Race thread (will be moved on Monday night)

[tinfoilzag]

I'm curious if you took the time to watch that movie on Netflix?

I did not. I read the synopsis of the recommendation and saw that is was a drama (I was expecting a documentary). It looks interesting but it didn't look like it would shed any light on the problem.

[TexasZagFan]

I would like to do both. $2 million and 2 years hard time. Loss of all the rights that felons lose.

Now, we're dealing with an 8th amendment issue: requires that every punishment imposed by the government be commensurate with the offense committed by the defendant. Punishments that are disproportionately harsh will be overturned on appeal.

[LongIslandZagFan]

But that's the problem, it's not an example. It could be product of systemic racism but it doesn't have to be. To wildly oversimplify things, let's say a system parameter was designed to meet a quota to wrongfully convict blacks over whites. Then you could point to the parameter in the system as a cause of a systemic product.

or it could be inherent bias with the prosecutor or judge or jury. It is also a oroduct of underfunded public defenders that many POC are stuck with because they cannot afford anything better... but it is likely a combination of all of them and only gets worse when you include racist cops in the arrest and investigation

[tinfoilzag]

or it could be inherent bias with the prosecutor or judge or jury. It is also a oroduct of underfunded public defenders that many POC are stuck with because they cannot afford anything better... but it is likely a combination of all of them and only gets worse when you include racist cops in the arrest and investigation

You are correct in that it could be bias judge or jury, it may be a public defender problem, it could be racist cops. It could be a problem with the metrics. One of my attorney friends said that plea deals in non-violent offenses are extremely common and marijuana possession is a go-to in the plea bargain (would need confirmation from other source). This skews convictions vs charges.

All your examples are ways that the system could be failing but you wouldn't call them systemic. You could make the argument that the system allowing bias people into important roles in the system or not having public defenders paid as much as private sector could be systemic issues but those are mostly issues with system controls. Because the cost of those controls is so high, it would be very difficult to implement and I don't know who decides who is biased because the court is supposed to do just that.

[LongIslandZagFan]

You are correct in that it could be bias judge or jury, it may be a public defender problem, it could be racist cops. It could be a problem with the metrics. One of my attorney friends said that plea deals in non-violent offenses are extremely common and marijuana possession is a go-to in the plea bargain (would need confirmation from other source). This skews convictions vs charges.

All your examples are ways that the system could be failing but you wouldn't call them systemic. You could make the argument that the system allowing bias people into important roles in the system or not having public defenders paid as much as private sector could be systemic issues but those are mostly issues with system controls. Because the cost of those controls is so high, it would be very difficult to implement and I don't know who decides who is biased because the court is supposed to do just that.

When it produces the same results consistently... that is systemic.

[MDABE80]

Turned into a sociology jam session! Lol

[tinfoilzag]

When it produces the same results consistently... that is systemic.

We are dealing with people not widgets. When you introduce people into a system, you find problems with people not the system. People are biased and irrational.

[MDABE80]

LIZ if u think that, there is none. It’s never 1 to 1relationship not are the results unidirectional.

[LTownZag]

WHAT???? First off... for the record... a percentage is a number. Second... a base number without any context to what that number represents loses it's meaning.

What do you have an issue with? The fact that blacks make up 12.8% of the population or that 24% of the people killed by an LEO are black?

It matters because it is an indication that something isn't right... period. If all things are the same... the percentages SHOULD follow the demographics of the country.

LIZF - It's overly simplistic and you're too smart a person to imagine that every function of society should occur equally to every demographic slice of society or else it means some big problem is happening.

The median and modal ages of black americans is younger than white or asian americans.
Young people commit nearly all the serious crimes.
With no difference except a younger population, it would be silly to expect equal rates of criminality.

Black americans differ from other ethnicities in innumerable ways, many of which likewise are correlated (and most would say causal) of high rates of criminality. Some of these differences includes more poverty, more children without the presence of parents in their lives, more unemployment, less education, etc. I'm not saying that racism hasn't been a partial contributor to some of these differences, but it's not the 100% cause of 100% of the differences, and these differences do exist.

It would be strange to expect that a cohort with a greater violent crime rate than a second equal sized cohort doesn't also encounter police (and isn't killed by police) more than the second cohort.

We don't expect parity (in criminality or police interactions) between males and females, despite their equal numbers.

We don't expect parity (in criminality or police interactions) between americans over 38yrs old and those younger than 38yrs old, despite their equal numbers. (American median age is 38.2)

We should roughly expect serious/confrontational police interactions with members of a given group to mirror the percent of all violent crimes committed by people in that group.

