Thread: Black judge rejects plea deal for 'white boy'

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

The two aren't comparable. You're comparing perceived societal racial injustice with perceived genetic racial injustice.

And who knows, maybe white people do get better plea deals than black people. This guy is a judge, I'm sure he has a bit of experience with the court system. He may be right, that white people tend to get more leniency in the courts than black people. Maybe not. I'm not going to jump to conclusions either way. Certainly doesn't sound outside of the realm of possibility, though.

He suggested nothing of the sort, I'd recommend re-reading the article. He said it was a ridiculous plea bargain that only seems to get brought up when the accused is white. He never said all white people, nor did he ever say they ever actually got the plea bargain.

The two aren't comparable. You're comparing perceived societal racial injustice with perceived genetic racial injustice.

Doesn't matter. They both have one important thing in common. Both are examples of racism and racism is racism. Suggesting that white people get better plea deals because they are white is a generalization of a racial group and that is the basis of racism.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I'm just bringing it up. I mean, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about possible inequalities between white and black plea bargains if they guy never said "white boy", would we? Perhaps it was intentional, to bring the issue to the national stage. Just making a comparison you and others on the board may readily understand.

I'm just throwing things out there. None of us can get inside of the judges head (though most of us seem ready to call him a racist for some reason no one yet has been able to demonstrate, outside being obvious adherents to the teachings of PCism), so all we can really do is guess.

The term "White boy" coming from a black man and directed at a white person is racist all by itself.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

........It's not right and likewise he has the duty to tell the truth when he sees this kind of thing going on in his court.

Do you think he used professional and appropriate language - for a judge?

Originally Posted by Invisible-Bob

Doesn't matter. They both have one important thing in common. Both are examples of racism and racism is racism. Suggesting that white people get better plea deals because they are white is a generalization of a racial group and that is the basis of racism.

But, if it's a claim that's backed by evidence and research, is it racism or the truth?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

But, if it's a claim that's backed by evidence and research, is it racism or the truth?

What statistics did he quote?

Originally Posted by Sunshine

What statistics did he quote?

What statistics did I claim that he quoted?

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Judge Williams is a refreshing case of honesty in the court system IMO. Defendant McGowan is a young white man from Franklin Park, a comfortable overwhelmingly white suburb of Pittsburgh:

Franklin Park Borough

Judge Williams said the following:



Allegheny County judge: 'White boys' given deals - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Judge Williams just got done rejecting improper use of race claims the week before:



Allegheny County judge: 'White boys' given deals - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

That's his job to call BS on these kinds of things quoted above on what he's observing in his own courtrooms. Whites of good social stock, education, economics, etc, do get breaks over blacks in plea deals all the time, and McGowan's deal--even for a first offender--is absurdly low. McGowan was charged with aggravated assault, terroristic threats, resisting arrest, obstructing the administration of law and improperly turning without a signal. Assaulting a police officer is serious felony in PA, a felony of the second degree, F2. McGowan was given a plea deal to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, an M3 (the lowest) with 3 months probation, and not even a downgrade to just misdemeanor M2 simple assault from the F2 aggravated assault. He also got the terroristic threats charge dropped (an M1 misdemeanor, the most serious kind). Resisting arrest is an M2 charge. The cop even agreed with the deal, I suspect so as not to "ruin the chances" of a "good person overall with a bright future ahead of him that shouldn't be wrecked by this one incident." So, it's not just a sweet sentencing deal, it's a sweet charge bargain in classification.

In my experience dealing in the PA court system, the McGowans of PA do often get the sympathetic ear but if young first offender DeShawn Quantrell Jackson from the ghetto was behind the wheel and assaulted and/or threatened a cop and/or resisted arrest at a traffic stop, 9 time out of 10 DeShawn wouldn't get that sweet deal, that's for sure. It's a day of 'bad judgement' for a white person, and a 'bad attitude and disposition' for a black ghetto guy. White and wealthier defendants are perceived differently from poor black ones. It's just how it is, pretences to the contrary.

You know, the judge didn't have to bring race into it now did he? He could have simply said that 3 months probation for an offense as serious as this is too lenient. There was absolutely no need to make a race issue of it. No judicial resolution to this case necessitated a racial observation. But yet he went out of his way to bring an issue into a case which served no judicial purpose what so ever and that fact alone suggests that this judge has racial issues.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

What statistics did I claim that he quoted?

Originally Posted by pramjockey
But, if it's a claim that's backed by evidence and research, is it racism or the truth?

Resesarch consits of the stats gathered. So where did he get the idea that the plea was used excessively by 'white boys.?'

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Resesarch consits of the stats gathered. So where did he get the idea that the plea was used excessively by 'white boys.?'

Well, are you interested in the research, or are you failing miserably to make a point?

The research is easy - the bias against both blacks and the poor (combining the two is particuarly bad) in outcomes in the CJ system is well known, well documented, and indisputable. Are you trying to dispute it?

Or are you trying to suggest that I've claimed somewhere that this judge said something about said research in this individual statement? I clearly made no such claim.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Well, are you interested in the research, or are you failing miserably to make a point?

The research is easy - the bias against both blacks and the poor (combining the two is particuarly bad) in outcomes in the CJ system is well known, well documented, and indisputable. Are you trying to dispute it?

Or are you trying to suggest that I've claimed somewhere that this judge said something about said research in this individual statement? I clearly made no such claim.

Nothing is indesputable.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

But, if it's a claim that's backed by evidence and research, is it racism or the truth?

The only way it would be truth as opposed to racism is if the research could prove that ALL and ONLY whites got better plea deals because they are white. And I mean ALL and ONLY whites absolutely. Anything short of that you don't have an argument IMO.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

It's just a case of the truth, and that's all that should matter. Nobody from white America made a big scene when Judge Williams called BS on the Larimer case, a black defendant convicted of murder, as cited above. I'd suspect that he'd get plenty of praise from whites on putting the kabosh on Larimer's racial bias claim as he said, and that's because Judge Williams told the truth about it. But he tells the truth here about the bias in these kinds of deals before his very eyes that favours wealthier whites not only along race and class to an extent that this particular case is a deal not even in the interests of justice given the facts (judges are allowed to reject plea deals they believe are unduly lenient), and he gets the race game thrown at him. It's not right and likewise he has the duty to tell the truth when he sees this kind of thing going on in his court.

He wouldn't have gotten the 'race game' thrown at him if he had left race out of it.

And I have to question why THIS particular 'white boy' is the one who is supposed to atone for all the supposedly unjust deals the 'black boys' have gotten. Face it OSB, the 'black boys' had lawyers too. If there is a beef with the system, there is where it should start. Not on the back of someone whose race isn't acceptable to a racist judge.

Originally Posted by Invisible-Bob

The only way it would be truth as opposed to racism is if the research could prove that ALL and ONLY whites got better plea deals because they are white. And I mean ALL and ONLY whites absolutely. Anything short of that you don't have an argument IMO.

That's asinine. Nothing in law (or the rest of the world, for that matter) is held to that standard. It's about holding a recognition of evidence, the potential validity of that evidence, the impact of that evidence if it's that true, and the context of how that evidence was gathered in making a decision.

The world is NOT binary.