What is your answer to "The Race Problem"?

[glassjester]

There is no physiological or psychological difference that is determined by race.

How would you measure that?

 

[Alate_One]

Good points However, where there is a difference is culture. The way in which the children are encultured determines their behavior in society. Change the culture change the behavior.

Are you presuming there is one "black culture"? Do you think there is one "white culture"?

How children are raised is important, but the environment in which they are raised is even more important. I have already linked the study that shows families that move to better neighborhoods with young children - the children earn more as adults. The parent's income didn't change.

So it's not even just the parents or the parent's "culture".

 

[PureX]

But how do we know whether the statistics in the OP are the result of bigotry?

We know it because skin color has no effect on criminality, otherwise. Dark skinned people are not inclined to become criminals because they have dark skin.

Should we just assume that every group of people that shows statistically higher crime rates is somehow the target of a biased system?

Yes, because there is no evidence nor logical reasoning that would lead us to do otherwise. (Unless we are bigots, ourselves, of course.)

Are higher crime rates of men due to prejudice, or due to men committing more crimes?

Gender is a different issue. Men are generally far more inclined toward violence against other people than women are, and violence against other people is illegal in our society (except in sports). So naturally, regardless of the group being targeted and criminalized by the bigots, it will be the targeted men who are most likely to become violent.

Are higher crime rates among 18-24 year olds due to prejudice, or due to 18-24 year olds committing more crimes?

Again, you are avoiding the issue of skin color. Young men are more inclined to violence than older men. This has nothing to do with skin color.

If the target of our collective social bigotry were people with 'slanty eyes', then it would be the people with slanty eyes that would be filling up our prisons. And it would be mostly the slanty-eyed men, and mostly the younger ones. Because regardless of what group we target, it will be the younger men among them that are the most prone to react violently, and therefor criminally.

 

[PureX]

Good points However, where there is a difference is culture. The way in which the children are encultured determines their behavior in society. Change the culture change the behavior.

White people control the culture in this country. Because it's white people that have the power and influence over how we see ourselves, how we see the world, and how we think we should behave in it. Particularly, wealthy white males.

So if culture is the cause of young black male criminality, then it is the white men in power that are most responsible for it. Because they are controlling the culture. They control the distribution of wealth, the distribution of opportunities, the distribution of information, the entertainment and education mediums, and pretty much every other influential aspect of our society and culture.

Blaming the people with the least amount of power and influence within their own culture, for their cultural disposition, is not only irrational, it's mean-spirited. It's basically victim-blaming.

 

[Traditio]

Alate_One, there's something that you've said that I've been having my eye on, but I haven't really gotten around to answering yet.

You said this:

Most incarcerated criminals are for drug offenses

You also quoted this:

Even more surprising is what gets left out of the chart: Blacks are far more likely to be arrested for selling or possessing drugs than whites, even though whites use drugs at the same rate. And whites are actually more likely to sell drugs:

Whites were about 45 percent more likely than blacks to sell drugs in 1980, according to an analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth by economist Robert Fairlie. This was consistent with a 1989 survey of youth in Boston. My own analysis of data from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health shows that 6.6 percent of white adolescents and young adults (aged 12 to 25) sold drugs, compared to just 5.0 percent of blacks (a 32 percent difference).

This partly reflects racial differences in the drug markets in black and white communities. In poor black neighborhoods, drugs tend to be sold outdoors, in the open. In white neighborhoods, by contrast, drug transactions typically happen indoors, often between friends and acquaintances. If you sell drugs outside, you're much more likely to get caught.

For the sake of argument, I'm willing to admit all of this. I could criticize the data that you've presented, but let's assume for dialectical purposes that the data is accurate.

1. Most convictions are for drug offenses.
2. Black people tend to commit drug crimes in a way which makes them particularly likely to get caught.

This actually works against your point. There's nothing racist or biased about this. It makes perfect sense that more black people should go to jail if these things are true. It also makes sense that there should be a sentencing disparity given the "same" facts.

If I'm confronted with a young man who sells drugs on the streets, on the one hand, and someone who sold a drug (ignoring, of course, the fact that "drugs" in a legal sense can range anything from prescription painkillers to meth) to an acquaintance in the privacy of his own home, I might be inclined to impose a harsher sentence on the former.

