0 comment Sunday, August 31, 2014 | admin
I did not follow the Casey Anthony story closely, though I was aware of the basic storyline, but I was shocked when the verdict was announced, like many people.
This is the classic tabloid fodder story, and I am mentioning it simply because it sums up so many bad trends in our society. It is symptomatic of a great many things, some of which are topics I blog about.
First, Casey Anthony is a beneficiary of the bias in our legal system in favor of women. In cases involving murder, it seems women are less likely to be convicted, and less likely to receive the death penalty if they are convicted. I've remarked on this before. Andrea Yates is an example, and Susan Smith got a much lighter punishment for killing her two sons than a father would likely get for the same crime.
''Infanticide in the industrialized nations is as common or more common as the killings of adults, and the vast majority of these infants are killed by their mothers, according to the World Health Organization.
A custodial mother is five times more likely to murder her own children as a custodial father, adjusting for the greater number of single mothers, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.
And women are getting away with it. Among women convicted of killing their infants, two-thirds avoid prison completely and the rest serve an average of only seven years. The average prison sentence for females in the U.S. is only about 70% that of males for most violent crimes. A man convicted of murder is 20 times more likely to receive the death penalty than a woman.
How do women get away with it? For one, their victims tend to be the helpless, or semi-helpless, such as children, the elderly, and infants. Thus there's less struggle in their crimes, and less evidence left behind. Also, they tend to use "hands off" methods such as smothering and poisoning, which are less traceable. Female murderers tend to be older than male murderers, and thus are looked upon with more trust and less suspicion. When killing husbands or other adults, women often hire others to do the killing.''
And of course, being young and relatively attractive is not a detriment. People tend to sympathize with a young woman, especially as defense attorneys have a practice of making said young women look demure, sweet, harmless and wholesome in court.
To be fair, it's true they do something similar with male defendants, dressing them up to look respectable and clean-cut, even if they are known thugs. But women benefit more from the makeovers. Female jurors tend to be more easily swayed by this kind of manipulation, and men find young damsels in distress sympathetic sometimes too, as apparently this alternate juror did.
In my personal opinion, defense attorneys are among the most amoral and unprincipled people in our society; it is all about winning the case and adding a notch to the belt, and/or 'sticking it to the system.' Many defense attorneys (and I have known some) are hard-core leftists who think the system should be brought down, period. I do realize that our legal system requires that every defendant be defended, but many defense lawyers go above and beyond, and in some cases have crossed the line into the unethical if not illegal.
When I first heard the verdict, I immediately thought that the jury was probably disproportionately female, and it looks like seven out of twelve were women.
Several blacks were on the jury, and the men selected seemed in a few cases to be not exactly conventional White males. Juries are selected carefully; these things are no accident.
But when you read the Daily Mail article you get a sense that the whole tone of the jury was set by the women:
'We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial.'
The juror, who is single and has no children, added: 'They picked a great bunch of people, such high integrity. And there was high morale," she said. "We all joked. We are like a big group of cousins.'
Imagine such a case back in the era when only men could serve on juries; would the jury behave this way?
To me, this case illustrates so many things: feminization of society, the influence of the 'therapeutic culture' with its emphasis on emotion and subjectivity, and then there are factors like the perpetual adolescence of many Americans. This young defendant in saner times would have been considered as a mature woman at 25, not as a 'kid' as her behavior implied. Then there's the fact that she had a child without a father in the picture, much less marriage. Then, the 'wiggerized' way of life, for lack of a better term, that is so widespread among the under-30 set. Then we have the tabloid media culture, where stories like this one are so exploited and hyped.
The fact is this woman will likely profit by her actions; she will be interviewed by daytime TV and tabloid papers, and worst, she will probably go on to have other children.
The dumbing-down of our society is a part of this story, and I refer to the moral dumbing-down that has taken place, not merely the disastrous educational system. Many people don't seem to care about the innocent victims (such as Caylee Anthony) and somehow identify with the Casey Anthonys of the world. That is troubling.
This is the classic tabloid fodder story, and I am mentioning it simply because it sums up so many bad trends in our society. It is symptomatic of a great many things, some of which are topics I blog about.
First, Casey Anthony is a beneficiary of the bias in our legal system in favor of women. In cases involving murder, it seems women are less likely to be convicted, and less likely to receive the death penalty if they are convicted. I've remarked on this before. Andrea Yates is an example, and Susan Smith got a much lighter punishment for killing her two sons than a father would likely get for the same crime.
''Infanticide in the industrialized nations is as common or more common as the killings of adults, and the vast majority of these infants are killed by their mothers, according to the World Health Organization.
