despite its not actually being part of the lawyer's argument.

So, I guess I am saying that this paragraph is out of touch with the realities of this conversation and its general audience.

No, I've made it pretty clear that the lawyer's limited appeal is part of a much larger context that is inextricably linked.

No, you've asserted that. There's a difference. It's one thing to hold a conversation with people who think and perceive the world in the same fashion that you do and quite another when the other participants do not.

That said, you are correct that sentencing bias would contribute to an ongoing cycle of Maori disadvantage. The problem is that you've not identified that such bias is actually at play here. Separating them is quite easy and it's actually reasonable to separate them. Rapley's argument about disadvantage versus your original justification of correction of sentencing bias differ fundamentally... even though (as you have pointed out subsequently) the sentencing bias (being different to the idea that correcting it through standard sentence -10%) would influence disadvantage.

Besides, this is irrelevant to my point that you'd taken something as meaning something else in order to continue your sermon.

You misunderstand. I wasn't entirely clear, but I was responding to the argument that because the lawyer's case was more limited, the racial disparity in conviction and sentencing argument should be chucked out. The limits the lawyer placed on his own case are what I implied were irrelevant; the racial disparity in sentencing is specifically measurable.

That's not what is being argued. I am not saying that the lawyer's case is more limited. I am saying that it is different to what you're saying.

I am saying that the lawyer needs to take his general argument and actually show how it applies to his client (i.e. Mika) and, further to that, that he has already failed to do that once.

[Rednax]

So, what say you opinionated sheep of NSG? Should the defendant walk off with a lighter sentence? Or should he suffer the half-arsed prison sentence like everyone else?

Baaa

Baa? Baa.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa^

[David Republic (Ancient)]

um, he does realize that he is already in prison for only over 6 years, for killing a kid, right? He is lucky! in U.S. states like Texas, he'd probably be on death row by now! and he wants a reduction? U.S. judges would laugh at is request.

[Timothia]

Did anyone else think that the sentence was too short already? That was the biggest thing to me. The defendant should be thankful that he didn't receive a life sentence.

The lawyer has every right to appeal for a shorter sentence because he feels his client is being racially profiled. The judge has every right to then look at the lawyer and say "Screw you, I was being generous as it is."

[Stahn]

A Mongrel Mob member facing more than six years in jail is appealing his manslaughter sentence on the grounds being Maori puts him at a social disadvantage.

The Court of Appeal reserved its decision, with a judge labelling the request as "radical" during the hearing in Auckland today.

Jessie Mika, who has been involved with a gang since he was 16 and has "Mobsta" tattooed across his face, was sentenced in September to six years and nine months in jail for causing the death of a teenage boy during a car chase in Canterbury.

Christchurch defence lawyer James Rapley said Maori should receive shorter prison sentences because they come from an environment of social deprivation and inequality.

"Fifty-one per cent of the prison population is Maori," he told the Court of Appeal. "Everyone says everyone should be treated alike and equally, but not everyone is equal."

Mika was brought up by his aunt after his father walked out and his mother was unable to care for him, he said.

"Before he knew it, at the age of 14 or 15, he was associating with gangs," Rapley said.

He suggested a 10 per cent reduction in Mika's sentence due to his Maori heritage.

The three Court of Appeal judges said they struggled with the concept of reducing a sentence based on race.

"You're asking us to take a pretty radical step and we just won't do it on a wing and a prayer," Justice Rhys Harrison said.

"Because he has some Maori blood - and we're not sure how much - he's somehow less blameworthy or culpable. That's an extraordinary proposition."

Justice Robert Dobson said he agreed the prison ethnicity statistics were appalling, but making ethnicity a mitigating factor in sentencing would not solve the problem.

The judges also asked Rapley how such a rule would be interpreted, including whether a person who was 1/16th Maori would be given a lighter sentence.

Chocolate Rain.

Your eyes do not deceive you. The lawyer of the defendant was asking for a shorter jail sentence purely because of the defendant's ethnicity. That because Maori are over-represented in crime statistics, that he should have a less lengthy sentence than the one he was given (which, if you missed it, was six years and nine months). Six years. So, fuck the family of the teenage son whom you robbed the life of when your little joyride in a stolen car ended in a horrific accident because your ethnicity just happens to comprise a significant portion of our nation's prison population.