Regardless of race.

Furthermore, short of changing the law, what do you propose to make arrests and sentencing more "fair"?

If white people are selling drugs in the privacy of their own homes, the police would seriously have to start invading peoples' privacy a lot more than they do now just to catch these people (especially if these crimes aren't being reported).

Or do you propose that police just stop looking for black drug dealers?

I don't like either alternative.

 

[rexlunae]

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.

Just curious, are you saying that you think that Black Lives Matter movement is 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.

Well don't overwhelm me with your reasoning.

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.

So....racial bias isn't racism. Tell me more...

Either systematic bias or racial fault? What on earth would either one look like?

Racial bias looks like the justice system treating similarly situated people differently based upon their race. Racial fault would have to look like some concrete, proven difference between members of different races that leads to some undesirable behavior.

It's an accurate description of what actually happens.

So where's your evidence for your racial models of behavior?

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.

It's easy not to care about them. That's the problem.

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 limits shouldn't benefit one race especially. That's not fair or equal treatment. A law only selectively enforced isn't a fair law.

The burden is on you to show that it would be better for the policeman to be patrolling these other areas instead.

No, the burden is on you to justify the unequal treatment that definitively does occur. This nation hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt on racial equality. Do you realize that within our parents generation, the government was building deliberately segregated neighborhoods so that black and white people wouldn't be living together?

Somebody's reporting them.

I don't know if you're familiar with how policing works, but sometimes the police go out and proactively try to find crime. In those cases, they pick the time and place that they're looking, and they seem to focus a lot more on what happens in minority neighborhoods.

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).

That's fine, right up to the point where you start talking about how there aren't the resources to prosecute the white kid for the same crime. If there aren't the resources to prosecute everyone, and it isn't urgent enough to find more resources, maybe that crime isn't really so worth prosecuting after all.

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.

In other words, you believe that black people are worse than other people because they get convicted of lots of crimes. But above, you actually defended unequal enforcement of the law. So, mathematically, based on what you yourself have argued, there should be a much higher rate of conviction against black people.

You can't credibly argue both at the same time. Or either, as you've been demonstrating.

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?

Keep in mind, I started out talking about people being sentenced for the same crime. There should, ideally, be no disparity based on race, economic status, gender, religion, or any other attribute of the accused beyond what random variation would allow.

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.

I agree with that of course, looking through the keyhole. If you have reason to believe that a crime is going to be committed, go and try to prevent it or punish it. But that's not really the issue. The issue is how and why scrutiny is put on minority communities before others, where there's little reason to believe that they are more to blame for crime than other groups. What you've presented above is a feedback loop, where you assume that the criminal justice system's outcomes are self-justifying of its methods, but this is ultimately a circular argument.

I'm simply saying that, in the absense of direct empirical evidence, we have to leave both alternatives open as possibilities.

I understand that you are saying that. And you have also argued in favor of assuming that higher rates of conviction and tougher sentencing are the result of a racial defect. And now, I think that we've beating that horse to death, so unless you've got some new material, I'm probably done with you here.

 

[PureX]

1. Most convictions are for drug offenses.
2. Black people tend to commit drug crimes in a way which makes them particularly likely to get caught.

This actually works against your point. There's nothing racist or biased about this.

Unless we are deliberately pursuing outdoor drug sales, rather than indoor drug sales.

Which we are.

So … why are we?

I think the answer to this is quite complicated, and does involve racial bigotry on several levels.

 

[bybee]

Are you presuming there is one "black culture"? Do you think there is one "white culture"?

How children are raised is important, but the environment in which they are raised is even more important. I have already linked the study that shows families that move to better neighborhoods with young children - the children earn more as adults. The parent's income didn't change.

So it's not even just the parents or the parent's "culture".

I'm not presuming anything you unmitigated twit!
We are ALL products of our environment. Some of us conquer bad environments. Most of us continue to grow throughout our lives and learn from our mistakes.
But some of us just stay encapsulated in the victim environment and no matter how much time talent and money is employed we just don't change.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Are you presuming there is one "black culture"? Do you think there is one "white culture"?

