4 ms·

You're right - it could be. But we don't like to make assumptions since we're having a rational scientific discussion. BTW, since the proportion of conviction

You're right - it could be. But we don't like to make assumptions since we're having a rational scientific discussion. BTW, since the proportion of convictions is so high, it is going to require some pretty good explaining. Not some, off the cuff, hand-wavy, un-falsifiable, muh prejudice. Since our justice system is built on principles like "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", you better have a whole pile of evidence that people are getting convicted erroneously here.

cloudjacker 10y ago
hm, but it isn't built on those principles and not practiced in any consistency throughout the myriad of jurisdictions in the united states the district attorneys and prosecutors have discretion on what facts [of the case] are relevant, have discretion on what crime to levy which influences the burden of proof, have discretion on what recommended sentence to pursue, and the judges have discretion on pursuing that sentence or not
- micahbright 10y ago
  That's all interesting, except you have to realize that DA are motivated by convictions. Convictions are hard because it requires a unanimous vote from a jury of your peers. So, yes, they exercise their discretion on what facts are relevant and which cases to pursue. But they do not drop cases because its a white guy and keep them because its a black guy as you are insinuating. At most, race is going to be a minor factor when compared with the gravity of the crime and the likelihood of conviction.
  - cloudjacker 10y ago
    I was not insinuating anything. My statements are purposely written to be read independent of the context in this thread to avoid your exact rebuttal. Maybe you were expecting someone else to reply to you. Continuing, there is a saying that "prosecutors can get a jury to convict a ham sandwich", although more applicable in civil asset forfeiture proceedings that happen to involve a jury. They can give incorrect instructions, they can give arbitrary instructions, they can create any number of constraints for the jury to consider, and they also screen jury members out for various reasons such as a potential juror's affinity for jury nullification. This allows for greater success in their conviction rate, especially in the idea of the complacent juror.
    - quesera 10y ago
      > there is a saying that "prosecutors can get a jury to convict a ham sandwich The quote is that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The meaning is entirely different from your interpretation.
      - cloudjacker 10y ago
        Good point Having read enough appeals cases I will maintain what I mentioned about what prosecutors have discretion over.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > But they do not drop cases because its a white guy and keep them because its a black guy as you are insinuating. Actual studies of plea bargaining have shown that there are racial biases in what prosecutors offer in deals between black and white defendants [0]. It seems unlikely that the same bias would not also be reflected in decisions to charge in the first place. [0] https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSumma...: "Studies that assess the effects of race find that blacks are less likely to receive a reduced charge compared with whites (Farnworth and Teske, 1995; Johnson, 2003; Kellough and Wortley, 2002; Ulmer and Bradley, 2006). Additionally, one study found that blacks are also less likely to receive the benefits of shorter or reduced sentences as a result of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion during plea bargaining (Johnson, 2003)."
    - micahbright 10y ago
      The fact that there are racial biases in what prosecutors offer between black and white is misleading at best. It simply follows from the facts that we already have: blacks are convicted more often. If blacks are convicted more often, they have longer rap sheets on average. You are unlikely to get a better plea deal if you have a history of committing crime. Now, if they had gone and showed that first time offenders, for example, had shown a racial bias between blacks and whites, you'd have me impressed. In effect, you are going back to the original argument, that it's just systemic racism. Unfortunately, you have not provided any falsifiable evidence that this is true.
esrauch 10y ago
I don't think the convictions rates indicate anything contrary to the alleged systemic racism here. The claim that was made in my undergrad criminal justice classes (so taken with appropriate grain of salt with that context) was "white people who commit petty crimes are less likely to end up in court at all, and for larger crimes you are more likely to be convicted if you've been previously convicted for petty crimes, leading to higher rates of conviction for both petty and major crimes" not at all "large scale cases of black people in court for crimes who are actually innocent".
jrapdx3 10y ago
Pragmatically, criminal convictions of all individuals, race notwithstanding, requires a unanimous jury verdict. In those jurisdictions with high concentration of blacks, which is where the preponderance of black crime takes place, juries would be highly likely to include black members whose assent is required for conviction of a black defendant. On that basis, non-black bias against blacks would not account for population rates of convictions in those localities, at least insofar as post-arrest procedures are concerned. Conceivably other factors could be implicated in conviction rates, e.g., possible higher rates of plea bargaining among black defendants. Still, if the difference in crime rates (based on convictions) is great enough, non-jury convictions wouldn't explain it.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Pragmatically, criminal convictions of all individuals, race notwithstanding, requires a unanimous jury verdict. No, pragmatically the vast majority of criminal convictions are the result of plea bargains, with no jury involved; the calculus that goes into agreeing to a plea bargain certainly includes the expectations regarding a jury verdict, but it also includes the cost of pre-trial confinement and other factors. > In those jurisdictions with high concentration of blacks, which is where the preponderance of black crime takes place, juries would be highly likely to include black members whose assent is required for conviction of a black defendant. It may be more likely that this is the case, but its not guaranteed. Particularly given that jury pools are not guaranteed to be representative (typically, they are determined by means like voter registration and drivers licenses, which may not be consistent in participation across races.) > On that basis, bias against blacks would not account for population rates of convictions in those localities, at least insofar as post-arrest procedures are concerned. You seem to be saying that jury pool considerations would prevent racial bias in post-arrest conviction rates; while that's wrong for post-charge rates for the reasons stated earlier in this comment, its even more wrong for post-arrest rates because it ignores prosecutorial bias, which introduces potential post-arrest bias in the rates of criminal charges being pursued for like conduct. > Still, if the difference in crime rates (based on convictions) is great enough, non-jury convictions wouldn't explain it. Upwards of 90% of US criminal cases (not just convictions, but all cases; the share of convictions -- since all plea bargains are convictions -- is even higher than the share of cases) are resolved by plea bargains [0]. There's virtually no level of disparity in total convictions that could be explained by disparity in the plea bargaining process, which is overwhelmingly how criminal convictions are arrived at. [0] https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSumma...

