Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Blargityblarg]

Neither of you proved that it was because of racism. You're just asserting it is. Just because blacks are being convicted more than other people that doesn't prove that it's racism, that's just your explanation. I posit that they got justly convicted of their crimes whether or not I actually believe that is the case is irrelevant.

I'm just asking you to prove your position.

Would you care to offer your own explanation, or would you like to sit in the corner with your fingers in your ears some more?

[LordSlowpoke]

there is evidence for racism

you however treat it like a religion, acting all outraged when anyone even dares question anything because wow it's obviously a fact known to literally everyone why should we have to prove it !!!

ggwp modern society, no re

[Reelya]

Nobody's treating it like religion. Actual evidence was linked and the guy refuses to rationally look at it.

Other than presenting a mountain of evidence that something is true, against exactly ZERO evidence that it is false, how can anything be "proven"? Every study ever conducted that looks at black vs white in the criminal system gives evidence that blacks are treated worse on every possible measure. There's literally not one single statistical study where it was shown blacks were treated fairly.

I mean, how many times would you have to flip "heads" in a row to realize a coin is rigged? There's always a slight statistical probability that flipping 1000 heads in a row was sheer chance and the coin was actually fair after all. But if you flip a coin that many times and it always comes up heads, you can be fairly certain the game is rigged.

[Squeegy]

You think that the fact that Black people count for 40% of the US prison population and 13% of the US civilian population is because they are justly convicted of their crimes and therefore necessarily believe that Black people commit crime at a much higher rate than the rest of the population and we are expected to prove to you that it is racism? We don't need to do that, you will never see it as racism, because you are a racist. Rather, since you're the one asserting that it is because they are "justly convicted," why don't you prove that?

("I'm just asking questions!!")

[Sheb]

Yeah, but you know, maybe it's not because of the coin!

Sqeegy: You could imagine other explanation, like the fact that black people tends to be poorer than white people, with less access to education, and that poorer people commit more crime. However, in this case the racism we were referring to was the justice system's, not Staklininkas's.

[Squeegy]

The institution is racist, and if Staklininkas genuinely believes that its incarceration rates are fair, then he is necessarily racist too.

[LordSlowpoke]

i'm talking mostly about a certain poster above me reelya, i appreciate the input of most people here but anti-rational if you're not with us you're against us bullshit makes you not even a notch better than tumblrites

[Squeegy]

P → Q, ¬Q ¬P

If the criminal justice system is fair, then Black people commit crime at a rate disproportionately higher than any other race. Black people do not commit crime at a rate disproportionately higher than any other race (to believe that would imply that to be Black is to be inherently more likely to commit crime, hence the racism), therefore, the criminal justice system is not fair. More specifically, institutional bias is invisible when the institution is responsible for the recording of statistics. Because the system is biased against Blacks, they are incarcerated and arrested at a higher rate than White people, who are given lesser punishments for the same crime (something which is provable), and since only the punishments are what is recorded, there is no record of arrests not made, criminal charges not brought and sentences not imposed, which would definitively show a difference in treatment between White Americans and Black Americans.

However, there is a clear bias against minorities in the War on Drugs, they are manifestly greater targets for police brutality (p. 2), and statistics show that the police target minorities (especially Blacks) at a much higher rate. Remember Ferguson? Statistics show that Black Americans make up 86% of all police stops in Ferguson even though they make up less than 2/3rds of the driving population. The disparity index (how many are stopped divided by how many there are) for Black Americans in Ferguson is 1.37, but for Whites it is 0.38. Statewide in Missouri, it is 1.59 for Blacks, and 0.96 for Whites. That is clear evidence that police target Black Americans as potential criminals disproportionately more than Whites. Not just in Missouri, for the NYPD, home of the infamous Stop and Frisk program, 87% of all stops were of Blacks and Latinos. The NYPD was famously lambasted for stopping more Black men between the ages of 14 and 24 than there are in the entire city of New York. The NYPD's Public Advocate found in a study that White New Yorkers were twice as likely to be found with a weapon and three times as likely to be found with some form of contraband.

If you don't see a problem there, you are either ignorant, racist, or both.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Ok, I didn't read any of the links, so no idea if any of this applies.

Possible compounding factors:
Exactly what were the criminal charges brought up for whites vs blacks? ('Drug offenders' could lump Petty Possession in with Intent to Distribute.)
If there were multiple charges, whites vs blacks. (same as above, firearms charges for example)
Districts & judges presiding, how many whites v blacks they see and their individual harshness (if the judges presiding in predominantly black districts are harsh, but apply their harshness fairly, this would skew the results)

Not saying there isn't racism going on. But you have to dig deep into the statistics to make sure the data's good.

[Squeegy]

Ok, I didn't read any of the links, so no idea if any of this applies.

This is a pretty good clue that your argument is probably not going to be relevant to mine.

Possible compounding factors:
Exactly what were the criminal charges brought up for whites vs blacks? ('Drug offenders' could lump Petty Possession in with Intent to Distribute.)
If there were multiple charges, whites vs blacks. (same as above, firearms charges for example)
Districts & judges presiding, how many whites v blacks they see and their individual harshness (if the judges presiding in predominantly black districts are harsh, but apply their harshness fairly, this would skew the results)

Not saying there isn't racism going on. But you have to dig deep into the statistics to make sure the data's good.

Then go ahead and dig deep, my friend. Take out your shovel and dig away. I'm not going to take time out of my day to compile deep and thorough criminology statistics (especially because most of this data you're asking for is completely unavailable) when the simple facts clearly point towards a conclusion.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

If you're going to prop up something as evidence for your claim, you have to vet it. Otherwise it runs the risk of getting picked apart.
Not investigating your sources & assuming their headlines mean more than they do is just going to mislead you. :\

I'm not gonna dig, as I'm not interested in proving anything..

[Squeegy]

There is a disparity between what you're claiming and what you're demanding. You're claiming that not investigating my sources and just reading their headlines undermines my argument. You're demanding that I procure additional proof in addition to the sources I've cited (which you have not read, and freely admit to not having read), most of which is not actually available to the public if the data is even compiled at all. I've made my claims and provided my proof, if you want to refute it, the burden of proof is on you now.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

I have not made any demands.
I am not debating you. 
I am trying to discuss, not win.

(Trying to move on)
Did you look for said data? I would be interested in what you found (or did not find).

[Blargityblarg]

there is evidence for racism

you however treat it like a religion, acting all outraged when anyone even dares question anything because wow it's obviously a fact known to literally everyone why should we have to prove it !!!

ggwp modern society, no re

Mate, he's not questioning whether there's racism in the US' legal system, he's flat-out denying it despite the evidence as has been provided and discussed for more or less the entirety of this thread, with particular intensity in the last few pages, whilst neglecting to propose any other mechanism for the skewed conviction statistics which he apparently accepts.  Treating his post as though it contained a valid point is more than it deserves.

[Squeegy]

I have not made any demands.
I am not debating you. 
I am trying to discuss, not win.

I'm not trying to win. I'm trying to abide by the principles of argument. I've made my point, if you disagree, then refute it, with your own evidence.