How children are raised is important, but the environment in which they are raised is even more important. I have already linked the study that shows families that move to better neighborhoods with young children - the children earn more as adults. The parent's income didn't change.

So it's not even just the parents or the parent's "culture".

The better neighborhood has a better culture than the one they moved away from. It never was about income. That's why poor rural whites don't have high incarceration rates. Its not that they aren't being locked up; they aren't committing the crimes.

There isn't one white culture or black culture but all white cultures share more in common with each other than they do with other groups. Same with the black cultures.

 

[PureX]

I'm not presuming anything you unmitigated twit!
We are ALL products of our environment. Some of us conquer bad environments. Most of us continue to grow throughout our lives and learn from our mistakes.
But some of us just stay encapsulated in the victim environment and no matter how much time talent and money is employed we just don't change.

The more oppressive and abusive that environment is, the more difficult it will be to escape, and the fewer people will manage it.

Likewise, the less oppressive and abusive that environment becomes, the more people will be able to 'rise above it', and be able to get out.

So it makes sense that if we want to see people escape the bigotry trap of racism and poverty, and rise above the ugly, oppressive, and abusing environments that they happen to be born into, we would want to make those environments LESS oppressive and abusive, so as to enable more people to get out. But instead, what we are seeing, is the many bigots among us simply blaming the victims of these horrible environments for their not getting out of them, while the bigots sit on their hands, and do nothing to change those environments for the better so more people could get out.

It's like we dig a big hole in the ground and throw a bunch of people in it. Then when a few extraordinary folks manage to climb out of the hole in spite our kicking dirt in their faces and stepping on their hands, we then point at them and tell all the rest of the people in the hole that their being stuck in the hole is their own fault.

 

[ok doser]

There is no physiological or psychological difference that is determined by race.

except for higher levels of melanin

 

[Traditio]

Just curious, are you saying that you think that Black Lives Matter movement is racist?

I didn't specifically have the BLM movement in mind either way.

Well don't overwhelm me with your reasoning

Are you reading the argument differently?

So....racial bias isn't racism. Tell me more...

You're equivocating. I didn't say "racial bias" simpliciter. What I said was "de facto racial bias," and then proceeded to explain what I meant by that. The simple fact that the legal system just so happens to affect one group more than another does not in and of itself equate to a racial bias or racism in the sense that a social liberal would mean those words.

If you wish to disagree with me, at the very least, try not to talk past me.

Racial bias looks like the justice system treating similarly situated people differently based upon their race.

See italicized and bolded:

1. Despite my repeated requests, you still have provided absolutely no direct empirical evidence for the italicized. The closest that you've come is the study which talks about how cases are assigned randomly to judges. But that's not direct empirical evidence.

2. The bolded indicates intent. "I am treating you differently from him because of your race." Again, you've provided no direct empirical evidence for this, and the dichotomy that you've provided above doesn't supply it. Because then your dichotomy becomes:

A. Either the legal system treats people differently because of their race

or

B. Black people commit more crimes more openly, etc.

At which point, again, I insist: "false dichotomy," and I'll tell you that agents of the legal system very well may treat people differently, but not because of their race. It just so happens that a racial disparity results.

Again, if policeman A is patrolling a high crime area A and not suburb B, then there is a de facto difference.

So where's your evidence for your racial models of behavior?

For what I've said? It's evidenced in the fact that the black people in question are arrested, tried and found guilty. Every black person who either pleads guilty and is sentenced, or else, is found guilty and sentenced is evidence in favor of my proposition: "There are a lot of black criminals."

Of course, this in and of itself doesn't produce the disparity. There's also the accompanying: "And policemen are in a really good position to catch them." And you'll see this supported in arrest rates.

That's the problem.

You're saying it's a problem. What is your argument?

The limits shouldn't benefit one race especially. That's not fair or equal treatment. A law only selectively enforced isn't a fair law.

I disagree. I think it's ultimately irrelevent whether or not any one race is benefitted or not. You social liberals are like a school child complaining that the teacher only gave him detention for blowing a spitball, even though other students were doing it too. The answer is always going to be the same: "They may have been, but I didn't see them doing it. I did see you."

