4 ms·

What is the claim when data is said to include systemic racism and bias? Is it that race data does indeed predict higher crime but that biased policing causes t

What is the claim when data is said to include systemic racism and bias? Is it that race data does indeed predict higher crime but that biased policing causes the crime rate to be misreported as higher because police only focus their attention on certain areas? Is it that police actually cause crime due to racist beliefs so that they must in some way entice crimes to be committed? Is it that crimes are equal between races but they go under-reported in some areas and over-reported in others due to systemic racism? Some or all of the above? What would controlling for racism involve doing?

hckr_news 6y ago
Let’s start by not using software to police people. Is this China?
jjeaff 6y ago
For myriad of reasons, we know clearly that controlling for no other factors, crime is higher among black populations. So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism. It is not ok to assume that someone might be more likely guilty or more likely to commit a crime based on the color of their skin. Even if you had perfect historical data. It's just not acceptable ethically, morally, whatsoever. And the very idea by some that it is ok, as long as your stereotypes are backed by accurate data, perpetuates racial oppression and creates a self fulfilling prophecy.
- metrokoi 6y ago
  >So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism. But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. How can recognizing an obvious fact be racism? Aren't you also racist for recognizing that crime is higher among black populations? It's racist to treat a black individual as if they have committed a crime or treat them differently because of it, not to recognize that a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. I don't understand how you would come to that conclusion.
  - hckr_news 6y ago
    > But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. What? Wasn't even sure whether to dignify this comment with a response yet here I am.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      I think you missed it the central point of the parent commenter. Take for instance, the fact that men commit the overwhelming majority of violent crime: * Is it sexist to conclude that someone is a violent criminal just because they're a man? Yes. * Is it sexist to say that a model predicting that men will commit 90% of violent crime isn't biased, with the reasoning that men on average commit way more violence than women? No.
  - lutorm 6y ago
    You missed the "controlling for no other factors" qualifier.
  - cblades 6y ago
    >But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. More likely to be convicted of a crime. That's a subtle but very important distinction.
    - metrokoi 6y ago
      Yes, but we only have evidence to believe that black people do on average commit more crime because they are convicted of more crime. The theory is that blacks commit the same or less crime but only convicted of it because of some type of predatory policing, but that is only a theory and there is no widespread studies or statistics to support this theory. It may well be true, but until there is proof we cannot assume that it is not the case. I do appreciate the correction and it is an important distinction.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Recognizing the fact isn't racist (although one should qualify those facts with all the many factors not taken into account, like how much more likely a white person is to get away with the same crime). But acting on that data is definitely racist. It is punishing innocent people because other people that have a similar skin color have committed crimes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- banads 6y ago
  >For myriad of reasons, we know clearly that controlling for no other factors, crime is higher among black populations. So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism. What about controlling for poverty? That seems to be largely ignored in this discussion, even though it was a central tenent of Dr. Kings mission before he was assassinated. "We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered"
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    It's not left out. It's well studied. It's not the only factor, but one of the big ones. The problem is, median black net worth is one-tenth that of median white net-worth. Why is that? You can come up with a bunch of near and intermediate causes, but they will all mostly boil down to systemic racism both past and present. More specifically, government housing is only available in dense urban environments. As is public transportation and services within walking distance. The black population is much less likely to have any generational wealth (like a home or even an old car passed down to them) obviously due to historic racism. Then pile on the fact that urban areas are more heavily policed and the fact that over-policing seriously hinders economic prosperity, then you have a textbook definition of a vicious cycle.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - banads 6y ago
      I agree, at face value it seems obvious that wealth disparities among black americans are attributable to the history of slavery and segregation. What I'm perplexed about though is this: if systemic racism is the default primary explanation for wealth disparities, how can we explain the even greater wealth disparities of Indian, Asian, and Jewish Americans compared to all other ethnic groups in the US? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion

hckr_news 6y ago

Let’s start by not using software to police people. Is this China?

jjeaff 6y ago

For myriad of reasons, we know clearly that controlling for no other factors, crime is higher among black populations. So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism. It is not ok to assume that someone might be more likely guilty or more likely to commit a crime based on the color of their skin. Even if you had perfect historical data. It's just not acceptable ethically, morally, whatsoever. And the very idea by some that it is ok, as long as your stereotypes are backed by accurate data, perpetuates racial oppression and creates a self fulfilling prophecy.

metrokoi 6y ago
>So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism. But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. How can recognizing an obvious fact be racism? Aren't you also racist for recognizing that crime is higher among black populations? It's racist to treat a black individual as if they have committed a crime or treat them differently because of it, not to recognize that a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. I don't understand how you would come to that conclusion.
- hckr_news 6y ago
  > But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. What? Wasn't even sure whether to dignify this comment with a response yet here I am.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    I think you missed it the central point of the parent commenter. Take for instance, the fact that men commit the overwhelming majority of violent crime: * Is it sexist to conclude that someone is a violent criminal just because they're a man? Yes. * Is it sexist to say that a model predicting that men will commit 90% of violent crime isn't biased, with the reasoning that men on average commit way more violence than women? No.
- lutorm 6y ago
  You missed the "controlling for no other factors" qualifier.
- cblades 6y ago
  >But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. More likely to be convicted of a crime. That's a subtle but very important distinction.
  - metrokoi 6y ago
    Yes, but we only have evidence to believe that black people do on average commit more crime because they are convicted of more crime. The theory is that blacks commit the same or less crime but only convicted of it because of some type of predatory policing, but that is only a theory and there is no widespread studies or statistics to support this theory. It may well be true, but until there is proof we cannot assume that it is not the case. I do appreciate the correction and it is an important distinction.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Recognizing the fact isn't racist (although one should qualify those facts with all the many factors not taken into account, like how much more likely a white person is to get away with the same crime). But acting on that data is definitely racist. It is punishing innocent people because other people that have a similar skin color have committed crimes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
banads 6y ago
>For myriad of reasons, we know clearly that controlling for no other factors, crime is higher among black populations. So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism. What about controlling for poverty? That seems to be largely ignored in this discussion, even though it was a central tenent of Dr. Kings mission before he was assassinated. "We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered"
- jjeaff 6y ago
  It's not left out. It's well studied. It's not the only factor, but one of the big ones. The problem is, median black net worth is one-tenth that of median white net-worth. Why is that? You can come up with a bunch of near and intermediate causes, but they will all mostly boil down to systemic racism both past and present. More specifically, government housing is only available in dense urban environments. As is public transportation and services within walking distance. The black population is much less likely to have any generational wealth (like a home or even an old car passed down to them) obviously due to historic racism. Then pile on the fact that urban areas are more heavily policed and the fact that over-policing seriously hinders economic prosperity, then you have a textbook definition of a vicious cycle.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - banads 6y ago
    I agree, at face value it seems obvious that wealth disparities among black americans are attributable to the history of slavery and segregation. What I'm perplexed about though is this: if systemic racism is the default primary explanation for wealth disparities, how can we explain the even greater wealth disparities of Indian, Asian, and Jewish Americans compared to all other ethnic groups in the US? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion