Race-Biased Police Violence

Black widow.

Make you beg for it
Plead for 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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is typically not true and I’ll explain why…

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.

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!

Except only the non-powerful majority of the white race, all other races and the powerful minority of the white race have a victim mentality. And this victim mentality is the powerful one these days. The global rulers as a tiny minority uses the victim mentality, and the global non-white mass as a huge majority uses the victim mentality. But the non-powerful majority of the white race as a global minority does not use the victim mentality, or, if this global minority tries to do it, it is accused of being racist, whereby the non-whites and the global rulers are excused and therefore not punishable. So the non-powerful white mass is not allowed to use the victim mentality. To the non-powerful white mass the victim mentality is a taboo these days. To all others it is just the other way round.

In times of globalism, the white mass is a minority (about 16%), whereas the non-white mass is a majority (about 83%; plus the minority of the global rulers: about 84%). To the globalists as the global rulers (about 1%) it is much easier, more advantageous, more usefull to be in “agreement” with the global majority (about 83%).

An increasing majority of the white race (= a global minority) tries to use the victim mentality too; but whites are not allowed to do it in their own name; so they do it to in the name of the non-white global majority and/or in the name of the ruling white globalists by supporting and obeying them.

“The global business goes on.”

G.png

Ha! I’m ornery. :evilfun: Why are you answering for me, JSS? :eusa-naughty:

Can somebody explain to me what race biased police violence is?