No, the burden is on you to justify the unequal treatment that definitively does occur.

You're the one claiming that the current practices are racist, unfair, etc. What this means is that you're committed to claiming that alternative practices would be better.

As I said: the burden is on you. Show me that alternative practices would be better.

I don't know if you're familiar with how policing works, but sometimes the police go out and proactively try to find crime. In those cases, they pick the time and place that they're looking, and they seem to focus a lot more on what happens in minority neighborhoods.

And again: they find criminals. It works. You have no cause for complaint.

That's fine, right up to the point where you start talking about how there aren't the resources to prosecute the white kid for the same crime. If there aren't the resources to prosecute everyone, and it isn't urgent enough to find more resources, maybe that crime isn't really so worth prosecuting after all.

Doesn't follow. See my reply to Alate One.

In other words, you believe that black people are worse than other people because they get convicted of lots of crimes. But above, you actually defended unequal enforcement of the law. So, mathematically, based on what you yourself have argued, there should be a much higher rate of conviction against black people.

I've actually not claimed any of this. Your claim, Rex Lunae, is that a surprisingly large number of black people are in jail. I answered that a surprisingly large number are criminals. I gave a proof accordingly.

Do you have a problem with the proof I gave? Do you dispute any of the premises? Do you think that the proof isn't valid? If not, then you must grant the conclusion.

Keep in mind, I started out talking about people being sentenced for the same crime. There should, ideally, be no disparity based on race, economic status, gender, religion, or any other attribute of the accused beyond what random variation would allow.

You haven't shown that there's a disparity based on race, etc. You're completely talking past the point that I've made. My point is that there's a disparity, crimewise, between poor and non-poor people. Black people are disproportionately poor. Maybe they are disproportionately criminal.

I agree with that of course, looking through the keyhole. If you have reason to believe that a crime is going to be committed, go and try to prevent it or punish it. But that's not really the issue. The issue is how and why scrutiny is put on minority communities before others, where there's little reason to believe that they are more to blame for crime than other groups. What you've presented above is a feedback loop, where you assume that the criminal justice system's outcomes are self-justifying of its methods, but this is ultimately a circular argument.

We're going in circles on this one. My previous comments suffice in answer.

 

[Traditio]

Unless we are deliberately pursuing outdoor drug sales, rather than indoor drug sales.

Which we are.

So … why are we?

The former is easier to spot for the average policeman who is driving around in his police cruiser and involves far fewer potential invasions of privacy, rights violations, etc.?

Again, how do you propose that the police start cracking down on indoor violations? Especially in the absense of reports/tips from the community? What on earth would that even look like?

 

[Interplanner]

Very few people realize that Darwin's OS full title actually ended with the line about the advancement of superior races. We need to stay focused on what actions people take, not what race or born-as status they have.

"There are only two races in the world: those who are kind and those who are not." --V. Frankl

 

[PureX]

The former is easier to spot for the average policeman who is driving around in his police cruiser and involves far fewer potential invasions of privacy, rights violations, etc.?

Or, arresting black teenagers that no one in power cares about is a whole lot less risky to your career than arresting young white teenagers who's parents have real power in the community. Or worse yet, arresting the adults themselves. What do you think?

Again, how do you propose that the police start cracking down on indoor violations? Especially in the absense of reports/tips from the community? What on earth would that even look like?

They use undercover drug buyers, just like they do with outside sales.

 

[bybee]

The more oppressive and abusive that environment is, the more difficult it will be to escape, and the fewer people will manage it.

Likewise, the less oppressive and abusive that environment becomes, the more people will be able to 'rise above it', and be able to get out.

So it makes sense that if we want to see people escape the bigotry trap of racism and poverty, and rise above the ugly, oppressive, and abusing environments that they happen to be born into, we would want to make those environments LESS oppressive and abusive, so as to enable more people to get out. But instead, what we are seeing, is the many bigots among us simply blaming the victims of these horrible environments for their not getting out of them, while the bigots sit on their hands, and do nothing to change those environments for the better so more people could get out.

