Race-Biased Police Violence

[Carleas]

Very disingenuous debate, no?

No. I literally can't go to your source because it's blocked for being racist, based on standards I didn't set and can't control. I can look at the Wikipedia page for the magazine, and there I can see both how they've been characterized by mainstream media sources, and what I take to be an accurately quoted self-description. I take from all of this that "biased" is an accurate description.

But I'm not trying to reject the source for that reason. What I'm trying to do is point out that WendyDarling isn't applying a fair standard to the evidence before her. When she looks at studies that undermine her position, the mere race of the author is enough to completely reject all of the study's findings. But when presented with a study that supports her position, the fact that it's a magazine article produced by an organization with an explicit agenda of finding consistent race-based differences in all measurable human attributes isn't seen as at all disqualifying. That lack of neutrality is a problem.

When I dump a bunch of studies, it's because WendyDarling is using ad hoc justifications for rejecting conclusions she doesn't like. She's using standards she didn't have until she was confronted with a study that met her expressed standards. I dumped studies because they reach the same conclusions using different methods, and they undermine her focus on the minutiae of one study. I don't doubt that she could find some detail in each of those studies that she could claim as a reason to reject its findings, but I expect those details to be ad hoc and to be things in study design she's never been concerned about until she had a study she needed a reason to reject. Again, there's a lack of neutrality, and study dumping is just a way of making clearer that her real problem with the study is that she doesn't like the conclusion.

This isn't reframing anything. WendyDarling asked me to create this thread to discuss studies showing that black people face bias from the police, and that's what we're still doing. The only time I brought up "racist" is when WendyDarling suddenly introduced the standard that no study from a black person would count, and I only brought it up for the limited purpose of saying that an article promulgated by a clearly motivated organization should be rejected too if she were applying a fair standard. It's "BOOM, no more opposing study" under WendyDarling's own standard of what counts as a valid study.

I appreciate your participation in this thread, but if you're going to participate, then participate in this thread, not every strawman of a conversation with a liberal you've seen described on Stormfront. I'm not calling WendyDarling a racist, I'm not calling white people racist, I'm not even calling the police racist. I'm saying, black people face an undue burden from police, and studies that look at real world data and apply reasonable analytical methods back up that claim.

/rant

[URUZ]

I think it's funny how race is important when it comes to anything positive, but as soon as negative race differences come up suddenly race doesn't matter and it is "racist" to point to those differences.

Different races commit violent crimes at different proportions as an average of each race. But apparently it's racist to even point that out. See, race is irrelevant when the differences are negative ones, but when it comes to positive aspects then it's just fine to bring up real differences between races.

Also, if liberals really cared about black communities they would be talking about black on black violence, and not about "white cops on black" violence. But hey. I don't think helping anyone (but themselves) was ever actually the goal.

[WendyDarling]

Very disingenuous debate, no?

No. Yes. I literally can't go to your source because it's blocked for being racist, based on standards I didn't set and can't control. I can look at the Wikipedia page for the magazine, and there I can see both how they've been characterized by mainstream media sources, and what I take to be an accurately quoted self-description. I take from all of this that "biased" is an accurate description. Sorry, but they did not perform the study. They simply used the study to serve their purpose like you are doing, but I'm still waiting for yours and your studies' agenda.

But I'm not trying to reject the source for that reason. What I'm trying to do is point out that WendyDarling isn't applying a fair standard to the evidence before her. When she looks at studies that undermine her position, the mere race of the author is enough to completely reject all of the study's findings. Show me her studies that don't involve a white black dichotomy. Show me her studies that aren't prejudiced against whites. Other races do exist and are treated better by the police, but the disingenuous part comes from your's and her agenda to portray blacks a sheer victims and whites as the boogeymen. But when presented with a study that supports her position, the fact that it's a magazine article produced by an organization with an explicit agenda of finding consistent race-based differences in all measurable human attributes isn't seen as at all disqualifying. That lack of neutrality is a problem.There aren't race based differences? Everyone is identical biologically, behaviorally, and psychologically?

