"Why It Won’t Stop With Statues." Article on why it can be expected that the mayhem will get worse

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Shakuhachi said:
If that is true it is a statement about poverty .
Click to expand...
Sadly, it is a true statement. Years of statistics back it up. It actually used to be worse, which is really sad.

But no, it’s not really about poverty because you don’t see the same behavior among all impoverished people. If poverty were the primary factor then all impoverished areas would exhibit similar issues. They do not, so that can’t be the underlying reason.

To be clear, I do believe that poverty is a symptom of the same malady, the evidence just doesn’t support it being the cause.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
The argument isn’t that African Americans commit more crimes in number. The issue is that, by the justice departments own numbers, they account for a disproportionately large percentage of crimes committed.
Click to expand...
I know what the claim is: What I’m saying is, the right-wing talking point about that being the reason Black people are targeted by cops and the system overall has a ton of studies that do not agree.

For example, how much are those statistics are affected by wrongful convictions (of Black people) which are in turn affected by how prosecution, plea-bargains, and jury selection works?

We already have lots of evidence that police target Black people even where White targets would yield more results for them, but there’s all sorts of things at every level of the system; not just one.

"
  • Black people are also more likely to be wrongly convicted of murder when the victim was white. Only about 15 percent of people killed by black people were white, but 31 percent of black exonorees were wrongly convicted of killing white people. More generally, black people convicted of murder are 50 percent more likely to be innocent than white people convicted of murder.
  • Innocent black people are also 3.5 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of sexual assault and 12 times more likely to be wrongly convicted of drug crimes. (And remember, data on wrongful convictions is limited in that it can only consider the wrongful convictions we know about.)
In a 2010 study, “mock jurors” were given the same evidence from a fictional robbery case but then shown alternate security camera footage depicting either a light-skinned or dark-skinned suspect. Jurors were more likely to evaluate ambiguous, race-neutral evidence against the dark-skinned suspect as incriminating and more likely to find the dark-skinned suspect guilty."

And that’s not even considering the disproportionate targetting; poverty, etc. In such a system, how do we even know what those statistics mean against the demographic targetted at every level?
 
Last edited:
For drugs too,

"
  • According to figures from the National Registry of Exonerations (NER) black people are about five times more likely to go to prison for drug possession than white people. According to exoneration data, black people are also 12 times more likely to be wrongly convicted of drug crimes.
  • When Harris County, Tex., saw a flaw in how drug testing was conducted at its crime lab, officials went back and exonerated dozens of people who had been wrongly convicted for possession — most pleaded guilty, despite their innocence. This is because prosecutors often promise harsher sentences or more charges for defendants who take a case to trial. Black people comprise 20 percent of the Harris County population but made up 62 percent of the wrongful drug convictions.
  • Not included in these wrongful conviction figures are cases in which police and narcotics task forces conducted mass arrests of entire black or Latino neighborhoods or towns. Hundreds of people were persuaded to plead guilty to drug charges. By the NER’s estimate, there have been more than 1,800 such “group exonerations” in 15 cities since 1989. Almost all those exonerated were black or Latino."
 
Last edited:
There is affirmative action in education and employment, wherein blacks are favored because of their race.

Just…noting that.
 
Also, from the article,

"
Though the Supreme Court made it illegal for prosecutors to exclude prospective jurors because of race in the 1986 case Batson v. Kentucky , that ruling has largely gone unenforced. The New Yorker reported in 2015 that in the approximately 30 years since the ruling, courts have accepted the flimsiest excuses for striking black jurors and that prosecutors have in turn trained subordinates how to strike black jurors without a judicial rebuke. A 2010 report by the Equal Justice Initiative documented cases in which courts upheld prosecutors’ dismissal of jurors because of allegedly race-neutral factors such as affiliation with a historically black college, a son in an interracial marriage, living in a black-majority neighborhood or that a juror “shucked and jived.”
 
"There are no comprehensive national data on the rate at which prosecutors strike black jurors, but there have been quite a few regional studies.
  • A study of criminal cases from 1983 and 1993 found that prosecutors in Philadelphia removed 52 percent of potential black jurors vs. only 23 percent of nonblack jurors.
  • Between 2003 and 2012, prosecutors in Caddo Parish, La. — one of the most aggressive death penalty counties in the country — struck 46 percent of prospective black jurors with preemptory challenges, vs. 15 percent of nonblacks.
  • Between 1994 and 2002, Jefferson Parish prosecutors struck 55 percent of blacks, but just 16 percent of whites. Although blacks make up 23 percent of the population, 80 percent of criminal trials had no more than two black jurors in a state where it takes only 10 of 12 juror votes to convict."
 