It's like we dig a big hole in the ground and throw a bunch of people in it. Then when a few extraordinary folks manage to climb out of the hole in spite our kicking dirt in their faces and stepping on their hands, we then point at them and tell all the rest of the people in the hole that their being stuck in the hole is their own fault.

The government is pouring millions of dollars into helping minorities. Churches and other charities are pouring millions of dollars into helping minorities. thousands of people give in addition to their money, their time and their talent trying to help minorities. And has it all been for naught? You see no help anywhere, therefore, there is no help.

 

[Traditio]

Or, arresting black teenagers that no one in power cares about is a whole lot less risky to your career than arresting young white teenagers who's parents have real power in the community. Or worse yet, arresting the adults themselves. What do you think?

Do you have direct empirical evidence for this?

If not, then my explanation is the simplest and most probable. Again, think about what a policeman does on an average day on the job.

They use undercover drug buyers, just like they do with outside sales.

This presupposes that they already have a suspect.

Here's basically my understanding of how police catch drug criminals. Policemen know that area A tends to have a lot of crime, and especially drug crime. So they drive around that area and make traffic stops for moving traffic violations and use them as an excuse to search suspicious looking vehicles. This uncovers drug crime.

Edit: It also provides opportunities to catch people who have outstanding warrants and have other forms of contraban.

 

[PureX]

The government is pouring millions of dollars into helping minorities. Churches and other charities are pouring millions of dollars into helping minorities. thousands of people give in addition to their money, their time and their talent trying to help minorities. And has it all been for naught? You see no help anywhere, therefore, there is no help.

Clearly, all this "help" isn't helping.

What they need are good K-12 schools, which they aren't getting. What they need are jobs that pay a dad enough to raise a family, which they aren't getting. What they need are opportunities for higher education, and entrepreneurship, which they aren't getting. What they need is to be treated like regular citizens, instead of criminals, by the police, which is not happening.

The little money we are spending on public aid (and it is minute compared to what we spend on corporate welfare for Monsanto, Halliberton, big insurance, oil, and pharmaceutical conglomerates) is not enough and is not going to the right places. And all it can do is give people a leg up. If bigotry still will not allow these people to become a respected and appreciated part of our society, then all that 'leg up' money will be wasted, anyway.

Bigotry poisons everyone it touches, and does far more damage than we realize. Poverty is no primarily a lack of money. It's a lack of hope, and self-respect. And racial bigotry is still pervasive in America.

 

[PureX]

Do you have direct empirical evidence for this?

If not, then my explanation is the simplest and most probable. Again, think about what a policeman does on an average day on the job.

I am, and I believe my comments are based on the every day reality of the "drug war". And on the ingrained racial bigotry that still permeates evert aspect of our society.

The fact that you insist that it's somehow my job to convince you shows me that you are already biased and do not want to be convinced. If that's the case, then I would be wasting my time trying, and you will no doubt continue to wallow in your bias, regardless.

Here's basically my understanding of how police catch drug criminals. Policemen know that area A tends to have a lot of crime, and especially drug crime. So they drive around that area and make traffic stops for moving traffic violations and use them as an excuse to search suspicious looking vehicles. This uncovers drug crime.

Well, I think you're quite wrong about this.

Either neighbors complain about corner drug sales, or the cops see it going on, themselves, or both. So they set up a "sting" using an undercover cop, who buys some illegal drugs, and they arrest and charge the seller. This chases the 'market' to another corner, for a while. And the process begins again.

Incidentally, many of the buyers at these corner dope markets are white, and are never caught or arrested. Only the young black sellers are targeted, and arrested.

The cops can and sometimes do look for cars cruising the seller's areas, and stop them to search them. But that only gets them a possession charge, when successful. Whereas the other method gets them a selling charge, which is more serious. Again, the bias favors incarcerating the black teenage seller, over the white adult buyer.

 

[Alate_One]

Very few people realize that Darwin's OS full title actually ended with the line about the advancement of superior races. We need to stay focused on what actions people take, not what race or born-as status they have.

"There are only two races in the world: those who are kind and those who are not." --V. Frankl

"Races" at that time referred to varieties of plants and animals, not people. Origin of species hardly mentioned humans.