The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[DuncanONeil]

You make even less sense here than usual!You make an awful lot of assumption! then proceed as if they were fact!

Your standards on data set here are the same standards that justified a lot of discriminatory laws, and pointed to studies that showed blacks were less intelligent then whites and hence needed to be treated differently, for their own good. The particular data in this case was data showing that blacks scored lower than whites on IQ tests. In fact this data was biased because it contained cultural references familiar to whites of the day but less common among blacks (in particular nursery rhymes). By accepting that data as accurate and using it to inform policy many problems were created.

Furthermore, my claims of potential for bias are based on a long history of bias and racial profiling in many police forces around the country. This was part of police culture for a long time, leading to riots in several cities and other such problems. I find it hard to believe that this behaviour vanishes the second we find it no longer appropriate. In my own city one of our former chiefs of police spoke out in favor of racial profiling, saying that it lead to more arrests and convictions. I don't have the data to dispute whether racial profiling leads to more arrests or convictions, but even assuming this claim is true, the fact is it leads to more arrests and convictions of non-whites.

So given that the police use methods (Racial Profiling for instance) that they argue are effective and result in higher arrest rates and higher conviction rates, but work against specific minorities, why should I believe the police have an equal chance of catching a white person as catching a black person if they both commit the same crime.

Even if racial profiling is not in use, this assumption could still be problematic.

Consider for instance a border security officer who processes vehicles. The person is required to search and suspicious vehicles. They happen to dislike rap music and think it is associated with gang activity, and hence search every vehicle of someone wearing rap attire.

To simplify the data lets assume that 40% of blacks are wearing rap related attire and 10% of whites are. Furthermore lets assume that an equal number of whites and blacks are carrying drugs across the border, and that the attire of the individual is independent of whether or not they carry drugs.

Over the long run this security officer will catch 4 black people for every white person even though they aren't being racist, and even though equal numbers of blacks and whites are committing crimes.

I'd argue the onus is on you to show the data actually shows what you claim it shows, given that I've presented both a plausible way in which the data can be inaccurate which you are unable to account for and a history showing that the bias has been present in the past.

The statement in your argument I have the most problem with is this: "However with police located throughout the city there is no real reason to presume that criminals caught does not represent the set of criminals in general.".

There are a lot of reasons to believe the set of criminals caught doesn't represent the set of criminals in general. For starters different types of crimes are caught at different rates, so if whites are committing more of a certain type of crime that gets caught less (say white collar crime) and blacks are committing one of the crimes (say armed robbery) that gets caught at a higher rate then there are problems in the data. Even if you focus in on a particular crime, you introduce all sorts of new biases, in particular the choice of crime to focus on (given that different crimes have different race data).

Lastly, even if you manage to reduce the data to a single crime without introducing bias, you still don't have evidence showing the arrest data mirrors the committed crimes set. Racial profiling is effective at catching criminals, but results in a higher rate of catching blacks than of catching whites. If police are using methods that are better at catching specific races then that introduces bias in the data. As argued above, they have historically used such methods so the onus is on you to prove they aren't using them anymore.

[SadisticNature]

You make even less sense here than usual!You make an awful lot of assumption! then proceed as if they were fact!

I make specific assumptions to demonstrate one example. This is a common technique to show problems with data.

My point is not that the people are biased against rappers, and that leads to a higher conviction of blacks. My point is that if they were it could lead to biases in the data.

As for racial profiling itself it has been used for a long time. It is effective at catching people of certain races.

On what basis do you assume police have an equal chance of catching a culprit regardless of their race/background? To me that seems a massive unsupported assumption that you need to conclude that the arrest/conviction data reflect the crimes committed data.

[DuncanONeil]

Race, Crime and Justice in America
The Color of Crime
New Century Foundation
Oakton, VA 22124

Second, Expanded Edition
Major Findings
• Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.
Crime Rates
• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder,
and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely
than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and
Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of
the population that is black and Hispanic.
Interracial Crime
• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving
blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Fortyfive
percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are
Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are
black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against
a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes
against whites than vice versa.
Gangs
• Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white.
• Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs.
Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.
Incarceration
• Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139
to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39
million.
• Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than whites. Hispanics are
three times more likely.
Just a beginning! The data supports the make up of prison population, however.

I make specific assumptions to demonstrate one example. This is a common technique to show problems with data.

My point is not that the people are biased against rappers, and that leads to a higher conviction of blacks. My point is that if they were it could lead to biases in the data.

As for racial profiling itself it has been used for a long time. It is effective at catching people of certain races.

On what basis do you assume police have an equal chance of catching a culprit regardless of their race/background? To me that seems a massive unsupported assumption that you need to conclude that the arrest/conviction data reflect the crimes committed data.

[DuncanONeil]

"Furthermore, my claims of potential for bias are based on a long history of bias and racial profiling in many police forces around the country."

Sorry but this statement makes an assumption and assumes it is correct within itself.

I make specific assumptions to demonstrate one example. This is a common technique to show problems with data.

My point is not that the people are biased against rappers, and that leads to a higher conviction of blacks. My point is that if they were it could lead to biases in the data.

As for racial profiling itself it has been used for a long time. It is effective at catching people of certain races.

On what basis do you assume police have an equal chance of catching a culprit regardless of their race/background? To me that seems a massive unsupported assumption that you need to conclude that the arrest/conviction data reflect the crimes committed data.