When I dump a bunch of studies, it's because WendyDarling is using ad hoc justifications for rejecting conclusions she doesn't like. She's using standards she didn't have until she was confronted with a study that met her expressed standards. Where have you or your studies met my standards? So far, we have only discussed one study in any depth for I haven't read the next study yet and the study we're still discussing did not meet any real scientists' standards, but it did meet a racists' standards who calls herself a scientist. I'm no scientist, but past sentence lengths on a full criminal history were required in that study we've been discussing if your intent is to gauge the growth of sentence lengths for each subject and how they are disproportionate in a non-racist (always) black white dichotomy. I dumped studies because they reach the same conclusions using different methods, and they undermine her focus on the minutiae of one study. I don't doubt that she could find some detail in each of those studies that she could claim as a reason to reject its findings, but I expect those details to be ad hoc and to be things in study design she's never been concerned about until she had a study she needed a reason to reject. A full criminal history with sentence lengths isn't reasonable when discussing sentence lengths? Again, there's a lack of neutrality, and study dumping is just a way of making clearer that her real problem with the study is that she doesn't like the conclusion. The methodology is biased to create an intended result.

This isn't reframing anything. WendyDarling asked me to create this thread to discuss studies showing that black people face bias from the police, and that's what we're still doing. The only time I brought up "racist" is when WendyDarling suddenly introduced the standard that no study from a black person would count, No study from a racist black against whites person would count, am I being clear?and I only brought it up for the limited purpose of saying that an article promulgated by a clearly motivated organization should be rejected too if she were applying a fair standard. It's "BOOM, no more opposing study" under WendyDarling's own standard of what counts as a valid study.

I appreciate your participation in this thread, but if you're going to participate, then participate in this thread, not every strawman of a conversation with a liberal you've seen described on Stormfront. I'm not calling WendyDarling a racist I guess calling me a white nationalist doesn't count? , I'm not calling white people racist You have no problem throwing racism about, it's time for you to start recollecting how you do it., I'm not even calling the police racist Black police who are racists against black people doesn't make any sense does it, but you are using that fact as if it's not evidenced in your second study? Another black white dichotomy study that Carleas would swear that it presents no bias of its own.. I'm saying, black people face an undue burden from police, and studies that look at real world data and apply reasonable analytical methods back up that claim. Show me all the studies that don't make it a comparison racist study between blacks and whites.

/rant

[Carleas]

A full criminal history with sentence lengths isn't reasonable...

No, it isn't. If there is racial bias in sentencing, it would also be reflected in prior sentences.

[URUZ]

The piece that's missing is always taking responsibility for oneself. You want to be a "black community" when it works to your benefit but not when it reveals negatives. That's just moralism. Not interesting.

Reality doesn't care for uninteresting things.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

The piece that's missing is always taking responsibility for oneself. You want to be a "black community" when it works to your benefit but not when it reveals negatives. That's just moralism. Not interesting.

Reality doesn't care for uninteresting things.

UrGod, there is something you may be forgetting. In all black schools, there is an invisible, mystical force called "whitey" which prevents black students from being functional students.

[WendyDarling]

A full criminal history with sentence lengths isn't reasonable...

No, it isn't. If there is racial bias in sentencing, it would also be reflected in prior sentences.

Prove it. First time offenders study with racist white black dichotomy, bring it. Omitting significant items doesn't make your case stand unchallenged, hence...me.

[Inconvenient Reality]

Very disingenuous debate, no?

No.

I literally can't go to your source because it's blocked for being racist, based on standards I didn't set and can't control. I can look at the Wikipedia page for the magazine, and there I can see both how they've been characterized by mainstream media sources, and what I take to be an accurately quoted self-description. I take from all of this that "biased" is an accurate description.

So you're not saying it's racist, but you take it as "biased", but haven't read it.... How is this not disingenuous?

But I'm not trying to reject the source for that reason. What I'm trying to do is point out that WendyDarling isn't applying a fair standard to the evidence before her. When she looks at studies that undermine her position, the mere race of the author is enough to completely reject all of the study's findings. But when presented with a study that supports her position, the fact that it's a magazine article produced by an organization with an explicit agenda of finding consistent race-based differences in all measurable human attributes isn't seen as at all disqualifying. That lack of neutrality is a problem.

Versus the abundance of neutrality of your sources? You appear to be holding a double standard. Just for clarity because I think I'm the third person to try and explain this to you, the problem lies in the fact that your studies are founded on a set up dichotomy (often false depending on the study). The only study that includes races other than black and white is the one you are "not" calling racist.

