If this is your contention at this point then that's fine, but your point is rather unpersuasive.
So you actually believe plea bargains can be accounted for?
You are not even remotely skeptical or curious about how they accounted for that?
Systemic Racism in the Criminal Justice System/Law Enforcement?
Posts
Total:
60
-->
@Trent0405
I did show that my study accounted for criminal history, grey just thought that they may have accounted for it improperly. It's not on me to show that the study calculated something correctly.
Did they account for plea bargains? And yes it is. You’re putting forth the study, so you’re accountable for it. If it doesn’t account for something to your knowledge then it’s a misleading study.
-->
@ILikePie5
It was a meta-analyzed study time begin with. How many of the participants were black? How many were white? Do black cops shoot black people at the same rates as whites? As I mentioned, there are a plethora of factors involved which studies don’t account for especially since this study was meta analyzed.
Well this was comprised of 42 separate studies that I don't honestly feel like analyzing in depth individually. A meta analysis though will generally be rather large as it seek to form a consensus amongst academics. I feel like this is a rather unfair burden to place on me, I think after I provide the data it's on you to find a flaw in it, not on me to account for potential flaws that may or may not exist.
But systematic racism isn’t a problem because black women don’t get longer sentences than white males. If systematic racism existed black women would have longer sentences than white males. Your problem here is systematic sexism not racism. The evidence points to the former not the latter.
Your adding the variable of gender, if you isolate for race then we see a bias. Meaning that in order to debunk systemic racism you need to add in external factors.
From the first control F search: “therefore, when possible, we exclude non-discretionary searches, such as vehicle impound searches and searches incident to arrest.” So no, they don’t factor in arrests.
I never said they did factor in arrests, I said they accounted for how likely a race is commit a crime.
And even then, they don’t mention violent crime. Having contraband isn’t a violent crime. Not to mention the study was conducted in a limited environment. Of course the search rate for blacks is going to be higher in black neighborhoods. As I said, there are factors that each study ignores because there are simply too many variables in a determination. Factor in that each case is different irl and in a controlled environment, you get significant discrepancies.
Limited environment? it was conducted across the entire country. Also, why is the search rate going to be higher if they are just as likely to carry contraband. Also, obviously it is impossible to fully account for all variables but this is the single best piece of data we have, an analysis of 95 million police stops is bound to have one blemishes, but all we can do is work off of the data available, and it seems like almost all researchers come to the conclusion that systemic racism is present in law enforcement. Also, keep in mind that this is not an appeal to authority fallacy as I'm appealing to experts in the field.
-->
@ILikePie5
Did they account for plea bargains? And yes it is. You’re putting forth the study, so you’re accountable for it. If it doesn’t account for something to your knowledge then it’s a misleading study.
I just looked, they don't account for plea agreements BUT systemic racism in plea deals has also been observed. So this further shows the bias of the courts.
Also they didn't include this factor because ..."" the Commission had no data regarding which offenders were offered the opportunity to accept a plea bargain but declined.""
Again we have to work off of what data is avalible to form the best and most objective opinion possible.
-->
@Trent0405
Again we have to work off of what data is avalible to form the best and most objective opinion possible.
Covert systemic racism in a nation with less than 1000 KKK is such an implausible concept, you are simply going to need better proof.
Simply citing that criminals from violent ethnic cultures just happen to have many criminals with colored skin doesn't make the case that colored skin in itself is a significant factor in law enforcement.
Cases excluding cultural factors absolutely must be accounted for in order to make such a wild conclusion.
-->
@Greyparrot
Covert systemic racism in a nation with less than 1000 KKK is such an implausible concept, you are simply going to need better proof.
Here's the thing, systemic racism doesn't require evil racists happily arresting minorities, all it requires is people to have implicit biases. Plus I think a near total academic consensus is good enough proof.
-->
@Trent0405
Plus I think a near total academic consensus is good enough proof.
Lol, science isn't about popular consensus. If that was the case then angels would exist. I guess we are done here.
all it requires is people to have implicit biases.