FUCK. YOU. ARSEHOLE. If you can't do the time, don't do the fucking crime. In saying that, he'll be out on parole in three years anyway because this country's "justice" system is fucked.

So, what say you opinionated sheep of NSG? Should the defendant walk off with a lighter sentence? Or should he suffer the half-arsed prison sentence like everyone else?

It is their land anyway. Why should they have to conform to the law of the wite man? I feel it is the white man that needs to conform to their ethics and not the other way aroudn.

[Conservative Conservationists]

A Mongrel Mob member facing more than six years in jail is appealing his manslaughter sentence on the grounds being Maori puts him at a social disadvantage.

The Court of Appeal reserved its decision, with a judge labelling the request as "radical" during the hearing in Auckland today.

Jessie Mika, who has been involved with a gang since he was 16 and has "Mobsta" tattooed across his face, was sentenced in September to six years and nine months in jail for causing the death of a teenage boy during a car chase in Canterbury.

Christchurch defence lawyer James Rapley said Maori should receive shorter prison sentences because they come from an environment of social deprivation and inequality.

"Fifty-one per cent of the prison population is Maori," he told the Court of Appeal. "Everyone says everyone should be treated alike and equally, but not everyone is equal."

Mika was brought up by his aunt after his father walked out and his mother was unable to care for him, he said.

"Before he knew it, at the age of 14 or 15, he was associating with gangs," Rapley said.

He suggested a 10 per cent reduction in Mika's sentence due to his Maori heritage.

The three Court of Appeal judges said they struggled with the concept of reducing a sentence based on race.

"You're asking us to take a pretty radical step and we just won't do it on a wing and a prayer," Justice Rhys Harrison said.

"Because he has some Maori blood - and we're not sure how much - he's somehow less blameworthy or culpable. That's an extraordinary proposition."

Justice Robert Dobson said he agreed the prison ethnicity statistics were appalling, but making ethnicity a mitigating factor in sentencing would not solve the problem.

The judges also asked Rapley how such a rule would be interpreted, including whether a person who was 1/16th Maori would be given a lighter sentence.

Chocolate Rain.

Your eyes do not deceive you. The lawyer of the defendant was asking for a shorter jail sentence purely because of the defendant's ethnicity. That because Maori are over-represented in crime statistics, that he should have a less lengthy sentence than the one he was given (which, if you missed it, was six years and nine months). Six years. So, fuck the family of the teenage son whom you robbed the life of when your little joyride in a stolen car ended in a horrific accident because your ethnicity just happens to comprise a significant portion of our nation's prison population.

FUCK. YOU. ARSEHOLE. If you can't do the time, don't do the fucking crime. In saying that, he'll be out on parole in three years anyway because this country's "justice" system is fucked.

So, what say you opinionated sheep of NSG? Should the defendant walk off with a lighter sentence? Or should he suffer the half-arsed prison sentence like everyone else?

It is their land anyway. Why should they have to conform to the law of the wite man? I feel it is the white man that needs to conform to their ethics and not the other way aroudn.

What is this white man? Does it include Asian migrants and African Migrants? How about people who where born in New Zealand and have never been a citizen of another country? Or is this white man a scape goat as a tool to help remove responsibility for current injustices?

The mere fact that this argument is seriously heard by courts, supports my belief that we need mandatory minimum sentencing. If you are harmed by a person, their ancestry does not make the harm any less or any more.

[Geilinor]

I'd think that rehabilitation to aid him in becoming a functional and honest member of society when he gets out after six years would do more good to the Maori community than letting him off in less time.

This^. Costa should also have worded his post in a more calm manner, it reads like a rant, which is what it is. The caps doesn't help either.

[Omicron Percei 9]

I don't like things like this, because discrimination is very difficult to prove to any satisfactory degree. You can demonstrate statistical discrepancies but even if you control for the fact that some groups are just more likely to commit crime than others, the mere existence of a statistical discrepancy is not adequate evidence that any particular case is discriminatory. It's a statistical effect, not a case-by-case effect.