(Black first-generation immigrants to the USA from Africa or Brazil or the Caribbean are by appearances "african america" but have very low rates of criminality, police encounters, and death or injury from police.)

If males 15-30yrs old commit three quarters of violent crime, we should (roughly) see that reflected in arrest and police altercation stats.

[Markburn1]

LIZF - It's overly simplistic and you're too smart a person to imagine that every function of society should occur equally to every demographic slice of society or else it means some big problem is happening.

The median and modal ages of black americans is younger than white or asian americans.
Young people commit nearly all the serious crimes.
With no difference except a younger population, it would be silly to expect equal rates of criminality.

Black americans differ from other ethnicities in innumerable ways, many of which likewise are correlated (and most would say causal) of high rates of criminality. Some of these differences includes more poverty, more children without the presence of parents in their lives, more unemployment, less education, etc. I'm not saying that racism hasn't been a partial contributor to some of these differences, but it's not the 100% cause of 100% of the differences, and these differences do exist.

It would be strange to expect that a cohort with a greater violent crime rate than a second equal sized cohort doesn't also encounter police (and isn't killed by police) more than the second cohort.

We don't expect parity (in criminality or police interactions) between males and females, despite their equal numbers.

We don't expect parity (in criminality or police interactions) between americans over 38yrs old and those younger than 38yrs old, despite their equal numbers. (American median age is 38.2)

We should roughly expect serious/confrontational police interactions with members of a given group to mirror the violent crime rate of that group.

If males 15-30yrs old commit three quarters of violent crime, we should (roughly) see that reflected in arrest and police altercation stats.

Very good Ltown.

[LTownZag]

Very good Ltown.

Thanks, Mark!

I'm personally in (I think?) an unpopular position with this issue, imaging things are neither as bad as most protestors feel, especially regarding deaths from cop, nor as good/fair as most Trump fans imagine.


I don't think that data shows a racial racial disparity in americans killed by police annually, when you compare % killed to % who commit violent crimes (and hence are confronted with force by police).

I'm also not nearly as worried about deaths at the hands of police as many appear to be. That singular issue (unarmed civilian killed by cops) is mostly a red herring. 3 times as many black youths were killed by other black youths in Chicago last weekend than were unarmed and killed by police nationally all of last year. One death is terrible, especially of unarmed persons, especially at the hands of trusted government agents, but the absolute numbers of unarmed or total civilian deaths are both very low (7-9 blacks, 24 whites last year) and have fallen steadily for the past decade.


However, I don't believe that there's equal treatment by law enforcement and perhaps more importantly the judicial process. Studies from data collected across many years and cities by Roland Fryer and Zach Goldberg (maybe more) find that police are rougher, more physical, and more apt to harm and frisk/question without any serious pretext, a black youth than a white one, and that sentence disparities likely exist for the same criminal offenses, though controlling for wealth may eliminate race as a variable there.

However, the human brain has evolved to be a pattern seeking and pattern observing machine.

Since 50% of the murders and violent crimes in the USA are committed by the 3% of the population that are black males aged 15-50, on some level it's a heavy lift or counterproductive to ask a police officer not to notice that pattern and act differently towards individuals of that cohort, even though most members of that cohort are nothing close to violent criminals.


And while all of the above seems like common sense based on the empirical data to me, I have a distinct sense that I'm in the minority with my viewpoints.

[ZagDad84]

I remember the time when I was riding my bike from Ross back to GU. I didn’t have a car, so that was my mode of transportation, and I had my purchases in one arm as I rode (and yes, I was wearing a helmet).

A cop turns around in his patrol car and signals for me to stop in a parking lot. He had me hand over my purchases and he wanted to see a receipt (which, thankfully, I had). He asked for driver’s license, and he also asked me if I owned my bike, remarking, “that’s a pretty nice bike” (and it was pretty nice - a specialized enduro). He asked me a few questions about it, though I don’t recall the specifics. Anyways, I think it was my GU identification card which ultimately set me free. The reason he stopped me, you might ask? I “looked suspicious.” He told me, to “stop looking so suspicious” when he finally left. I haven’t the slightest clue how to either look or not look suspicious.

A lot of police are good. Some are bad. Many are biased in some fashion: age, socio-economic group, race, etc.

In my case, I’m guessing age.

Of course,

Young teenage male drivers, teenagers in the malls, etc.