When I dump a bunch of studies, it's because WendyDarling is using ad hoc justifications for rejecting conclusions she doesn't like. She's using standards she didn't have until she was confronted with a study that met her expressed standards. I dumped studies because they reach the same conclusions using different methods, and they undermine her focus on the minutiae of one study. I don't doubt that she could find some detail in each of those studies that she could claim as a reason to reject its findings, but I expect those details to be ad hoc and to be things in study design she's never been concerned about until she had a study she needed a reason to reject. Again, there's a lack of neutrality, and study dumping is just a way of making clearer that her real problem with the study is that she doesn't like the conclusion.

So you read minds, too?

This isn't reframing anything.

First, let me take a step back so we don't lose sight of the broader discussion:

This was followed by you making a bunch of assumptions about Wendy, you know, on your terms. Your frame. You were saying?

WendyDarling asked me to create this thread to discuss studies showing that black people face bias from the police, and that's what we're still doing. The only time I brought up "racist" is when WendyDarling suddenly introduced the standard that no study from a black person would count, and I only brought it up for the limited purpose of saying that an article promulgated by a clearly motivated organization should be rejected too if she were applying a fair standard. It's "BOOM, no more opposing study" under WendyDarling's own standard of what counts as a valid study.

I appreciate your participation in this thread, but if you're going to participate, then participate in this thread, not every strawman of a conversation with a liberal you've seen described on Stormfront. I'm not calling WendyDarling a racist, I'm not calling white people racist, I'm not even calling the police racist. I'm saying, black people face an undue burden from police, and studies that look at real world data and apply reasonable analytical methods back up that claim.

So, you're not saying the study is racist, but you say it's "biased", but you haven't read it. People have to lay out all of their standards to you before you bring out your studies so that you can determine whether their standard is valid. But you aren't reframing anything, except you want to take a step back so we don't lose sight of your point, and you know what Wendy's thoughts and experiences are. You aren't calling white people racist, but you have divined somehow that the study is, and by extension I am in some way affiliated with Stormfront (really, Carleas? Do I even need to point out the puerility of this? It was my first hit in Google. Blame google.). So stop hiding behind your "work's firewall" and find the study elsewhere and have a look at it. It is obvious you haven't, by your own admission. So tell me, just what opposing studies HAVE you read? And if you are going to say "well there aren't any, all the studies support my position" then you are also admitting that you have never read an opposing position to yours. So how aren't YOU the "biased" (but "not" racist, right?) one?

Oh yeah.... BOOM.

[URUZ]

Black widow.

Make you beg for it
Plead for it

[Carleas]

Prove it.

OK... if the statement "there is racial bias in sentencing" is true, then all sentence lengths are potentially racially biased. So whatever racial bias exists will on average be reflected in a defendant's past sentences. If we control for past sentencing length, we'll be controlling for racial bias to the extent it's present in past sentences. So if past sentence length influences future sentence length, that means that past racial bias influences future sentence length. So we shouldn't control for sentence length.

To say it another way, if
[future sentence length] = f([past sentence length],[race],[other stuff]), and
[past sentence length] = g([race],[other stuff]), then
[future sentence length] = f([race],[other stuff]).

(That reads, if [future sentence length] is a function of [past sentence length], [race], and [other stuff], and [past sentence length] is a function of [race] and [other stuff], then [future sentence length] is a function of [race] and [other stuff].)

So adding in past sentence length doesn't add information.

Wendy, IR, since AmRen is still blocked at work, can you provide some specific claims in the article that you think support your position or undermine mine, including links/references it provides to any peer reviewed research that supports those claims?

[WendyDarling]

if the statement "there is racial bias in sentencing" is true, then all sentence lengths are potentially racially biased. So whatever racial bias exists will on average be reflected in a defendant's past sentences. If we control for past sentencing length, we'll be controlling for racial bias to the extent it's present in past sentences. So if past sentence length influences future sentence length, that means that past racial bias influences future sentence length. So we shouldn't control for sentence length.

Aren't we beyond "ifs" and into making claims? You need to show the proof in a first time offenders study where race would be the huge deciding factor, where neither person of relatively the same qualities (age, demographic area, crime, etc.) would have a criminal history to muddle up any findings. Does this study not exist?


