Half of Detroits 8 mayoral candidates are felons

[brooklynite]

Source: Detroit News

Detroit — Half of the eight mayoral hopefuls on Detroit’s primary ballot next week have been convicted of felony crimes involving drugs, assault or weapons, a Detroit News analysis shows.

Three were charged with gun crimes and two for assault with intent to commit murder. Some of the offenses date back decades, the earliest to 1977. The most recent was in 2008.

Political consultant Greg Bowens said there are candidates with past hardships in every election cycle. It’s not something unique to Detroit or the political arena in general, he said.

“Black marks on your record show you have lived a little and have overcome some challenges,” said Bowens, a former press secretary to Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer and NAACP activist. “They (candidates) deserve the opportunity to be heard, but they also deserve to have the kind of scrutiny that comes along with trying to get an important elected position.”

Read more: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2017/08/02/half-detroit-mayoral-candidates-felony-convictions/104244406/

[oberliner]

1. They are fringe candidates with no chance of winning

The two leading candidates, Duggan and Young, are the only ones who might actually win (and they are not felons).

[ToxMarz]

2. I would bet half of all politicians in office

are guilty of felonies, but just haven't been convicted yet.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. If you haven't committed at least one felony by lunchtime, I just don't know what you're doing with

your life.

[jmowreader]

8. Well...not committing felonies, for one thing

[politicat]

3. I don't necessarily have a problem with this.

Poor people are more likely to end up with a conviction because they're more likely to be forced to take work that's illegal because there's nothing legal to be had, then are policed under discriminatory standards, are arrested at higher objective per capita rate, less likely to be able to afford a lawyer, more likely to be held without bail, more likely encouraged to plea, more likely to be unable to find work afterwards. Which means they are often more likely to try to build a small business because they have no other choice.

If a mayoral candidate who has lived that experience and brings that experience to the election, who takes a strong stance about prosecutorial misconduct and unequal policing, and recognizes how difficult the climb out of conviction and poverty can be and will support efforts to make it happen while also working to control the corruption that keeps perpetuating inequality, we're good.

If a candidate is looking at the office as a means of legitimizing corruption, that's not fine. So... vet and assess.

[melm00se]

5. even with 2 of the 4 convicted

of violent crimes?

[politicat]

7. Depends on their age and the circumstances at the time.

18-21 years old in a peer on peer fight? *shrug* Did they get anger management counseling and conflict de-escalation training after the fact? Okay. Humans are stupid and often at that age think might is right. A lot of white, wealthy 18-21 year old males get into shitty, stupid fights and don't get arrested, because they're fighting in the privacy of a frat house or private home, and nobody calls the cops on them. Poor kids don't have the luxury of a private space. It's not that the poor kids are inherently worse people, it's that they don't have the privilege of privacy and private law.

If the violence was later, if it displayed an exploitation of a power dynamic, if it placed their own sense of right/profit/self above that of another person... then we have a problem. Someone who harms a child (child abuse) or a domestic partner, who uses a weapon to take property or rights from another -- that means this person believes that they have a right to enforce their worldview on others and will seek to exploit a loophole to get what they want. That's not acceptable.

[Not Ruth]

4. The Trump 2020 folks are pleased as punch

[bitterross]

9. Why is this an issue at all? They have paid their debts to society.

They've served their time so they have paid their debt to society. What is the problem?

We keep excluding people for their past behavior and by doing so push them right back to that behavior as their last resort. That is one of the major negative outcomes of the War on Drugs.

When do we finally say "Okay, you're done. You've served enough or paid enough" when?

[Igel]

10. Depends on whose talking about whom.

Nixon resigned from office. He paid for what he did.

All was forgiven and if he stood for governor that would have been okay?

No. Some things we may officially say, "Yes, you paid your debt," but you and I aren't required to assent to that assessment. Moreover, we're not required to hire that ex-felon who robbed a bank as a teller or financial consultant. We keep sex offender registers and have restrictions on where they can be because we distrust them--they can't live near a school, they can't work in day care centers. But they paid their price.

It's just that some crimes are notorious enough that we continue to distrust the person. It sets up as attitudes. Even if it's due to circumstance.

