If race is the consistent issue, it would be evident in a majority of cases for both genders where race differences are found, but like I mentioned, they had no case to unfold regarding racial disparities in treatments of women, which must be included to seal a case of racism. Racism against only men makes no sense and defies what racism means. Racism does not differentiate between male and female, being a racist is against all people of color, no matter sex, attire, age, etc.
Bottom of page 14
When they make claims like this I don’t understand why they are making the assumption that the same crimes were being committed when the charges are actually lumped into only two categories: misdemeanors and felonies. The type of felony would definitely weight a prosecutors actions and also a judges actions, but I cannot find where they have these specific stats, comparing a specific crime done by a white to the same crime done by a black. In other words, they are pulling facts and figures from all over the place and making these regressions (which I don’t understand) to try to come up with even sample sizes. If white people are not committing as much criminal activity or as severe criminal activity, why is that being fabricated to equal the sample sizes between blacks and whites? And how can a fabrication speak to real content and context? For example, they are not tracking 100 specific cases from start to finish for a homicide charge for a black man against 100 specific cases from start to finish for a homicide charge for a white man where both men share the same backgrounds, ages, education, economic status, county/state, etc. The clincher is the criminal history and when that is not specific it invalidates the entire study. Why aren’t they using first time offenders with similar backgrounds who have clean records and dispensing with all the other bullshit? Why?
Page 44
Assumptions vs ambiguities…seriously?
I thought this study was based on definitive statistics and case specifics, the information required to formulate a comprehensive study not based on assumptions…educated guesses which could be wrong in many cases.
This is what I was having problems with…guesswork. Why would you conduct a study that doesn’t have all the blanks filled in by factual data? Why base aspects of a study on assumptions, doesn’t that defeat the purpose and results of the study?
I’ll keep reading this study thing, but it’s admitted that it is sketchy several times over.
I don’t understand why they keep making assumptions concerning what I consider the most important aspect of all the cases…the criminal history.
What does this mean?
What is the binary variable?
Hispanics were counted where? They didn’t have their own category, except for in one aspect of the study, which I’m having trouble finding again???Seriously, Hispanics are floating in the white, black, Asian, Indian, and other categories? How is this even possible, let alone actual?
Not specific, not in-depth, and not linked through all the aspects of the study. How much extremely pertinent information is missing? What was this sample size for blacks and for whites?
Earlier in the study they brought up the record of criminal history being available through the AOUSC coding as either a misdemeanor or a felony but not any specifics, but not here. What gives?