My son was working security at a UofI basketball game and was driving back home and was pulled over by the State Patrol. No speeding, no weaving, nothing wrong with car, just leaving a college sporting event. The police officer not only checked the license, registration and insurance (no issues), he conducted a sobriety check which was passed easily and then conducted a breathalyzer test. Sorry sir, no Bueno. Yesterday, same son pulled over and cop told him he had a side marker out on the car. My son thanks the officer for letting him know and he would get it fixed. Officer gives him a written warning with 3 days to fix it for a side marker out. O'k.

My experience with targeting was right out of college. Lived at home for a year, saved every penny and bought a way too expensive sports car ( i.e. took one of my two paychecks a month to just pay for the car and insurance). I was pulled over more than 30 times in 3 years by several different police departments (city police, sheriff, state patrol, etc.). Never pulled over for speeding, never running a red light or stop sign, no valid reason to be pulled over. Every time I was pulled over the officer gave me some lame excuse along the lines of "you cannot use your fog lights at the same time your low beams are on" ( I don't know exactly when you would use them then). If you can make up an excuse, I am sure I heard it in that 3 year period (you crossed the centerline back there. Officer I was in the middle of a pack of 10 cars, you could not even see my car let alone know if I crossed the center line). I never got a ticket or even a written warning.

Young kid driving a way too expensive car. Real purpose was a registration/insurance check. Wish I still had that car.

ZagDad

[sonuvazag]

Since 50% of the murders and violent crimes in the USA are committed by the 3% of the population that are black males aged 15-50, on some level it's a heavy lift or counterproductive to ask a police officer not to notice that pattern and act differently towards individuals of that cohort, even though most members of that cohort are nothing close to violent criminals..

A heavy lift, but with an eye toward equal justice, not an unreasonable ask.

[LTownZag]

A heavy lift, but with an eye toward equal justice, not an unreasonable ask.

I think it's a matter of the urgency of the situation. Sometimes racial or age or sex-based profiling seems prudent and responsible and any other action indefensible. We want police to stereotype in certain situations.

Let's say an officer heard shots fired. He/She jumps out of their car and runs into a store. There's a bloody person laying on the ground and two people fleeing out the back - a middle aged asian lady and a young male.

In that case, I want the police to play the odds and racially profile (or profile by age or sex) the young male, chase him down, and not chase the middle aged woman if the officer can only nab one person fleeing.

---

But in the situation of a courtroom, or a suspect interrogation, or when time isn't urgent, it seems optimum to treat people as individuals not as group members.

[sonuvazag]

I think it's a matter of the urgency of the situation. Sometimes racial or age or sex-based profiling seems prudent and responsible and any other action indefensible. We want police to stereotype in certain situations.

Let's say an officer heard shots fired. He/She jumps out of their car and runs into a store. There's a bloody person laying on the ground and two people fleeing out the back - a middle aged asian lady and a young male.

In that case, I want the police to play the odds and racially profile (or profile by age or sex) the young male, chase him down, and not chase the middle aged woman if the officer can only nab one person fleeing.

---

But in the situation of a courtroom, or a suspect interrogation, or when time isn't urgent, it seems optimum to treat people as individuals not as group members.

Let's say in the same scenario the two people fleeing are the same age and gender. The only recognizable difference is one of the people is black. Are we still cool with the police officer making that choice solely based on race?

And then this spills into other aspects of the discussion we've had. In the reality you've presented, it does make sense that the reasoning to chase the male youth over the asian woman spills into other aspects of police work. That routine traffic stops for blacks males between the ages of 15 and 50 would be more fraught with potential peril for even the innocent among that cohort. That police officers might be more likely to pull over people in that cohort for dubious reasons such as their tabs are three months from expiring. Because in those scenarios there's likely to be a man with a weapon trying to enforce the law who is quite aware when he is dealing with the cohort who is most likely to commit violent crime. And often enough that will be the extent of what he knows about that person at the beginning of the interaction.

It makes sense that more of those routine interactions shouldn't involve an armed officer.

I agree with you, it's difficult, and in some scenarios counterproductive, to remove the human bias, but a lot could be deescalated by removing the weapon and warrior training from the people doing such routine work as traffic patrol.

If that kind of reform made law-abiding black citizens feel more safe in their daily lives, wouldn't it be worth it? We can say, look we listened to your concerns and we're going to do something about it, instead of lecturing you about violent crime statistics you're probably already familiar with because you think about race more often than the me.