I wish the race card wouldn't be played as much in all of this, and that it's a conversation about schooling, science, and the risks that we should be willing to accept in a free country.
I agree that we should try and keep this not focused on race but most people are thinking about it and it is rational to assume that it may play a part. I am amazed how much injustice passes by the public eye in the US and everyone just moves on, I blame the press for a huge part of this as they just look for the next fresh headline. A good example is right now, they are milking the Boston bombings for all they can, it is no longer about the victims, its tuned into a soap opera where we need to know what this guy ate everyday, that he liked playing FIFA wtf,when simple gun laws cannot be passed. The Newtown school shooting is not worth their time anymore. A recent injustice not reported on is the two old Latina lady's (one was 71yrs) who the cops opened fired on when they thought it was Chris dorner's truck even though it was a totally different make. The total paid to them was $40 000 for a new truck and that's it. Both these woman were struck by bullets from cops just spraying them with bullets, its amazing. Sorry for going off a tangent but this irritates me.
EDIT: It has been brought to my attention below that as of April 23rd, the LAPD will pay them a $4.2 million settlement. I am still concerned about having cops that can open fire on US citizens without warning, which amounts to an attack to kill.
According to this article[1] they are getting a 4.2million dollar settlement. I think it is fair.
[1]http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/04/just-in-latina-...
http://raniakhalek.com/2013/05/02/prosecutor-behind-kiera-wi...
While the component you're talking about is real, I'm sure, I suspect that the part of it where a young girl curious about science has her life ruined is probably at least as motivated by race as by control issues in the school.
It is much more likely that she, the police officer and the principal got all worked up over "OMG BOMB" than that the police officer decided that mentioning the race of the girl on the phone was relevant.
In either case, it doesn't matter. The point is the prosecutor really seems to be taking race into account on juvenile cases. Were they favoring black kids or unduly penalizing them is immaterial.
So when someone raises the specter of racism in a powerful public office like this, the accusation warrants investigation if nothing else. And other people here have asked for hundreds of samples, but this prosecutor's data set (which is really the thing in question here) is really not that large.
What's more, it loses sight of the real problem! The real problem is a curious girl is being overly punished for experimenting. The laws that put her in this jeopardy should also be under attack in addition to investigating the racist factors that come to light.
P.S., How many young black children's lives being unfairly altered is "a significant dataset" for you to answer the question, "Is a white prosecutor in sub-urban Florida _really_ racist?" I'd like to know the actual number.
On the other hand, I see quite a bit of prejudice in your comment -- you seem fixated on the fact that the prosecutor is white and works in suburban Florida.
I do not personally doubt that black Americans are mistreated; I watched black friends of mine being mistreated when I was a teenager. However, I have yet to see any evidence of racism in this case.
One child kills another. The other produces a small puff of smoke. Same prosecutor, same area. One case, she deliberates for a month. The other case, she gives a phone recommendation over 3 days.
I'm sorry, but given the history of the US this seems like relevant and damning data.
Again, I ask: how many children's lives need to be ruined before you have a statistically significant number? Please set the goalpost.
How about this: take a random sample of at least 100 felony cases in which the defendant was a minor prosecuted by that office. If you can find that in that sample, black people were more likely to be prosecuted aggressively than white people, you would have at least taken the first step in demonstrating ongoing racism.
In other words, approach this as if you were a scientist and take the emotion and assumptions out of it.
It's almost like someone has put together a huge body of data that you cheerfully ignore.
http://sentencingproject.org/template/index.cfm
In the future, I am not your research department. This is a trivial google search for a site that compiles a huge body of data you want. Racism is alive and well in the justice system.
Which is all way off topic from the more important question: why is this curious young girl's life being ruined.
P.S., you are, in my book, not a good person. Just thought you should know. Mostly because of your willful ignorance.
Still, you can't say, "The sample size is too small" in this case. The trials are ruined human lives. It requires we be more proactive. Sometimes we will overcompensate, that's the nature of the beast, but we cannot accumulate a statistically significant number of ruined lives to make decisions because most people only get one and if you take that in the name of answering the question, "Is a prosecutor in sub-urban Florida REEEEALLLLYY Racist?" it's probably not going to go well.
This case doesn't exist in a vacuum. Google around; black kids are in general handled much more roughly by the police and prosecutors.
Now obviously, the Daily Kos has its own slant so take this with a grain of salt. But certainly seems like the two cases have radically differing reactions from one another.
It's a legitimate question but I don't know if the answer is that clear. For something like this to happen you need two things:
1) Rules that are too harsh and too broad, that classify blowing a small hole in the ground by mixing household cleaners just to see what would happen as the same offense as an act of terrorism.
2) "Zero tolerance" law-and-order bureaucrats who don't care that they're ruining the lives of bright young people by charging them with crimes they may technically have committed but fall outside the legislative intent or any sense of proportionality.
"Would this happen if she was a rich white girl" is a question of (2). It's plausible that some bureaucrats are racist or are more inclined to prosecute someone expected to have fewer resources to mount a defense, or that the bureaucrats in poor neighborhoods are more likely to draw a hard line. But the way to prevent things like this from happening is really to fix (1). As long as you have rules on the books that make what happened here into a serious offense, you're providing cover for overzealous prosecutors to defend themselves under "just following orders" type rationales that appeal to the letter of the law, and paint the supposed wrong not as being that this girl was charged but that the rich white girl wouldn't be.
The problem here is that the rules allow them to do this to anyone. The rules need to change.