A custodial mother is five times more likely to murder her own children as a custodial father, adjusting for the greater number of single mothers, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.
And women are getting away with it. Among women convicted of killing their infants, two-thirds avoid prison completely and the rest serve an average of only seven years. The average prison sentence for females in the U.S. is only about 70% that of males for most violent crimes. A man convicted of murder is 20 times more likely to receive the death penalty than a woman.
How do women get away with it? For one, their victims tend to be the helpless, or semi-helpless, such as children, the elderly, and infants. Thus there's less struggle in their crimes, and less evidence left behind. Also, they tend to use "hands off" methods such as smothering and poisoning, which are less traceable. Female murderers tend to be older than male murderers, and thus are looked upon with more trust and less suspicion. When killing husbands or other adults, women often hire others to do the killing.''
And of course, being young and relatively attractive is not a detriment. People tend to sympathize with a young woman, especially as defense attorneys have a practice of making said young women look demure, sweet, harmless and wholesome in court.
To be fair, it's true they do something similar with male defendants, dressing them up to look respectable and clean-cut, even if they are known thugs. But women benefit more from the makeovers. Female jurors tend to be more easily swayed by this kind of manipulation, and men find young damsels in distress sympathetic sometimes too, as apparently this alternate juror did.
In my personal opinion, defense attorneys are among the most amoral and unprincipled people in our society; it is all about winning the case and adding a notch to the belt, and/or 'sticking it to the system.' Many defense attorneys (and I have known some) are hard-core leftists who think the system should be brought down, period. I do realize that our legal system requires that every defendant be defended, but many defense lawyers go above and beyond, and in some cases have crossed the line into the unethical if not illegal.
When I first heard the verdict, I immediately thought that the jury was probably disproportionately female, and it looks like seven out of twelve were women.
Several blacks were on the jury, and the men selected seemed in a few cases to be not exactly conventional White males. Juries are selected carefully; these things are no accident.
But when you read the Daily Mail article you get a sense that the whole tone of the jury was set by the women:
'We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial.'
The juror, who is single and has no children, added: 'They picked a great bunch of people, such high integrity. And there was high morale," she said. "We all joked. We are like a big group of cousins.'
Imagine such a case back in the era when only men could serve on juries; would the jury behave this way?
To me, this case illustrates so many things: feminization of society, the influence of the 'therapeutic culture' with its emphasis on emotion and subjectivity, and then there are factors like the perpetual adolescence of many Americans. This young defendant in saner times would have been considered as a mature woman at 25, not as a 'kid' as her behavior implied. Then there's the fact that she had a child without a father in the picture, much less marriage. Then, the 'wiggerized' way of life, for lack of a better term, that is so widespread among the under-30 set. Then we have the tabloid media culture, where stories like this one are so exploited and hyped.
The fact is this woman will likely profit by her actions; she will be interviewed by daytime TV and tabloid papers, and worst, she will probably go on to have other children.
The dumbing-down of our society is a part of this story, and I refer to the moral dumbing-down that has taken place, not merely the disastrous educational system. Many people don't seem to care about the innocent victims (such as Caylee Anthony) and somehow identify with the Casey Anthonys of the world. That is troubling.
Labels: Biased Media, Criminal Justice System, Feminism, Feminization Of Society, Therapeutic Culture
0 comment Monday, July 7, 2014 | admin
From today's news - (please see the video at the link)
It happened may of last year, just before 11 in the morning. It was an average day on metro bus number 3684 on route 18 that all changed near the corner of 15th Avenue West and West Armor Street when a man got on the bus.
He looks like a normal guy until he paid his fare. Then, out of nowhere, he punches the victim Jeannie Square in the face.
Witness said the man shouted "The sick must die" and let punches fly at a defenseless woman.
"His initial attack was just, I mean she didn't know what hit her and she was just, she got hit pretty good." Charles Capizano was sitting in the rear of the bus. He saw what happened and wasted no time to get to the front of the bus and stop the attack.
"This guy was attacking everyone in his sight. Threatening everyone in his sight saying "The sick must die. God told me the sick must die."
Recently the video of a young man in Paris being attacked by ''youths'' on a bus was all over the blogosphere. At the time, I posted a link to the video, and the ensuing discussion centered on why the young White man seemed unwilling to defend himself, and why the bus driver seemed indifferent to his plea for help.
Well, this video was shown on Lou Dobbs earlier, where I saw it. I will let you see it for yourself; the images tell the story. The perpetrator fits the usual profile, but the victim is an older White woman -- who is obviously blind.