cloudjacker 10y ago

hm, but it isn't built on those principles and not practiced in any consistency throughout the myriad of jurisdictions in the united states the district attorneys and prosecutors have discretion on what facts [of the case] are relevant, have discretion on what crime to levy which influences the burden of proof, have discretion on what recommended sentence to pursue, and the judges have discretion on pursuing that sentence or not

micahbright 10y ago
That's all interesting, except you have to realize that DA are motivated by convictions. Convictions are hard because it requires a unanimous vote from a jury of your peers. So, yes, they exercise their discretion on what facts are relevant and which cases to pursue. But they do not drop cases because its a white guy and keep them because its a black guy as you are insinuating. At most, race is going to be a minor factor when compared with the gravity of the crime and the likelihood of conviction.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  I was not insinuating anything. My statements are purposely written to be read independent of the context in this thread to avoid your exact rebuttal. Maybe you were expecting someone else to reply to you. Continuing, there is a saying that "prosecutors can get a jury to convict a ham sandwich", although more applicable in civil asset forfeiture proceedings that happen to involve a jury. They can give incorrect instructions, they can give arbitrary instructions, they can create any number of constraints for the jury to consider, and they also screen jury members out for various reasons such as a potential juror's affinity for jury nullification. This allows for greater success in their conviction rate, especially in the idea of the complacent juror.
  - quesera 10y ago
    > there is a saying that "prosecutors can get a jury to convict a ham sandwich The quote is that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The meaning is entirely different from your interpretation.
    - cloudjacker 10y ago
      Good point Having read enough appeals cases I will maintain what I mentioned about what prosecutors have discretion over.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > But they do not drop cases because its a white guy and keep them because its a black guy as you are insinuating. Actual studies of plea bargaining have shown that there are racial biases in what prosecutors offer in deals between black and white defendants [0]. It seems unlikely that the same bias would not also be reflected in decisions to charge in the first place. [0] https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSumma...: "Studies that assess the effects of race find that blacks are less likely to receive a reduced charge compared with whites (Farnworth and Teske, 1995; Johnson, 2003; Kellough and Wortley, 2002; Ulmer and Bradley, 2006). Additionally, one study found that blacks are also less likely to receive the benefits of shorter or reduced sentences as a result of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion during plea bargaining (Johnson, 2003)."
  - micahbright 10y ago
    The fact that there are racial biases in what prosecutors offer between black and white is misleading at best. It simply follows from the facts that we already have: blacks are convicted more often. If blacks are convicted more often, they have longer rap sheets on average. You are unlikely to get a better plea deal if you have a history of committing crime. Now, if they had gone and showed that first time offenders, for example, had shown a racial bias between blacks and whites, you'd have me impressed. In effect, you are going back to the original argument, that it's just systemic racism. Unfortunately, you have not provided any falsifiable evidence that this is true.

esrauch 10y ago

I don't think the convictions rates indicate anything contrary to the alleged systemic racism here. The claim that was made in my undergrad criminal justice classes (so taken with appropriate grain of salt with that context) was "white people who commit petty crimes are less likely to end up in court at all, and for larger crimes you are more likely to be convicted if you've been previously convicted for petty crimes, leading to higher rates of conviction for both petty and major crimes" not at all "large scale cases of black people in court for crimes who are actually innocent".

jrapdx3 10y ago

Pragmatically, criminal convictions of all individuals, race notwithstanding, requires a unanimous jury verdict. In those jurisdictions with high concentration of blacks, which is where the preponderance of black crime takes place, juries would be highly likely to include black members whose assent is required for conviction of a black defendant. On that basis, non-black bias against blacks would not account for population rates of convictions in those localities, at least insofar as post-arrest procedures are concerned. Conceivably other factors could be implicated in conviction rates, e.g., possible higher rates of plea bargaining among black defendants. Still, if the difference in crime rates (based on convictions) is great enough, non-jury convictions wouldn't explain it.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Pragmatically, criminal convictions of all individuals, race notwithstanding, requires a unanimous jury verdict. No, pragmatically the vast majority of criminal convictions are the result of plea bargains, with no jury involved; the calculus that goes into agreeing to a plea bargain certainly includes the expectations regarding a jury verdict, but it also includes the cost of pre-trial confinement and other factors. > In those jurisdictions with high concentration of blacks, which is where the preponderance of black crime takes place, juries would be highly likely to include black members whose assent is required for conviction of a black defendant. It may be more likely that this is the case, but its not guaranteed. Particularly given that jury pools are not guaranteed to be representative (typically, they are determined by means like voter registration and drivers licenses, which may not be consistent in participation across races.) > On that basis, bias against blacks would not account for population rates of convictions in those localities, at least insofar as post-arrest procedures are concerned. You seem to be saying that jury pool considerations would prevent racial bias in post-arrest conviction rates; while that's wrong for post-charge rates for the reasons stated earlier in this comment, its even more wrong for post-arrest rates because it ignores prosecutorial bias, which introduces potential post-arrest bias in the rates of criminal charges being pursued for like conduct. > Still, if the difference in crime rates (based on convictions) is great enough, non-jury convictions wouldn't explain it. Upwards of 90% of US criminal cases (not just convictions, but all cases; the share of convictions -- since all plea bargains are convictions -- is even higher than the share of cases) are resolved by plea bargains [0]. There's virtually no level of disparity in total convictions that could be explained by disparity in the plea bargaining process, which is overwhelmingly how criminal convictions are arrived at. [0] https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSumma...