This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Duh!… One of the first things you learn when you start studying statistics is that you can drown in a river that’s statistically only 5″ deep…
Statistics without context (such as those that are quoted in this article) are absolutely meaningless…
For example, were any of these offenders repeat offenders?!… And, if they were, how was this “normalized” and/or “factored” for in these statistics?!…
As another example, were any of these convictions based on plea bargains?!… And, if they were, how was this “normalized” and/or “factored” for in these statistics?!…
LikeLike
This article is 20% stupider than any of the others posted here.
Prior records are always taken into account at sentencing.
Race is not.
LikeLike
“Prior records are always taken into account at sentencing. Race is not.”
Race is just taken into account every where else, for example when deciding which victim to stop and frisk. The sentencing then amplifies the effect.
LikeLike
If that is true – it’s because they are statistically more likely to be up to no good.
LikeLike
Carry on, please.
LikeLike
WOW. People just do NOT get it, do they Jason? The POINT is, that the very nature of laws are constructed in such a way that results in blacks either being sentenced for longer periods for the same crimes as whites, or if they’re committing more crime, or if it’s repeat offenses, doesn’t say. There is immense racial disparity in our justice system, and it MUST be addressed.
LikeLike
It seems as though this is a subject that is beyond inquiry. It’s “stoopider” to point it out.
The unspeakable “reality” that is being exhibited above is one in which Blacks are simply so inferior as to require being kept in cages. Of course one would expect such an attitude coming from a squatter living on Palestinian land where scubaman is posting from.
LikeLike
If there is disparity it is because Blacks are more likely to and in fact DO commit more crimes in relation to their numbers.
It’s really not that complicated.
The disparity is not due to ‘ray-sism’ – the disparity is a reflection of the reality on the ground.
Blacks are inherently more likely to commit crimes, especially violent crimes.
There is no arguing against this. Anyone who does argue against this simply hasn’t looked into the issue.
LikeLike
I guess that the fact that Blacks in Cuba commit fewer crimes than Blacks in the US is due to the fact that the Spanish did a better job of improving the race.
Any other racial theories you care to share with us?
LikeLike
Well allow me to look at your data first…
Can I have a link to the source for your facts?
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
LikeLike
You don’t actually think that the level of criminal prosecution of Black Cubans is anywhere close do you. Jeez.
LikeLike
How do I know? How do you know?
You could literally just be making stuff up for all I know.
LikeLike
Maggie, exactly how are laws “constructed in such a way that results in blacks either being sentenced for longer periods for the same crimes as whites”?!…
There’s a claim that there “is immense racial disparity in our justice system” but, to date, I have not seen anything that proves that claim… The statistics quoted are unreliable because they data could be explained in many ways…
Also, the people presenting these statistics have an agenda which further reinforces my distrust of the statistics they provide…
IOW, before we address anything we have to make sure that there’s something to be addressed!… And no, hype (emotional or otherwise) doesn’t constitute proof of anything…
LikeLike