What is your answer to "The Race Problem"?

[rexlunae]

To my mind, none of what you posted is relevent.

The only relevent concerns, to my mind, are as follows:

1. Did he commit the crime?
2. Granted that he committed the crime, does his sentence fall within the sentencing guidelines for that crime?

If the answers to 1 and 2 are "yes," then no other concerns are relevent, and the criminal has been treated fairly. It's really that simple.

If you want me to agree that there's an unfair system, you have to start showing me all of the black people in prison who don't meet criteria 1 and 2.

So, to clarify, your position is that if the law for some crime says "...shall be imprisoned for not more than five years...", and every single white person who is convicted of the crime gets community service, while every single black person who is convicted gets five years, that's fair? That's racial equality to you?

 

[Traditio]

So, to clarify, your position is that if the law for some crime says "...shall be imprisoned for not more than five years...", and every single white person who is convicted of the crime gets community service, while every single black person who is convicted gets five years, that's fair? That's racial equality to you?

The simple fact that there's racial inequality is not in and of itself evidence that there's an unjust practice going on. You have to show me that each and every judge gave the white people community service because they were white, and every single judge gave every single black person 5 years because they were black.

You have to rule out other factors.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You live in the UK, nothing there is comparable at ALL to here.

Of course it is, the same principle applies and I don't need to live in bloody America to make the point. Where it comes to a 'lack of morality' within any given community then it's no real surprise that the brunt of it emanates from areas that are run down with little in the way of prospects. That could be a ghetto in the Bronx or a council estate in Sheffield.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Of course it is, the same principle applies and I don't need to live in bloody America to make the point. Where it comes to a 'lack of morality' within any given community then it's no real surprise that the brunt of it emanates from areas that are run down with little in the way of prospects. That could be a ghetto in the Bronx or a council estate in Sheffield.

No, it isnt, this is uniquely an american problem.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, it isnt, this is uniquely an american problem.

It's a problem in all communities to an extent regardless of locale.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It's a problem in all communities to an extent regardless of locale.

I totally disagree.

 

[Traditio]

Actually, come to think of it, I have a solution to the black problem.

Abolish due process.
Make the dealing of drugs (or even the possession of drugs with intent to sell), with the exception of marijuana and other harmless drugs, a capital offense.

 

[rexlunae]

The simple fact that there's racial inequality is not in and of itself evidence that there's an unjust practice going on. You have to show me that each and every judge gave the white people community service because they were white, and every single judge gave every single black person 5 years because they were black.

You have to rule out other factors.

That's absurd.

 

[Traditio]

That's absurd.

1. That's an interjection, not an argument.

2. It's really not. The simple fact that's there is an inequality doesn't in and of itself indicate that the inequality is unjust. In fact, it could well be the case that there would be injustice if there were not an inequality.

Justice is that whereby each is given according to his due. Unequals are due unequal things. Note, I'm not saying that blacks and whites are, on that very basis, unequal. I'm just saying that there could be attendant inequalities that you are simply failing to notice...probably because you, like all social liberals, only can look at this issue in terms of black vs. white.

Because you're all racists. :idunno:

 

[Alate_One]

Because its an american problem in their community and ive already stated what. A culture that embraces and celebrates failure and violence and looks up to thugs and criminals and even emulates them. If i were a black woman who said this, i would be called a "house negro" or "uncle tom" by other blacks as blacks often are by other blacks when they try to talk about this issue.

Here's the problem, while this may be partly true, it isn't the whole answer. Pretending it is, is basically victim blaming and people become rightly angry with you.

 

[Traditio]

To be clear, RexLunae, there could be all sorts of reasons for the inequality.

Maybe black people are more likely to be repeat offenders.

Maybe the circumstances under which the black people are charged, though charged with the same violation, tend to be more serious.

I mean, I don't know what all sorts of different circumstances are which a judge might be looking at.

Fact is, a judge has to make an on the spot prudential determination about individual circumstances.