What is it about public transportation that seems to make attacks like this so distressingly commonplace? The skeptic might say that these things don't happen that frequently, that the media create unfounded hysteria or fear of crime. However I would say that the opposite is true; such attacks happen frequently in large urban centers, and I think anyone who lives in such areas, or ever has lived in such areas (as I have) would agree. If anything, the attacks that happen on buses, subways, etc. are probably underreported, and many of the people who habitually commute on public transportation become extremely jaded and blase about such assaults, shrugging it off as just one more minor disadvantage of urban life.
I know that the Seattle/King County area certainly has its share of such incidents, and I know that many of the people who live there are hopelessly, irredeemably liberal and passive about such things -- yet, hearteningly, a number of passengers on the bus in this video come to the aid of the blind woman who was pummeled, and they subdue the assailant. I commend them for that; it's a good sign, truly, when even Seattle people have the gumption to risk their own safety to help a rather helpless woman.
So the news is not all bad here; the glass is half-full.
However the discouraging part about all this is that most people, especially in liberal areas, are unwilling to notice some of the more salient facts -- such as who the attacker was, and to 'profile' when necessary to avoid such incidents.
And holding liberal ideas about human nature absolutely, positively disarm people psychologically, leaving them to choose a foolishly open attitude towards people who are likely to be dangerous. Moreover, once an attack is committed, the foolish liberal not only fails to learn the obvious lessons, but then proceeds to coddle and make sanctimonious excuses for the attacker. After all, he himself is just a poor victim, not responsible for his ugly actions. Check the comments on the WIVB website; some preening liberal is talking about how the attacker is obviously ''sick'' and in need of help.
In this case, pleas were probably made for the perpetrator based on his race and for his suffering the 'legacy of slavery.'
All too often, judges share these liberal attitudes, and sentence criminals who commit violence to ''treatment.''
Notice in the article that this attack happened about a year ago, though most of us probably heard nothing about it at the time; I certainly didn't.
And what has happened to this ''obviously sick man'' since the videotaped attack on the blind woman? He was sentenced for ''treatment'' at a mental hospital, not jail. I'm sorry to say that I predict that, when released, he will still be violent and dangerous, and if treated by the usual psychiatric drugs, may indeed be more dangerous and unpredictable.
How many such crimes are perpetrated by people who should be locked up indefinitely, but are instead turned loose after being pronounced 'cured' or 'unlikely to offend again' by some harebrained psychologist? How many innocent people are harmed because of these kinds of pernicious ideas, masquerading as 'compassion'? Compassion is fine but where is the compassion for the innocent people? They are forgotten by the liberal bleeding hearts.
Seattle seems to be in the news frequently these days for incidents like this, and the notoriously light sentences the perpetrators receive. Eleven years is shockingly little punishment for murder, but then the killer is a ''victim'' himself, isn't he?
In this even more egregious case, three ''youths'' are given light sentences for killing a man.
Much as I would like to echo whoever it is (is it Michael Savage?) who said 'liberalism is a mental disorder', I won't say it, because ascribing every manner of stupidity and evil to 'mental illness' is very much what liberals do. No, they don't get a pass for being ''sick''; they are either ignorant or willfully blind, or plain old malicious and destructive.
It happened may of last year, just before 11 in the morning. It was an average day on metro bus number 3684 on route 18 that all changed near the corner of 15th Avenue West and West Armor Street when a man got on the bus.
He looks like a normal guy until he paid his fare. Then, out of nowhere, he punches the victim Jeannie Square in the face.
Witness said the man shouted "The sick must die" and let punches fly at a defenseless woman.
"His initial attack was just, I mean she didn't know what hit her and she was just, she got hit pretty good." Charles Capizano was sitting in the rear of the bus. He saw what happened and wasted no time to get to the front of the bus and stop the attack.
"This guy was attacking everyone in his sight. Threatening everyone in his sight saying "The sick must die. God told me the sick must die."
Recently the video of a young man in Paris being attacked by ''youths'' on a bus was all over the blogosphere. At the time, I posted a link to the video, and the ensuing discussion centered on why the young White man seemed unwilling to defend himself, and why the bus driver seemed indifferent to his plea for help.
Well, this video was shown on Lou Dobbs earlier, where I saw it. I will let you see it for yourself; the images tell the story. The perpetrator fits the usual profile, but the victim is an older White woman -- who is obviously blind.
What is it about public transportation that seems to make attacks like this so distressingly commonplace? The skeptic might say that these things don't happen that frequently, that the media create unfounded hysteria or fear of crime. However I would say that the opposite is true; such attacks happen frequently in large urban centers, and I think anyone who lives in such areas, or ever has lived in such areas (as I have) would agree. If anything, the attacks that happen on buses, subways, etc. are probably underreported, and many of the people who habitually commute on public transportation become extremely jaded and blase about such assaults, shrugging it off as just one more minor disadvantage of urban life.