That's a genetic/neurochemical argument, which I thought you had dropped earlier in this thread.
By all means, pick that ball back up and run with it and see where it goes.
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, science isn't about popular consensus. If that was the case then angels would exist. I guess we are done here.
No, it's about the consensus of scientists themselves not people in general.
-->
@Greyparrot
That's a genetic/neurochemical argument, which I thought you had dropped earlier in this thread.
I thought you meant like race realism stuff(that's why when you first asked this question I talked about race genetically). Obviously humans are genetically tribal.
-->
@Trent0405
No, it's about the consensus of scientists themselves not people in general.
Pedigrees are not proof of an argument. That's an argument from authority to say "academics believe x"
Not that it even matters because consensus is never proof of science and is often historically wrong and vapid with cultural fads.
Get better proof.
-->
@Greyparrot
Pedigrees are not proof of an argument. Get better proof.
We should rely on criminologists to talk about crime.
We should rely on scientists to talk about science.
We should rely on economists to talk about economics.
They are the best people in their respective field so yes I will trust them.
That's an argument from authority to say "academics believe x"
True, but it's not a fallacious appeal to authority.
Get better proof.
I've offered you the largest most comprehensive pieces of data that I could find.
-->
@Trent0405
Well this was comprised of 42 separate studies that I don't honestly feel like analyzing in depth individually. A meta analysis though will generally be rather large as it seek to form a consensus amongst academics. I feel like this is a rather unfair burden to place on me, I think after I provide the data it's on you to find a flaw in it, not on me to account for potential flaws that may or may not exist.
I did point the flaw. Not all the studies account for the same factors. They don’t account for other factors as well. You need to provide the methodology of the meta analysis study, cause if there’s no discrepancy between a white cop shooting a black man and black cop shooting a black man then there is no systematic racism. Does your study provide the races of the participants?
Your adding the variable of gender, if you isolate for race then we see a bias. Meaning that in order to debunk systemic racism you need to add in external factors.
I never added anything. Your study did. Systematic racism implies action based on race and race alone which your study doesn’t support as half of the black population will get a smaller sentence than half of the white population when it should be white getting less in all situations or at least a vast majority.
Limited environment? it was conducted across the entire country. Also, why is the search rate going to be higher if they are just as likely to carry contraband. Also, obviously it is impossible to fully account for all variables but this is the single best piece of data we have, an analysis of 95 million police stops is bound to have one blemishes, but all we can do is work off of the data available, and it seems like almost all researchers come to the conclusion that systemic racism is present in law enforcement. Also, keep in mind that this is not an appeal to authority fallacy as I'm appealing to experts in the field.
You’re missing the point lol. In a black neighborhood, both white and black cops are more likely to suspect black people than white people. It’s the same if the neighborhood was white — they’re more likely to suspect white people. The majority of cop interactions were with black people because black people commit the most crime disproportionately. The researchers come to conclusions without accounting for all the factors. They’re bound to be wrong and they are wrong. The vast majority of cops don’t go out every just looking for black people to catch and arrest. Facts depend on environment. If in my area black people are more likely to commit crime, I’m going to stop more black people than white people and I’m going to search more black people than white people. Consequently there are going to be more cases where searches on blacks don’t result in anything because I searched more blacks in the process.
I just looked, they don't account for plea agreements BUT systemic racism in plea deals has also been observed. So this further shows the bias of the courts.Also they didn't include this factor because ..."" the Commission had no data regarding which offenders were offered the opportunity to accept a plea bargain but declined.""Again we have to work off of what data is avalible to form the best and most objective opinion possible.
Blacks are more likely to commit crime than whites after finishing their sentence. That’s a good argument for prosecutors to use. But again it’s a case by case basis. White people are more likely to have families, etc compared to black people.
-->
@Greyparrot
In school you are taught to only have one independent variable because have more than one can misrepresent the results coming with the dependent variable.