In order for you to have a case, you'd have to go up to an individual judge ask him: "Your honor, you have judged these 20 individuals for the same legal violation. These 5 guys were black, and you gave them 5 years. These 10 guys were white, and you gave them community service. How come?"

But nobody's bothered to do that, have they?

And I bet you they won't, because, if they did, the answers that would come out of a judge's mouth would be anything but racist. It would probably make a lot of sense.

And that doesn't feed into the racist agenda of the race-baiting social liberals.

 

[rexlunae]

1. That's an interjection, not an argument.

That's true. It's a statement that you really should know better.

2. It's really not. The simple fact that's there is an inequality doesn't in and of itself indicate that the inequality is unjust.

The Constitution requires equal treatment under the law.

In fact, it could well be the case that there would be injustice if there were not an inequality.

Justice is that whereby each is given according to his due. Unequals are due unequal things. Note, I'm not saying that blacks and whites are, on that very basis, unequal. I'm just saying that there could be attendant inequalities that you are simply failing to notice...probably because you, like all social liberals, only can look at this issue in terms of black vs. white.

Because you're all racists. :idunno:

Your answer requires that we examine the privileged motives of judges and juries on a case-by-case basis. Yet, there are only two ways that the disparity could be explained: either there is a racial bias in the system, or there is a fundamental difference between the races too subtle to be captured by the law in explicit terms, but not so subtle as to be without impact. I think the later is both racist and unlikely due to the unlikelihood that the laws would just happen to be passed in such a way that they ignore actual relevant differences consistently, which leaves me with the former explanation.

 

[ok doser]

If that were truly the case, small towns across america would be havens of crime. They arent.

Weird how most of the violent crime in america happens in only 5 percent of us addresses.

heckuva lot more white people below the poverty line than black people

 

[Traditio]

The Constitution requires equal treatment under the law.

Blacks and whites already receive de jure equal treatment under the laws. They are subject to the same legal proceedings, have the same legal rights and are subject to the same sentencing guidelines.

Your answer requires that we examine the privileged motives of judges and juries on a case-by-case basis.

Yup.

Yet, there are only two ways that the disparity could be explained: either there is a racial bias in the system, or there is a fundamental difference between the races too subtle to be captured by the law in explicit terms, but not so subtle as to be without impact. I think the later is both racist and unlikely due to the unlikelihood that the laws would just happen to be passed in such a way that they ignore actual relevant differences consistently, which leaves me with the former explanation.

Several points:

1. You actually answered your latter alternative with "that's racist"?

2. Given the latter, you are presupposing that the law should not ignore such differences. I mean, what would that look like?

Let's suppose white people are less likely to be repeat offenders and black people are more likely. A. How would you change the law to decrease impact on black people? B. Why would you even want to? It strikes me as racist that you'd even want to.

3. Is that dichotomy really exhaustive? The latter alternative is incredibly vague. I'm not entirely sure what it even means.

And again, unless and until you start asking judges and juries why they gave the verdicts and sentences they did, you simply don't have a case. It's that simple. You simply don't know what's going on. You don't have all the facts.

 

[rexlunae]

To be clear, RexLunae, there could be all sorts of reasons for the inequality.

Maybe black people are more likely to be repeat offenders.

Maybe the circumstances under which the black people are charged, though charged with the same violation, tend to be more serious.

I mean, I don't know what all sorts of different circumstances are which a judge might be looking at.

See my last post, particularly the last paragraph.

Fact is, a judge has to make an on the spot prudential determination about individual circumstances.

There is good research about threat perception that indicates that black people in America are consistently perceived as more threatening, regardless of the race that is perceiving. Translate that into a judge, using her or his sentencing discretion, and what is the inevitable outcome going to be?

In order for you to have a case, you'd have to go up to an individual judge ask him: "Your honor, you have judged these 20 individuals for the same legal violation. These 5 guys were black, and you gave them 5 years. These 10 guys were white, and you gave them community service. How come?"