I don't understand your equation, but past sentence lengths definitely is a deciding factor on the current sentence length. Why isn't that correlated first (it's not included at all...only generic codes and governmental guidelines for 5 offenses). Doesn't the study also bitch about maximum minimum sentence lengths being assigned disproportionately to blacks...it's due to their full criminal histories (which the study doesn't include) and their actual sentence lengths for their past offenses (not some methodological fabrication standing in for it). If the researchers did not have the necessary data to do a thorough job then perhaps they should have worked on another racist dichotomy study instead of "making do" with what they had.

Using a Tobit regression model and controlling for such factors as the sentence recommended by the Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines showed that black judges handed down longer incarceration sentences than white judges. Further, although white judges did not tend to sentence black offenders any more severely than they did white offenders, black judges did tend to sentence black offenders to longer prison terms than white judges gave to white offenders. http://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justi ... ics-judges

Research on sentencing emerged during the 1960s and initially used labeling and conflict theories to interpret sentencing disparities. Alternative explanations did not develop because researchers were interested only in uncovering discrimination while neglecting the influence of such legal factors as criminal history and the plea-bargaining process. Today, two prominent theories of judicial discretion are the structural organizational approach10 and "focal concerns" theory.11

Thus, the severity of sentences for offenders regarded as more likely to continue their criminal activity may be greater than those imposed on offenders regarded as less likely to recidivate. Detected disparities in sentencing based on extralegal factors may be a product of bounded rationality, not racial prejudice.

I have no time to read this study in full.

Paragraph 1 *Black judges assign longer prison sentences to black offenders

Paragraph 2 *Researchers neglecting criminal history (still happening today) and the plea bargaining process (I don't remember this being covered in your study)

Paragraph 3 *Recidivism rates affect sentence lengths (NOT COVERED IN YOUR STUDY)

Your study is a flop. I still haven't read all of the next one.

In general, White officers in our study were more likely to arrest suspects than
Black officers, but Black suspects were more likely to be arrested when the
decision maker was a Black officer. http://www.uncfsu.edu/Documents/Crimina ... Brown2.pdf

Blacks arresting blacks more than whites arresting blacks. I have no time to read this study.

[Carleas]

I don't understand your equation, but past sentence lengths definitely is a deciding factor on the current sentence length.

Let me put it more concretely. Let's assume, just for demonstration purposes, that on average black people are unfairly receiving 10% longer sentences for the same crime. So two people, one black and one white, commit the same crime, the white person gets 1 year and the black person gets 1.1 years. They're both released and commit another similar crime. They get sentenced again and again the white person gets 1 year and the black person gets 1.1 years. If we controlled for past sentence length, we would see no race-based sentencing disparity in the second sentence: the sentence for the second crime is completely predicted by the sentence for the first crime, even though we assumed that the sentencing disparity is race based.

...controlling for such factors as the sentence recommended by the Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines...

This is exactly the type control that you're rejecting in the study I provided, control for criminal history using sentencing guidelines. My study used Federal guidelines, yours uses the Pennsylvania guidelines. One difference being that the PA system only has 5 categories. So we should outright reject this study based on your stated standards, right?


To the other quote, I feel like I've said this before, but let me be as explicit as I can be: black judge and black officer effects aren't at issue, I'm not making any claim about the race of officers or the race of judges, and disparities in behavior of officers and judges on the basis of race are irrelevant to the claims I'm making here. It's completely consistent for black officers and judges to be as racist against black people as a person can be, and for black people on average to face discrimination in the criminal justice system.

[James S Saint]

Ironically enough, I can't look at amren.com at work because it's flagged as racist and blocked by the webfliter.

So everything you get to read is prejudice (pre-judged and filtered from you), which means that everything you believe is formed of prejudice. So why should anyone believe anything you say?

[WendyDarling]

Let me put it more concretely.

Let's. The black white first time offenders study? The prejudice would start there since like you said every previous sentence, including the first, would be 10% longer.

This is exactly the type control that you're rejecting in the study I provided, control for criminal history using sentencing guidelines. My study used Federal guidelines, yours uses the Pennsylvania guidelines. One difference being that the PA system only has 5 categories. So we should outright reject this study based on your stated standards, right?