This is the same thing going on here. The studies use one factor and determine the effects. Then they use another factor and determine the effects. In the end they combine all those to say systematic racism exists which is a terrible conclusion because you can’t determine how each independent variable affects the other.
-->
@Trent0405
They are the best people in their respective field so yes I will trust them.
Well then I feel kinda bad for your missed opportunities for enlightenment, but I guess there is merit in going through a blissful life.
-->
@Trent0405
This study suggests that there is no bias in police shootings for instance.
Actually, Cesario et al. claims that Whites are disproportionately more likely to be shot by police than Blacks. That's still racial bias, not no bias as you say.
The odds were 2.7 times higher for Whites to be killed by police gunfire relative to Blacks given each group’s SRS homicide reports, 2.6 times higher for Whites given each group’s SRS homicide arrests, 2.9 times higher for Whites given each group’s NIBRS homicide reports, 3.9 times higher for Whites given each group’s NIBRS homicide arrests, and 2.5 times higher for Whites given each group’s CDC death by assault data.
The problem with Cesario et al. claims in this and other frequently cited papers by the same team is that Cesario et al relies on BoJ VIolent Crime stats as a base count of incidents rather than citizen/police encounters overall. So far example, Cesario et al. would not count the deaths of Breonna Taylor or Tamir Rice because there was no report of a violent crime and there was no arrest on a charge of violence. The deaths of Eric Garner and George Floyd would not be counted because they were not shot (as well as no violent report or charge).
If we account for all police-citizens encounters (using Bo J Police-Public-Contact Survey stats, for example)
"This is a ratio of 1:6.5, which is slightly bigger than the ratio for Black and White citizens (39.9 million vs. 232.9 million), 1:5.8. Thus, there is no evidence that Black civilians have disproportionally more encounters with police than White civilians. Using either one of these benchmarks, still suggests that Black civilians are more likely to be shot than White civilians by a ratio of 3:1."
So none of these responses claiming (without citation) higher black crime are particularly disproving because both facts can be true. In contexts where both police and subjects anticipate violence, Whites get shot 3 times more often than blacks. It is in the non-violent encounters, when subjects are not anticipating any use of force response by police but police nevertheless shoot, that is where Black people encounter disproportionately greater violence by police, and those stats are excluded by Cesario (and most other researchers who fail to find anti-black bias in police violence).
I don't find claims of greater black crime disproving of systemic racial bias. Both things are obviously true. As Radley Balko puts it in a WashPo editorial:
"Of particular concern to some on the right is the term “systemic racism,” often wrongly interpreted as an accusation that everyone in the system is racist. In fact, systemic racism means almost the opposite. It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them. When you consider that much of the criminal justice system was built, honed and firmly established during the Jim Crow era — an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede rife with racism — this is pretty intuitive. The modern criminal justice system helped preserve racial order — it kept black people in their place. For much of the early 20th century, in some parts of the country, that was its primary function. That it might retain some of those proclivities today shouldn’t be all that surprising."
-->
@ILikePie5
It's enlightening to evaluate likely hypotheses from academic consensus and field experts and then use that info to get facts, run studies, analyze data, and prove those hypotheses.
What is not enlightening is to simply "trust the experts" without conclusive proof especially when academic accreditation is such a scam in the USA, and power politics funding public education is a classical motivation for misinformation.
Even Einstein was wrong about a lot of things, which is why enlightened people choose science over consensus or credentials.
-->
@ILikePie5
I did point the flaw. Not all the studies account for the same factors. They don’t account for other factors as well. You need to provide the methodology of the meta analysis study, cause if there’s no discrepancy between a white cop shooting a black man and black cop shooting a black man then there is no systematic racism.
Basically every meta analysis I've seen has controlled for the methodology of the studies used in the meta analysis. For instance in this case my meta analysis stated that all studies must have "sufficient information to calculate effect sizes for at least one operationalization of shooter bias was included in the paper."
Also, if black cops shoot black men a lot that doesn't debunk systemic racism. Just because judges tend to be male for instance doesn't mean that there isn't any sexism in the courts against men.