I think that it might be of some use to require judges to explain how they exercise their discretion. I don't want to see it stripped, but it is important to be able to review how the judge evaluates decisions that they make like that. This may already be done, however. I'm not really in a position to know.

But nobody's bothered to do that, have they?

And I bet you they won't, because, if they did, the answers that would come out of a judge's mouth would be anything but racist. It would probably make a lot of sense.

And that doesn't feed into the racist agenda of the race-baiting social liberals.

No one wants to spend money on the guilty, and the poor and racial minorities get the justice that they can afford. That's part of the reason I make monthly contributions to The Innocence Project. http://www.innocenceproject.org/

 

[Alate_One]

You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is utterly irrelevent to the law and to law enforcement.

Actually it is relevant when the rest of society decides that said crimes are not worthy of imprisonment, policy should be changed and as I recall, you asked my opinion in the first place.

Again, what is your point?

This claim is utterly irrelevent unless you want to tell me that there's a whole bunch of innocent people in prison. Are you making this claim?

I'm more making the claim that there are tons of guilty white people NOT in prison. And other countries seem to be okay with not incarcerating lots of people.

Do you think there are A. Overall fewer guilty people in other countries or B. The US imprisons more of the guilty people?

Actually, come to think of it, I have a solution to the black problem.

Abolish due process.
Make the dealing of drugs (or even the possession of drugs with intent to sell), with the exception of marijuana and other harmless drugs, a capital offense.

That's your solution? :doh: The bigger problem is black people are stopped and arrested by police at a higher rate than whites. If anything your suggestion would make the problem worse, and provide no recourse for a false accusation. Aside from being unconstitutional, you'd have to apply the standard fairly, and I'm sure all the white people would be very happy about that.

 

[rexlunae]

Blacks and whites already receive de jure equal treatment under the laws. They are subject to the same legal proceedings, have the same legal rights and are subject to the same sentencing guidelines.

There's a big gap between de jure equality and de facto. What you just said is basically just a repeat of what I said.

Several points:

1. You actually answered your latter alternative with "that's racist"?

Only in part. But I think it's relevant, as there's no good evidence that such disparities come from any fundamental trait. And it is, essentially, the dictionary definition of racism, so I think that's worth recognizing.

2. Given the latter, you are presupposing that the law should not ignore such differences. I mean, what would that look like?

Let's suppose white people are less likely to be repeat offenders and black people are more likely. A. How would you change the law to decrease impact on black people? B. Why would you even want to? It strikes me as racist that you'd even want to.

I'm presupposing that the difference is in the justice system, not in the people who fall under its judgement seeing little evidence for the difference being in the people. If you want to make the case that fundamentally there is a difference between the races, be my guest. I'd be curious to see how far you get with it.

3. Is that dichotomy really exhaustive? The latter alternative is incredibly vague. I'm not entirely sure what it even means.

I believe it is. It is essentially just observing that where there is a significant sentencing disparity, the cause must be in the system or in the people who fall under it. Can you name any situation that wouldn't fall into that dichotomy?

And again, unless and until you start asking judges and juries why they gave the verdicts and sentences they did, you simply don't have a case. It's that simple. You simply don't know what's going on. You don't have all the facts.

I believe that the benefit of the doubt should be assigned to the people who stand to lose their lives and their freedom. The lack of evidence doesn't argue for making assumptions about differences between races. If you want to assert that one race is significantly different from another, I believe that the burden of proof rests on your head.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Drive into inner cities in major midwestern towns and you see people with one particular skin tone. Go out to the suburbs and you see a different skin tone.

Biologically speaking there is no such thing as "race". But in American society there are clearly different outcomes depending on your (socially constructed) race. What is the cause?

You don't get to answer the question by avoiding it.

The biggest cause is the culture. To be more specific, it is the lack of assimilation of the smaller culture into the larger one. To the extent that minorities assimilate into the larger culture is the extent into which that minority reduces its incarceration rate. Lack of assimilation also facilitates institutionalized racism. There also seems to be racist beliefs in some of our judiciary that manifests itself in tougher sentences for young black men.

