Because, from the article: "A few months later after legal sales began, an angry Holmes threw out nearly 90 marijuana tickets written by a single officer who appeared upset at legalization and began targeting homeless and minority men with public consumption and possession tickets. At the time, Holmes called the officer's actions 'abhorrent.'"
What the is that "people of color" thing
has to be mentioned here. If it's right, it
is right. Leave the skin color aside Mr. City
Attorney.
It’s mentioned because it’s relevant! Maybe the background here isn’t obvious, but marijuana convictions have been systemically used against people of color in a way they haven’t generally been used against others. So understanding the disproportionate impact here, of which acknowledging it as true is the first step of many, is part of making this right.
I think the conviction rates and arrest rates should be entered into evidence in this argument. Compare them with various other studies about marijuana usage and you'll find whites, blacks and Latinos use marijuana in pretty much the same rates.
And to be fair, a drug arrest if you're white is no cakewalk. You need a good lawyer and money, and even then you'll be doing a shit ton of community service.
I'd like to see more studies showing these types of arrest/convictions by income. I have a feeling being poor (and being stuck with a public defender) plays a bigger role in drug crimes. There are more poor minorities, but that's a bigger causality issue that's considerably more complex.
There's an enormous amount of evidence of racism in the criminal justice system. It's not at all controversial to say there are widespread patterns of racism.
Arguing the opposite puts one in the same league as climate change deniers - you're more concerned with what you want to believe than what the evidence supports.
The 2nd paragraph of the article answers the question. The parent seems to have overlooked it, because it quotes from the 5th paragraph. From paragraph 2:
City Attorney Pete Holmes acknowledged the racial disparity in marijuana convictions, citing an ACLU report showing that African Americans are more than three times more likely to be arrested for pot possession than whites, despite the facts that blacks and whites use at the same rates.
If it appears on HN that someone in the world is trying to do something positive for any minority, someone on HN will object to it.
>What the is that "people of color" thing has to be mentioned here
Probably because marijuana laws overwhelmingly punish minorities over white people. Just a quick Google search shows some numbers for New York, where 80+% of marijuana arrests in 2017 were people of color, and less than 10% were white.
The mention of racial disparity brings context to the decision, particularly as to why such an issue was long overlooked -- it affected disenfranchised groups who had little political clout.
I believe OP is commenting on the original motion filed by the city (due to the "Mr. City Attorney" remark), which does mention PoC explicitly. (I don't agree with OP's comments — just clarifying.)
1.
542 (people) /30 (years) / 12 (months) = 1.5 (convictions per month).This is very low number for a metropolis at the scale of Seattle.
2. Why is that "people of color" thing has to be mentioned here. If it's right, it is right. Leave the skin color aside Mr. City Attorney.