Does your study provide the races of the participants?
I didn't find anything, best I could do was find the total number of participants(3427).
I never added anything. Your study did. Systematic racism implies action based on race and race alone which your study doesn’t support as half of the black population will get a smaller sentence than half of the white population when it should be white getting less in all situations or at least a vast majority.
The way you tried to debunk systemic racism was by comparing black women to white men, that means the variable of sex is now not being accounted for. But if you compare apples to apples then black people are 20.4% worse off. Also, it's not just race alone, that's why the study accounted for things like age, education, citizenship, weapon possession and prior criminal history. We want to see if race plays some role, and the facts suggest it does.
You’re missing the point lol. In a black neighborhood, both white and black cops are more likely to suspect black people than white people. It’s the same if the neighborhood was white — they’re more likely to suspect white people. The majority of cop interactions were with black people because black people commit the most crime disproportionately.
Sure, this is why we examine the data in proportion to their criminality.(Not quite sure what you're getting at)
The vast majority of cops don’t go out every just looking for black people to catch and arrest. Facts depend on environment. If in my area black people are more likely to commit crime, I’m going to stop more black people than white people and I’m going to search more black people than white people. Consequently there are going to be more cases where searches on blacks don’t result in anything because I searched more blacks in the process.
I'm not saying cops are trying to be racist, I'm just saying that they have subtle biases that should be recognized and that these biases are born out in basically every piece of data I see. Also, I think stopping black people more isn't racist but stopping them more in proportion to the amount of crime they commit is racist. Say that in this Area 40% of all crime was committed by black people, well then if 40% of the people I pull over are black then we will see no bias against black people. But if I pull over 60% black people then that is racist. We observe black people getting pulled over more in proportion too the crime they commit.(Also not quite sure what you're getting at)
-->
@Trent0405
Basically every meta analysis I've seen has controlled for the methodology of the studies used in the meta analysis. For instance in this case my meta analysis stated that all studies must have "sufficient information to calculate effect sizes for at least one operationalization of shooter bias was included in the paper."Also, if black cops shoot black men a lot that doesn't debunk systemic racism. Just because judges tend to be male for instance doesn't mean that there isn't any sexism in the courts against men.
But that’s not how it works lol. If one paper says this factor proves racism and another says another factor proves it, you can’t combine both and say oh racism exists because of these factors, since you you don’t know the effects of the factors on each other.
And it does debunk it. If white cops and black cops shoot black people at the same then how does it show racism exists? Do black people think they’re superior than other black people?
I didn't find anything, best I could do was find the total number of participants(3427).
Well, race matters since the entire conversation is about race lol.
The way you tried to debunk systemic racism was by comparing black women to white men, that means the variable of sex is now not being accounted for. But if you compare apples to apples then black people are 20.4% worse off. Also, it's not just race alone, that's why the study accounted for things like age, education, citizenship, weapon possession and prior criminal history. We want to see if race plays some role, and the facts suggest it does.
But that’s not what systematic racism is lol. Systematic racism doesn’t account for sex, education, etc. White people should get lesser sentences than black people. Period. If race was a factor larger than sex than black women wouldn’t get smaller sentences than white men. You’re admitting that systematic sexism is a much larger problem than systematic racism which doesn’t exist.
Sure, this is why we examine the data in proportion to their criminality.(Not quite sure what you're getting at)
You don’t understand. The proportion will always be against whites because the searches are done on blacks more because they commit more crime lol. If I search 1000 blacks and 500 have something illegal, compared to 1000 whites and 250 have something illegal, I’m going to search more blacks than whites at 2x the rate which decreases the success chances of actually finding contraband because I’m simply searching more blacks. It’s the reason why stop and frisk was so effective. It disproportionately targeted blacks, a lot of whom were innocent but it decreased crime by a mile.