[Omicron Percei 9]

After all, all people are fundamentally good. Those who transgress, only do so either because they were compelled by circumstances or because they didn't know any better because of a failure on the part of those who were responsible for their moral education. In the first case, the problem can be fixed by alleviating the underlying social circumstances. In the second case, the problem can be fixed by working with the person to find a method of moral education that works for hir, since clearly the normal methods that work for most of us were ineffective with this particular individual

In neither case, of course, is the transgressor to blame. In neither case, then, does the transgressor deserve anything but compassion and love.

Psychopaths, sociopaths, and criminally insane schizophrenics exist. What is to be done with them? Such people cannot be rehabilitated. The assertion that all people are fundamentally good is bollocks.

[Geilinor]

After all, all people are fundamentally good. Those who transgress, only do so either because they were compelled by circumstances or because they didn't know any better because of a failure on the part of those who were responsible for their moral education. In the first case, the problem can be fixed by alleviating the underlying social circumstances. In the second case, the problem can be fixed by working with the person to find a method of moral education that works for hir, since clearly the normal methods that work for most of us were ineffective with this particular individual

In neither case, of course, is the transgressor to blame. In neither case, then, does the transgressor deserve anything but compassion and love.

Psychopaths, sociopaths, and criminally insane schizophrenics exist. What is to be done with them? Such people cannot be rehabilitated. The assertion that all people are fundamentally good is bollocks.

Psychopaths, sociopaths and schizophrenics are not fundamentally bad, they have medical disorders that we can do something about.

[Condunum]

Oh look, more racebaiting from so-called "reasonable people".

It's simply undeniable that the law comes down harder, with greater regularity, on people of color. The only question that should be left to us is what are we going to do about it. There has to be some sort of remedy available to deal with this miscarriage of justice. Reducing sentences on appeal based on the measurable racial disparity in sentencing and conviction is an entirely reasonable proposal.

This logic would only follow if his ethnicity could be proven to be increasing his sentencing... And with six years, I doubt it is.

[Omicron Percei 9]

Psychopaths, sociopaths and schizophrenics are not fundamentally bad, they have medical disorders that we can do something about.

Only schizophrenics, and only if we can ensure they take their medication. Sociopaths are fundamentally amoral. Psychopaths are pretty much fundamentally bad, by definition. Both sociopathy and psychopathy involve brain abnormalities. Therapy isn't going to make that go away.

[Condunum]

After all, all people are fundamentally good. Those who transgress, only do so either because they were compelled by circumstances or because they didn't know any better because of a failure on the part of those who were responsible for their moral education. In the first case, the problem can be fixed by alleviating the underlying social circumstances. In the second case, the problem can be fixed by working with the person to find a method of moral education that works for hir, since clearly the normal methods that work for most of us were ineffective with this particular individual

In neither case, of course, is the transgressor to blame. In neither case, then, does the transgressor deserve anything but compassion and love.

Psychopaths, sociopaths, and criminally insane schizophrenics exist. What is to be done with them? Such people cannot be rehabilitated. The assertion that all people are fundamentally good is bollocks.

He said to Bluth, thinking Bluth is not a sith lord.

[Condunum]

Psychopaths, sociopaths and schizophrenics are not fundamentally bad, they have medical disorders that we can do something about.

Only schizophrenics, and only if we can ensure they take their medication. Sociopaths are fundamentally amoral. Psychopaths are pretty much fundamentally bad, by definition. Both sociopathy and psychopathy involve brain abnormalities. Therapy isn't going to make that go away.

Sociopaths show great improvement in their function with regular therapy. Stop bullshitting.

[Omicron Percei 9]

Sociopaths show great improvement in their function with regular therapy. Stop bullshitting.

That depends on the cause of the sociopathy. It can be caused by brain abnormalities. That cannot really be fixed. Also, improvement in function? Sociopaths can function quite well. They have great social skills and are very good at manipulating others. They just don't feel remorse for any wrongdoing.