I know that the Seattle/King County area certainly has its share of such incidents, and I know that many of the people who live there are hopelessly, irredeemably liberal and passive about such things -- yet, hearteningly, a number of passengers on the bus in this video come to the aid of the blind woman who was pummeled, and they subdue the assailant. I commend them for that; it's a good sign, truly, when even Seattle people have the gumption to risk their own safety to help a rather helpless woman.
So the news is not all bad here; the glass is half-full.
However the discouraging part about all this is that most people, especially in liberal areas, are unwilling to notice some of the more salient facts -- such as who the attacker was, and to 'profile' when necessary to avoid such incidents.
And holding liberal ideas about human nature absolutely, positively disarm people psychologically, leaving them to choose a foolishly open attitude towards people who are likely to be dangerous. Moreover, once an attack is committed, the foolish liberal not only fails to learn the obvious lessons, but then proceeds to coddle and make sanctimonious excuses for the attacker. After all, he himself is just a poor victim, not responsible for his ugly actions. Check the comments on the WIVB website; some preening liberal is talking about how the attacker is obviously ''sick'' and in need of help.
In this case, pleas were probably made for the perpetrator based on his race and for his suffering the 'legacy of slavery.'
All too often, judges share these liberal attitudes, and sentence criminals who commit violence to ''treatment.''
Notice in the article that this attack happened about a year ago, though most of us probably heard nothing about it at the time; I certainly didn't.
And what has happened to this ''obviously sick man'' since the videotaped attack on the blind woman? He was sentenced for ''treatment'' at a mental hospital, not jail. I'm sorry to say that I predict that, when released, he will still be violent and dangerous, and if treated by the usual psychiatric drugs, may indeed be more dangerous and unpredictable.
How many such crimes are perpetrated by people who should be locked up indefinitely, but are instead turned loose after being pronounced 'cured' or 'unlikely to offend again' by some harebrained psychologist? How many innocent people are harmed because of these kinds of pernicious ideas, masquerading as 'compassion'? Compassion is fine but where is the compassion for the innocent people? They are forgotten by the liberal bleeding hearts.
Seattle seems to be in the news frequently these days for incidents like this, and the notoriously light sentences the perpetrators receive. Eleven years is shockingly little punishment for murder, but then the killer is a ''victim'' himself, isn't he?
In this even more egregious case, three ''youths'' are given light sentences for killing a man.
Much as I would like to echo whoever it is (is it Michael Savage?) who said 'liberalism is a mental disorder', I won't say it, because ascribing every manner of stupidity and evil to 'mental illness' is very much what liberals do. No, they don't get a pass for being ''sick''; they are either ignorant or willfully blind, or plain old malicious and destructive.
Labels: Crime, Criminal Justice System, Liberalism, Political Correctness, Pop Psychology
0 comment Wednesday, June 4, 2014 | admin
The usual suspects complain:
James Kelly, CEO of the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, called for action Friday after reading remarks from state Supreme Court Justices Richard Sanders and Jim Johnson regarding African-American populations in prison.
The justices said African Americans are overrepresented because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
"What are these two guys doing on the State Supreme Court?" Kelly asked.
He is calling for Supreme Court Chief Justice Barbara Madsen to "establish a special commission on racial disproportions in the criminal-justice system and to make recommendations on how to modernize the system and ensure equal justice before the law," according to an Urban League news release.'
Kelly goes on to say that if the justices believe that blacks commit more crimes, then 'there's a problem that goes to the top.' Meaning, I presume, that the problem CANNOT be a problem of black crime.
Chief Justice Madsen has, as this source notes, upheld the state's ban on gay ''marriage'', which does hint that she might not be the typical politically correct leftist judge. Whether or not the 'special commission' willl be established is not yet known but the usual course of things is for everybody to bow down to the demands of ''the African-American community.'' Their wish is our command, apparently.
Judge Richard Sanders, who is one of the judges who made the controversial statements (note: these days, ''controversial statement" usually means ''truth") is also not your typically PC judge, although his opponent in the current election accuses him of siding with criminal defendants too frequently -- so he hardly appears to be a tough law-and-order judge, if indeed there is such a thing these days.
It's about time that somebody started defying the race-hucksters and the PC commissars. Will the judges stand their ground? Or will they be reduced to the usual groveling and apologizing? Let's hope not.