I'm not saying cops are trying to be racist, I'm just saying that they have subtle biases that should be recognized and that these biases are born out in basically every piece of data I see. Also, I think stopping black people more isn't racist but stopping them more in proportion to the amount of crime they commit is racist. Say that in this Area 40% of all crime was committed by black people, well then if 40% of the people I pull over are black then we will see no bias against black people. But if I pull over 60% black people then that is racist. We observe black people getting pulled over more in proportion too the crime they commit.(Also not quite sure what you're getting at)
That’s misleading. You don’t just pull over blacks at a 40% rate. That would actually make it racist if you always stop only a certain percentage of population lol. And the 40% number is inaccurate in the first place when the numbers are above 50% statistically for almost all violent crime, despite being 13% of the population. Because they commit more crime nationally, you’d expect there are more police interactions with black people than white people. Also given this it’s obviously more likely black people are disproportionately targeted. It has everything to do with the disproportionate amount of crime. If your analogy said 60% of the population is black but it accounts for 90% of crime, would you stop only 60% percent or more?
But anyways I’m not going to argue this with you anymore. There are way too many factors involved for anyone to accurately gauge systematic racism. Racism is and has been on a decline since the 60s. Eventually it’ll likely be gone. These things take time.
-->
@ILikePie5
But anyways I’m not going to argue this with you anymore. There are way too many factors involved for anyone to accurately gauge systematic racism. Racism is and has been on a decline since the 60s. Eventually it’ll likely be gone. These things take time.
Okay, that's fine I guess. All I'll say is it seems like my opposition on this thread has been hypercritical of my data with constant speculation about potential flaws without offering any counter evidence of their own. 'Twas fun anyway.
-->
@ILikePie5
At least racism against Blacks in a hypercritical cancel culture is absolutely on the decline. Being white is apparently not OK so much anymore though.
-->
@Greyparrot
At least racism against Blacks in a hypercritical cancel culture is absolutely on the decline. Being white is apparantly not OK so much anymore though.
Being a white liberal is ok. Just not a white conservative
-->
@ILikePie5
Nah, white liberals are getting canceled too as collateral damage in the quest for "equality."
-->
@Greyparrot
Nah, white liberals are getting canceled too as collateral damage in the quest for "equality."
Well I’m moving into a place where 150 million was just defunded from the cops. Rip
-->
@ILikePie5
Gated community is where it is at.
-->
@Greyparrot
Gated community is where it is at.
😂😂
-->
@ILikePie5
150 million!
not good
-->
@Dr.Franklin
150 million!not good
Yup it’s unfortunate
379 days later
"And it does debunk it. If white cops and black cops shoot black people at the same then how does it show racism exists?:
IMPLICIT BIAS ITS UNCONSCIOUS
"The proportion will always be against whites because the searches are done on blacks more because they commit more crime lol
Between 2012 and 2014, black people in Ferguson accounted for 85 percent of vehicle stops, 90 percent of citations and 93 percent of arrests, despite comprising 67 percent of the population.
Blacks were more than twice as likely as whites to be searched after traffic stops even after controlling for related variables, though they proved to be 26 percent less likely to be in possession of illegal drugs or weapons.
Between 2011 and 2015, black drivers in Nashville’s Davidson County were pulled over at a rate of 1,122 stops per 1,000 drivers — so on average, more than once per black driver.
Black drivers were also searched at twice the rate of white drivers, though — as in other jurisdictions — searches of white drivers were more likely to turn up contraband.
A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States
Enormous study of nearly 100,000,000 traffic stops conducted across America.
Analysis finds the bar for searching black and hispanic drivers’ cars is significantly lower than the bar for white drivers.
Additionally, black drivers are less likely to be pulled over after sunset, when “a ‘veil of darkness’ masks ones’ race”.
regardless please note that the factors which lead to disproportionate criminality amongst black Americans are in large part a product of racial bias. Underfunded public programs, redlining, generational poverty, bad schooling, and myriad other factors which influence criminality can also be traced to racial bias.
-->
@Trent0405
Just because judges tend to be male for instance doesn't mean that there isn't any sexism in the courts against men.
eh in courts its true that "systemic sexism" against men.