In an article about how China "has no plans to abolish the death penalty," Reuters of course cannot help but throw the United States in at the end the story because, well, it also has the death penalty:
It (Amnesty Int'l) said Iran executed 317 people, Saudi Arabia 143, Pakistan 135 and the United States 42. Between them, these four countries plus China (470) accounted for 88 percent of all known executions.
Of course, this makes the US a mere 3+% of that total, and doesn't mention the lengthy and elaborate appeals process death row inmates have here -- a process which, I'd wager damn good money, barely exists (if at all) in those other four countries.
In a semi-related local story, today's Wilmington News Journal features a "panel" that agrees -- the death penalty is biased by race:
A New York professor who has litigated capital murder cases for 15 years said Tuesday that race plays a significant role when a defendant is a person of color.While it plays some part in all criminal cases, Cornell University Law School professor Sheri Lynn Johnson said it uniquely is present when deciding if a person will die for his or her crimes. This plays off, among other things, the race of the victim, the race of the defendant and jury make-up.
Of Delaware's 19 listed death row inmates, nine are black (47 percent), seven are white (37 percent) and three are Hispanic (16 percent).
That's quite a different racial and ethnic makeup when compared to the rest of the state. According to the U.S. Census, whites make up 75 percent of the state's population, while blacks make up 21 percent and Hispanics 6 percent.
While I've personally changed my view on capital punishment over the last decade (I used to be for it; now, I would favor it only in cases of extreme malice and heinous crime, and if there was absolutely no doubt as to the perpetrator), I believe class to be a much larger factor than race -- mainly because the less well-off do not have the same access to quality legal representation as those more well-to-do. It stands to reason, then, that since black Americans overall are less well-off than whites, they would suffer a disproportionality in capital cases.
But examine that ridiculous statement by article author Esteban Parra above. He's essentially arguing that the ethnicities of those on death row should mirror that of the general population. Why? It's well known that African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime compared to their general population numbers, so ... why doesn't Parra mention that fact? The answer should be obvious to anyone who's interested in media bias. Proportionate representation is usually always invoked by the MSM when it goes to make a favorable point about minorities -- stories about [low] employment numbers, numbers of minorities in colleges, and in advocacy cases like this story. Reporters want the public at large to believe that any sizable discrepancy in comparing [fill in the blank] figures to the general population numbers means there must be some sort of "devious" bias/discrimination/prejudice afoot. There certainly may be some of that involved (as I'm certain there is as argued in the News Journal story); however, they want you to believe that it is the overriding or main reason there's a racial chasm in the "figures."
I've written more than enough about the absurd notion of proportionate representation than I'd like. But I always find I come back to it because dopes like Parra insist on making pathetically simplistic "points" to make their "case." If proportionate representation was expected in every facet of life, whites would make up 70% of the NBA, Jews would only be 3% of any profession, and blacks and Hispanics would comprise 12-13% of all college professors. Etc. However, these figures are clearly not the case. The reasons for racial/ethnic and cultural population disparities are complex and myriad. Always keep that in mind when you read an MSM article about "underrepresentation."