Last edited:
  • A 2011 study from Michigan State University College of Law found that between 1990 and 2010, state prosecutors struck about 53 percent of black people eligible for juries in criminal cases, vs. about 26 percent of white people. The study’s authors concluded that the chance of this occurring in a race-neutral process was less than 1 in 10 trillion. Even after adjusting for excuses given by prosecutors that tend to correlate with race, the 2-to-1 discrepancy remained. The state legislature had previously passed a law stating that death penalty defendants who could demonstrate racial bias in jury selection could have their sentences changed to life without parole. The legislature later repealed that law.
  • In June 2018, American Public Media’s “In the Dark” podcast did painstaking research on the 26-year career of Mississippi District Attorney Doug Evans and found that over the course of his career, Evans’s office struck 50 percent of prospective black jurors, vs. just 11 percent of whites.
  • As of 2018, in the 32 years since Batson , the U.S Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit — which includes Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana — has upheld a Batson challenge only twice. That is out of hundreds of challenges.
  • A survey of seven death penalty cases in Columbus, Ga., going back to the 1970s found that prosecutors struck 41 of 44 prospective black jurors. Six of the seven trials featured all-white juries.
VonDerTann said:
There is affirmative action in education and employment, wherein blacks are favored because of their race.

Just…noting that.
Click to expand...
The demographic that has most benefitted from affirmative action is WHITE WOMEN.

Just…noting that. 😒
 
Last edited:
Rubee said:
In a 2010 study, “mock jurors” were given the same evidence from a fictional robbery case but then shown alternate security camera footage depicting either a light-skinned or dark-skinned suspect.
Click to expand...
I read the study. Found something fascinating that I think discredits it.

From the study…“Study participants came from several different ethnic backgrounds.
Twenty-five participants were Japanese American, eighteen were European
American, and five were Chinese American. Other participants were Native
Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Korean American and Latino. Nineteen of the
participants were male and forty-seven were female.”

Anyone see a particular ethnic group missing?

Wouldn’t it make sense that if we are going to study a society for some kind of bias we would study all segments of that society?
 
vz71 said:
I read the study. Found something fascinating that I think discredits it.
Click to expand...
The findings say light-skinned and dark-skinned. If that is a factor, guess which race spots the darkest skin.

No . . . that doesn’t “discredit it.”
 
Last edited:
After you turn this thread into a book, note that there is no proof that racism accounts for anything you write - nor does any of it exclude other factors, i.e. Cultural differences, etc.
 
VonDerTann said:
After you turn this thread into a book, note that there is no proof that racism accounts for anything you write - nor does any of it exclude other factors, i.e. Cultural differences, etc.
Click to expand...
Ah, so after not reading (after claiming to be interested in “evidence” 🙃) you now think poking fun at my listing of JUST a few of the MANY studies and straight declaring these conclusions like in a King-like fashion is going to accomplish . . . what? 🙂

But I’m not done. I’ll list the profiling evidence just as a cherry on top.
 
Last edited:
Rubee said:
No . . . that doesn’t “discredit it.”
Click to expand...
They claim to study society, but leave out a section of that same society.
At the very least it tells us that the society they studied does not have dark skinned people in it.

I know of no actual society like that.
 
vz71 said:
They claim to study society, but leave out a section of that same society.
At the very least it tells us that the society they studied does not have dark skinned people in it.

I know of no actual society like that.
Click to expand...
Are you saying there are no dark-skinned people among the demographics you listed? Is that your big discrediting point?
 
You are, in fact, just regurgitating the same material that got linked (and tossed as someone’s interpretation of data gathered by third parties) - are you not?

Plus now I’m a king on a throne. And the insults just keep on comin’…

(And you still only want to talk about the justice system)
 
VonDerTann said:
You are, in fact, just regurgitating the same material that got linked (and tossed as someone’s interpretation of data gathered by third parties) - are you not?

Plus now I’m a king on a throne. And the insults just keep on comin’…

(And you still only want to talk about the justice system)
Click to expand...
I’m listing studies and links: does that upset you? Is the study fake? The link? Or the finding?

King on a throne is yet another obvious analogy that’s being twisted into an “insult”; Of course it simply means you declare what the conclusions are and imagine your declaration is enough to dismiss the finding. Yes, fatwa-like, Kingly declarations: not arguments.
 
Last edited:
Rubee said:
Are you saying there are no dark-skinned people among the demographics you listed? Is that your big discrediting point?
Click to expand...
I am saying that of the ethnicity they listed for their study, they neglected to mention a fairly large segment of that society.
 
vz71 said:
I am saying that of the ethnicity they listed for their study, they neglected to mention a fairly large segment of that society.
Click to expand...
I’m saying that doesn’t discredit their study based on how light-skinned participants are treated compared to those darker-skinned. It would discredit it if you showed there were no differences in skin-colour among participants. You claimed it was discrediting, so the point you’re making now is irrelevant to that claim you made innitially.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top