Does the judicial system discriminate against blacks or other minorities? The obvious, and simplest, reply to that often-repeated charge is that blacks and some other minorities commit more crimes -- to which the politically correct response is that police ''target'' minorities and let Whites get away with crime. How long will people let these charges go unchallenged?
There are also disparities in male-female differences in rates of incarceration and sentencing. Does this mean that the justice system is biased? It surely goes against the grain of political correctness, as according to the PC belief system, men (specifically White men) are privileged, and women of all races are victims of discrimination. So where is the bias here? While it's apparently true that women commit less crime, or less violent crime, they are nonetheless capable of heinous acts, and are not ''better people'' than men. However women do receive lesser sentences when they murder, for instance, and are less likely to be executed in states where the death penalty exists.
See the statistics here.
Bizarrely, most liberals argue that women are still discriminated against in the justice system, and of course if they had their way nobody would be executed, except thought-criminals perhaps.
When we compare women and men in the justice system, few people question the obvious disparities; but when it comes to minorities, especially blacks, it is taboo to even consider the obvious fact that differing rates of crime among the races might be the main reason for the disparities in arrest, conviction, and sentencing.
So we go on with this absurd charade of pretending that blacks are blameless victims of racism, always sinned against and never sinning, not even capable of sin. How can any sane adult pretend to believe such foolishness? How can any judge, whose business is to administer justice, pretend that one group of people is above scrutiny?
Judges, ideally, are to be impartial, and yet what is ''political correctness'' but an all-encompassing system of partiality, of putting minority groups in a special privileged category, off-limits to criticism?
James Kelly, CEO of the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, called for action Friday after reading remarks from state Supreme Court Justices Richard Sanders and Jim Johnson regarding African-American populations in prison.
The justices said African Americans are overrepresented because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
"What are these two guys doing on the State Supreme Court?" Kelly asked.
He is calling for Supreme Court Chief Justice Barbara Madsen to "establish a special commission on racial disproportions in the criminal-justice system and to make recommendations on how to modernize the system and ensure equal justice before the law," according to an Urban League news release.'
Kelly goes on to say that if the justices believe that blacks commit more crimes, then 'there's a problem that goes to the top.' Meaning, I presume, that the problem CANNOT be a problem of black crime.
Chief Justice Madsen has, as this source notes, upheld the state's ban on gay ''marriage'', which does hint that she might not be the typical politically correct leftist judge. Whether or not the 'special commission' willl be established is not yet known but the usual course of things is for everybody to bow down to the demands of ''the African-American community.'' Their wish is our command, apparently.
Judge Richard Sanders, who is one of the judges who made the controversial statements (note: these days, ''controversial statement" usually means ''truth") is also not your typically PC judge, although his opponent in the current election accuses him of siding with criminal defendants too frequently -- so he hardly appears to be a tough law-and-order judge, if indeed there is such a thing these days.
It's about time that somebody started defying the race-hucksters and the PC commissars. Will the judges stand their ground? Or will they be reduced to the usual groveling and apologizing? Let's hope not.
Does the judicial system discriminate against blacks or other minorities? The obvious, and simplest, reply to that often-repeated charge is that blacks and some other minorities commit more crimes -- to which the politically correct response is that police ''target'' minorities and let Whites get away with crime. How long will people let these charges go unchallenged?
There are also disparities in male-female differences in rates of incarceration and sentencing. Does this mean that the justice system is biased? It surely goes against the grain of political correctness, as according to the PC belief system, men (specifically White men) are privileged, and women of all races are victims of discrimination. So where is the bias here? While it's apparently true that women commit less crime, or less violent crime, they are nonetheless capable of heinous acts, and are not ''better people'' than men. However women do receive lesser sentences when they murder, for instance, and are less likely to be executed in states where the death penalty exists.
See the statistics here.
Bizarrely, most liberals argue that women are still discriminated against in the justice system, and of course if they had their way nobody would be executed, except thought-criminals perhaps.
When we compare women and men in the justice system, few people question the obvious disparities; but when it comes to minorities, especially blacks, it is taboo to even consider the obvious fact that differing rates of crime among the races might be the main reason for the disparities in arrest, conviction, and sentencing.
So we go on with this absurd charade of pretending that blacks are blameless victims of racism, always sinned against and never sinning, not even capable of sin. How can any sane adult pretend to believe such foolishness? How can any judge, whose business is to administer justice, pretend that one group of people is above scrutiny?
Judges, ideally, are to be impartial, and yet what is ''political correctness'' but an all-encompassing system of partiality, of putting minority groups in a special privileged category, off-limits to criticism?
Labels: Criminal Justice System, Discrimination, Free Speech, Judicial System, Political Correctness, Racial Division, White Guilt