Some crimes aren't due entirely to circumstance but to what's in a person. Leave me alone with an 8-year-old boy or girl all day or every day for a year, I'm not going to sexually abuse the kid. Others, have them work around kids with constant supervision and they'll still find a way to do bad things.

Both principles apply. Not every act done is a window into a person's soul. Thinking it is has a name: Fundamental attribution error.

If you're only given one or two acts because 23 years of life is ignored to present just those one or two acts, the attribution error's easy.

Part of the problem is that we also generalize based on very limited knowledge. If we know something about a person we assume we know more. Standard examples are that a bank teller who donates to the right causes is considered more reliable when it comes to money, or a doctor with a nice looking waiting room must be a better doctor. Excellence in one area becomes a symbol of overall excellence. "Handsome people are braver and more moral." But that means suckiness in one area means you're a bad person. "Ugly people are stupid." If you know both a good thing and a sucky thing about a person, which you pick depends your personal values (often "at the moment&quot .

[SethH]

11. you make it sound like they are banned from running

in fact they are allowed to run, they are running, and there is no reason to believe they won't become mayor.

[bitterross]

17. Yes, I did, because that seems to be the intent/desire - that they not run

The overall tone seemed to be implying they were unfit. That either the should not or should not be allowed to run.

[christx30]

12. I think it depends on the crime and how long ago it was.

If it's a shoplifting charge, with no violence, I'd say after a few years, it's probably not a bad thing. Everyone makes mistakes.
If you knock an old man down and steal his wallet, you might get out of jail, but I sure won't trust you or vote for you. If you commit a sexual assault, the only question I'm going to ask is why you were ever released from prison.

[bitterross]

13. Must be nice to live in such certitude.

To be able to judge people solely on a conviction without ever getting to know them.

I'm glad doing the same thing based on a person's race, sex, religion or national origin is frowned upon.

Yep it is great to live in such certitude. Because, you know, our justice system is totally infallible and it never treats the poor and minority persons any different than any one else.

[christx30]

15. I have no problem whatsoever judging someone

that used violence to steal from an innocent person. It is possible to get through life without doing it. I care more about the victims of crimes than I do about the perpetrators of it.

There are 2 stories that compete, at least in my mind:
"When I was young, I couldn't support my family on my pay, so a buddy and I shoved a gun into a clerk's face at the gas station. I ended up serving 10 years, with another 5 probation."

or

"When I was young, I couldn't support my family on my pay, so my buddy told me about this guy that was hiring part time for a gas station. I worked 2 jobs, and got us through a couple of rough years."

The second one is way more respectable and inspiring to me. Because I've done that. While working 12 hours a night at Dell building computers, I was also working at FedEx, loading trucks, or delivering newspapers. I hated it, but I did what I needed to do, and we got through it. I'd vote for the second guy. I wouldn't give the first guy the time of day.

[bitterross]

16. Is your screen name intended to be Christ times 30 or Christ by 30?

Or, far that matter, anything to do with Jesus? If so you might want to change it to something that isn't associated with being non-judgemental and forgiving.

Your two competing narratives sound just like something out of a Lifetime TV show. The ones where one brother chose the gang and the other chose to work for less than minimum wage at the old folks home instead. How quaint. Life is not a movie.

The fact that you have only two narratives and that they are both so black and white, such obvious clear choices makes me think you don't have a lot life experience beyond a comfortable one. That perhaps you've never had the sort of hardship, homelessness and desperation others have had. These situations don't always lead to the two clear choices you outline. Life is rarely so simple.

And each and every person's situation and story is unique. That is why we should not judge people based on race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or sexual identity. Yet you are making the case that a conviction makes a person a bad person.

What about all those people who do horribly evil things and never get caught. They're criminals too. They might be you dentist, you doctor, your clergy. And, yet, because they've never been convicted you won't judge them so harshly. Even though in their character they could be far worse than anyone with a record.

It is not so black and white as you think.

[sandensea]

14. Half of Congress SHOULD be.

[Fluke a Snooker]

18. 3 people who have done far, far worse than all these four COMBINED.

Trump.
Bush.
Reagan.

'Nuff said. NOTE: Trump and Bush committed crimes that reach the capital punishment level.