 

[ClimateSanity]

heckuva lot more white people below the poverty line than black people

The culture of blacks who are in poverty is markedly different than whites in poverty. I just spent a week in sub Saharan Africa. This city was probably 90% below what would be the poverty line in America. I felt much safer walking along the dirt roads of this city than in inner city America.

The difference? A more fully assimilated culture and a culture that does not blame others for problems. I know its a generalization and unfair to inner city blacks, but it is this difference in values and attitudes that make the difference in crime rates.

 

[Traditio]

There's a big gap between de jure equality and de facto. What you just said is basically just a repeat of what I said.

At any rate, I'm not interested in arguing over the 14th amendment. It's very vague and social liberals use it for literally everything. Why don't we argue on the basis of fairness/justice? Show to me that it's unfair that there is a racial disparity.

Only in part. But I think it's relevant, as there's no good evidence that such disparities come from any fundamental trait. And it is, essentially, the dictionary definition of racism, so I think that's worth recognizing.

Fundamental trait? I don't even know what that means. You mean something like genetics? If so, you're making a false dichotomy:

"Either the system is unfair, or else, black people are genetically predisposed to commit crimes."

I'm presupposing that the difference is in the justice system, not in the people who fall under its judgement seeing little evidence for the difference being in the people. If you want to make the case that fundamentally there is a difference between the races, be my guest. I'd be curious to see how far you get with it.

You know what? I'll just wager a guess as to how it works. Police are charged with enforcing the law. This includes things like gun laws, drug laws, etc. In order to enforce the law, they have to catch criminals breaking the law. So, how do you go about doing that? You go to the places where crimes are most likely to be occurring out in the open. Where is that? In predominately black and hispanic neighborhoods, but also in predominately white trash neighborhoods.

So policemen go there and they drive around and look for suspicious activity. They drive around in those neighborhoods and look for vehicles that have "the look," i.e., the "a drug dealer drives me" look. They wait for those vehicles to commit moving traffic violations. They stop those vehicles, usually driven by black people, hispanics and white trash, and start looking around in the car.

Guess what? This method works. They wanted to find drugs and other violations of the law? They find them. This car has drugs. This car has a loaded gun. This car has a scale. The guy's a drug dealer.

It just so happens that he's also white trash, black or an hispanic. Why? Because they're the ones openly committing those crimes in those neighborhoods.

Why don't policemen patrol other neighborhoods as much? Because crimes aren't being committed out in the open. They're not receiving complaints. White people might be smoking pot there or selling drugs in their homes. But good luck catching them.

Don't get me wrong. A policeman very well might catch a random white guy on a random traffic stop with a bag of weed. But I imagine that's the exception, not the rule.

From the police point of view, if the goal is to catch criminals, what is the best use of police department time, effort, manpower and money? You go where the action is.

So, let's review those two cases:

1. White college guy has a bag of weed on a random traffic stop. No criminal history. Chances are, he surrendered peacefully, did not resist arrest and otherwise did not cause the police problems.

2. Black guy has a bag of weed in a neighborhood in which those crimes are very common. Chances are, he already had a criminal history and he gave the police a lot of trouble when they tried to arrest him.

Just on the face of it, if you were a judge, who would you be more likely to throw the book at? Who's more likely to reoffend, to be a danger to the community, etc?

Will this lead to racial inequality? Sure. Is it problematic? No.

Again, as my stepfather says, policemen aren't driving up to black churches on Sunday morning and arresting random people.

I believe that the benefit of the doubt should be assigned to the people who stand to lose their lives and their freedom. The lack of evidence doesn't argue for making assumptions about differences between races. If you want to assert that one race is significantly different from another, I believe that the burden of proof rests on your head.

It doesn't. You are the one making a positive claim: "The racial disparity is due to racism and unjust practices."

I'm not making a claim at all. I'm just saying that disparity doesn't necessitate injustice.