It's sure suspicious, though, don't you think?
No. In fact, I think that it takes a racist worldview even to ask the question in the first place: "Is there a disparity in white vs. black incarcerations and sentencing?" Why on earth would you care enough to look in the first place?
Racist.
Here's how I understand the argument of the study:
1. Cases are assigned randomly to different judges.
2. A consequence of 1 is that various judges should have basically the same kinds and proportions of cases, defendents, etc.
3. The white/black sentencing disparity differs among judges.
4. Therefore, some judges take race more or less into account than others.
I'm not convinced by this.
The point is, you won't even start asking questions if there is any doubt to be found, no matter how small.
As I said. Show me clear, unequivocal evidence for your position. You have yet to do that.
Great! Then you agree that there's racial bias in the system. I.e. systemic racism. Right?
False. I deny that alternative 1 equates to systemic racism. It might translate to a de facto racial bias (insofar as blacks just so happen to be adversely and disproportionately affected by it), but that's not the same thing as racism.
I'm not sure how it's vague. Can you be more specific?
Either systematic bias or racial fault? What on earth would either one look like?
Not seeing how this is more concrete. Also, you said earlier that I should make no assumption without empirical evidence. But here you are, making the assumption that suits you best and using it to explain away the disparities in the system.
It's an accurate description of what actually happens.
Oh, sure, the criminals won't like it, and the family members and friends of those criminals won't like it. But I couldn't care less about their opinions.
I'm assuming that across multiple cases they should be.
I'm not convinced of this. As I said, show me direct empirical evidence.
That's just not a serious answer.
It is a serious answer. You just don't have a serious answer to it.
I've addressed this above. It lets white people off the hook for crimes that black people can be punished severely for.
So what? Police manpower, resources, etc. is finite and limited. Necessarily, if a policeman is patrolling A but not B, then criminals in B are going to be let off the hook that people in A would be punished severely for.
What's your point?
The burden is on you to show that it would be better for the policeman to be patrolling these other areas instead.
Oh, you think black people are reporting the crimes? Black people know what happens when they do.
Somebody's reporting them.
And if you're diverting a black kid from school into the justice system, and potentially pushing him toward a future life of crime? Still no problem?
Absolutely irrelevent from the viewpoint of criminal justice. If the black kid committed a crime and he got caught, then he's got to pay. It's that simple. In other words: "They broke the law. They paid the price. What's your point" (Judge Dredd, America series).
I'm talking about what determines what is criminal.
You think that selling crack, meth, cocaine, etc. should be legal? Black people tend to think that?
No, it's not. Your approach actually allows a lot of crime to be ignored because you're only interested in finding it in a few place.
Again, see above. Police can't catch everything. They have to use their time, manpower and resources the best that they can.
But you and the rest of you social liberals still insist on flapping your gums, because you don't know a darned thing about law enforcement. You don't know a darn thing about catching criminals. All that you see is race. In other words: "But...but...they're black! WHAAAAAAAH!"
You're all
racists. :nono:
Why, I'm glad you asked!
1. A shockingly high proportion of black people end up in prison. (Premise supplied by you). For the sake of the proof, I'll assume this means "end up being convicted."
2. Whoever is convicted has either pled guilty or else has been found guilty by a jury of their peers.
3. All (or, at the very least, most) such people are criminals.
4. Therefore, a shockingly high proportion of black people are criminals.
And, in fact, the more I consider this, why is it so surprising that there's a racial disparity in convictions and sentencing? There's a correlation between crime and poverty. There's a racial disparity in terms of poverty. Why are you so scandalized at a disparity in crime, convictions and sentencing?
You know where you find crime? You find crime where you find people. That's no good reason to focus on a certain group of people. There's no evidence that black people commit more crimes.
But there's plenty of reason to think that there's crime in A place being commited by x, y and z people. And in the absense of any compelling contravening considerations, that's a darned good place to be looking.
Correct. I'm not a racist.
Again, in the absense of direct empirical evidence, you have no compelling reason to affirm or deny the so called "racist" conclusion.
Do you have any, or are you just giving us a taste of your latent tendencies?
I'm simply saying that, in the absense of direct empirical evidence, we have to leave both alternatives open as possibilities.