Chill before you have aneurysm, I'm not using that study, I was simply marking aspects in their findings that are interesting and noting more accurate testing methodologies that your study did not incorporate for future study references.

I was going to move on to the next 300 page study, but now I have to re-read the current study to better point out all the studies flaws succinctly.

[James S Saint]

black judge and black officer effects aren't at issue, I'm not making any claim about the race of officers or the race of judges, and disparities in behavior of officers and judges on the basis of race are irrelevant to the claims I'm making here. It's completely consistent for black officers and judges to be as racist against black people as a person can be, and for black people on average to face discrimination in the criminal justice system.

That is one place that you have erred.

Your claim is that there is prejudice and bias. That is different than saying that there is an imbalance. If the evidence is that there is an imbalance in convictions, the first suspicion is that there is an imbalance in the reality of the situation. Secondly, there might be judgmental bias and/or prejudice. If you have evidence that the judges and officers are not likely to be biased in the direction of the conviction, even though with further study more evidence might arise, the assessment falls back to the first suspicion and that is that the reality is actually imbalanced, in this case, the reality is that blacks commit more crimes than whites.

You seem to be expressing bias yourself in your reasoning.

[WendyDarling]

the reality is that blacks commit more crimes than whites.

I understand this as evidenced all over the place, but why doesn't Carleas? He will try to make the case that blacks are targeted unduly then treated unfairly throughout the criminal justice process, rather than acting criminally in the first place.

Also, he wants to illegitimatize that study for their methodology conflicts with my ascribed standards, so he'll say that study doesn't count.

Blacks in positions of power in the criminal justice system, judges and officers especially, treat black offenders more harshly than whites, which confuses the issue of prejudice in my opinion.

[James S Saint]

The entire discussion is more than obfuscation and misdirection.

If in every one of those studies, one were to replace "white vs black" with "long hair vs short hair", an imbalance would be evident. And if the imbalance showed that more long haired people were convicted than short haired and the governance wanted people to wear longer hair, the promoted argument would be that judges were prejudice against long hair people.

It is all silliness to promote white-hatred racism.

[WendyDarling]

It is all silliness to promote white-hatred racism.

Yes, but that doesn't change the social programming narrative nor the whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc. who buy into it.

[James S Saint]

It is all silliness to promote white-hatred racism.

Yes, but that doesn't change the social programming narrative nor the whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc. who buy into it.

Neither does arguing with them. They love to hate. It gives them a sense of power.

[Carleas]

Your claim is that there is prejudice and bias. That is different than saying that there is an imbalance.

Yes, exactly. I'm not denying that there's an imbalance. If there were no racial bias in the criminal justice system, there would still be different arrests and conviction rates between white people and black people. I have never denied that. What I have said is that there is bias in the criminal justice system, i.e. the ostensible reasons why people are convicted and charged do not fully explain differences in treatment, and some part of the difference in treatment is explained by the race of the defendant.

The disconnect here is funny, because it appears that we both understand the difference, and we're convinced the other person is using the wrong concept. So I think it's just a miscommunication. Let me state as clearly as I can: There is a racial difference in the rate of crime commission, i.e. the average black person commits more crimes than the average white person*. However, my claim is that controlling for the rate of crime committed, black people are unfairly targeted by the criminal justice system, i.e. a given black person who commits the same amount of crime as a given white person will on average face harsher treatment by the police and courts. These two claims are not in tension, they are completely compatible, and they are what the best studies show.

If in every one of those studies, one were to replace "white vs black" with "long hair vs short hair", an imbalance would be evident.

Long hair vs short hair is a pretty good proxy for female vs male, so yeah, I would think so. Even just among males, it is also likely to be correlated with political ideology, social conformity, and other things that are probably predictive of criminality, so again yes. But if you picked something truly arbitrary, like "born on an even numbered day vs born on an odd numbered day", then no, I do not think you would find a statistically significant difference in either commission or treatment.


*An aside: despite AmRen's mission, this difference does not have to be explained by biology. Differences is the rate of crime commission are influenced by wealth, education, and by the very differences in police treatment we're discussing here. But the outcome on this question doesn't affect the question of this thread. Regardless of why people commit crime, the claim here is that race affects the way the criminal justice system treats them.

EDIT: corrected multiple grammatical mistakes.

[James S Saint]

Your claim is that there is prejudice and bias. That is different than saying that there is an imbalance.

Yes, exactly. I'm not denying that there's an imbalance. If there were no racial bias in the criminal justice system, there would still be different arrests and conviction rates between whites and blacks. I have never denied that. What I have said is that there is bias in the criminal justice system, i.e. the ostensible reasons why people would be convicted and charged do not fully explain differences in treatment, and to some part of the difference in treatment is explained by the race of the defendant.

The disconnect here is funny, because it appears that we both understand the difference, and we're convinced the other person is using the wrong concept. So I think it's just a miscommunication.

Well, let's test that theory.

The argumentation over this kind of thing is pointless nonsense, so how about just tell us your proposed solution to the proposed problem.

[Carleas]

I don't have one. But a question well asked is half answered, so articulating and acknowledging the problem is useful, even without a solution. And as this thread demonstrates, there are those who don't agree that there is a problem to be acknowledge, so there is still work to be done on that front.

But some possible partial solutions:
- Eliminate quotas for police officers.
- Ban policies like Ferguson's that reward towns and police departments for predatory policing.
- Publish more data about the criminal justice system at all levels, and engage with researchers to track lingering problems.
- Eliminate or reduce the scope of laws that enable speculative stops/searches, and those that are not net socially beneficial.
- Treat recidivism as in part of failure of the system, and evaluate policy makers and administrators based on their effect on it.
- Some officer training interventions could help, but more geared toward general good policing as opposed to 'diversity training' (to my knowledge the latter does not have empirical support).
- Larger systemic changes, like education reform, basic income, mandatory civil service, or tax reforms that reduce inequality, could also help indirectly over the long term.

[James S Saint]

I don't have one. But a question well asked is half answered, so articulating and acknowledging the problem is useful, even without a solution.

That is typically not true and I'll explain why...

And as this thread demonstrates, there are those who don't agree that there is a problem to be acknowledge, so there is still work to be done on that front.

But some possible partial solutions:
- Eliminate quotas for police officers.
- Ban policies like Ferguson's that reward towns and police departments for predatory policing.
- Publish more data about the criminal justice system at all levels, and engage with researchers to track lingering problems.
- Eliminate or reduce the scope of laws that enable speculative stops/searches, and those that are not net socially beneficial.
- Treat recidivism as in part of failure of the system, and evaluate policy makers and administrators based on their effect on it.
- Some officer training interventions could help, but more geared toward general good policing as opposed to 'diversity training' (to my knowledge the latter does not have empirical support).
- Larger systemic changes, like education reform, basic income, mandatory civil service, or tax reforms that reduce inequality, could also help indirectly over the long term.

I personally would not argue against any of those proposals and I doubt that Wendy would either, but how does arguing the proposed problem going to lend toward any of them?

You have listed a bunch of altruistic, "good-country" actions. Those are the kind of things that a truth-based nation would already be doing (they aren't exactly new ideas). But you don't live in a Truth-Based nation (the old Constitutional USA). You live in a Money-Worshiping nation with Mass-Deception as its offspring.

If you could argue instead in favor of how any of those proposals would make more money for the governance, that would be worth doing. But the reverse has already been done and has established the rules of play to be as they are.

So if you are not going to get into either how to make more money using your proposals or how to cause the nation to not worship money, you wouldn't waiting everyone's time maintaining the spiraling-down status quo.

[WendyDarling]

https://www.prageru.com/courses/race-relations/are-police-racist
What do you think of this video Carleas? When the police refrain from policing, crime skyrockets and the death rates among blacks who are killing other blacks skyrockets with it all due to the myth of biased policing perpetuated by liberal agenda researchers who want to keep perpetuating the black victim mentality.

[URUZ]

https://www.prageru.com/courses/race-relations/are-police-racist
What do you think of this video Carleas? When the police refrain from policing, crime skyrockets and the death rates among blacks who are killing other blacks skyrockets with it all due to the myth of biased policing perpetuated by liberal agenda researchers who want to keep perpetuating the black victim mentality.

Shhhh. Don't want to burst the liberal bubble!