6 ms·

I'm not coming into this as an expert, but I smell a weasel in the phrase 'crime rate', because law enforcement is discretionary and also/therefore racist... I

I'm not coming into this as an expert, but I smell a weasel in the phrase 'crime rate', because law enforcement is discretionary and also/therefore racist... I mean it is not by accident. There was a concerted effort to consolidate white power after the civil war, and police were always part of that. Divide and conquer.. restrict where they can live, police their neighborhoods, put them in jail. Criminalizing blackness and then calling 'blacks' criminals was literally and explicitly part of the plan. Obviously not part of everybody's plan, but it's a continuation of the devil's bargain in our constitution: loyalty from the south in exchange for chattel slavery in our city on a hill. It's disgusting but ofc history is dead people, we can choose to recreate these institutions or dismantle them... but... Being honest, precise, and consistent in your terminology isn't too helpful if you choose to ignore american history. 'Systemic' racism is the appropriate term because it must be understood as a whole for the parts to make sense. Your misunderstanding kinda illustrates this. Cause really the remedy for police killings and for high "crime rates" among "blacks" are in fact the same, and relate to the manner and amount of policing.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> but I smell a weasel in the phrase 'crime rate', because law enforcement is discretionary and also/therefore racist This is why homicide rates are useful. For most cases, it is pretty obvious a crime of some sort occurred.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Okay, but you can't extrapolate homicide rate to find the rate of e.g. drug use. This is a complicated issue with many interwoven contributing factors. There's no one magic figure you can point to that explains or disproves everything.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    It doesn't disprove anything, but it puts the onus back on those who claim that the police are racist, that we live in a racist ethnostate, and that we've improved very little with respect to institutional racism since the antebellum period.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      > it puts the onus back on those who claim that the police are racist, that we live in a racist ethnostate, and that we've improved very little with respect to institutional racism since the antebellum period. No, it doesn't.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        You're mistaken.
- hansvm 6y ago
  > but I smell a weasel in the phrase 'crime rate', because law enforcement is discretionary and also/therefore racist > This is why homicide rates are useful. For most cases, it is pretty obvious a crime of some sort occurred. Tldr; homicide conviction rates are subject to other artifacts and can't support either side very well without additional data. Law enforcement is discretionary not just in deciding what counts as a crime but in who they decide to investigate and other tactics employed. Not that this hugely affects any relative statistics, but the murder false imprisonment rate is estimated at 4-11%, and false imprisonment (as far as we can tell from subsequent DNA exhoneration and whatnot -- this might not be representative of all murders) disproportionately affects black people. Not that this necessarily says anything about broad crime racial statistics, but it could throw any direct comparisons off. More importantly though, 30-40% of murders go unsolved, and it's probably not reasonable to assume that distribution to reflect the distribution of successfully convicted murders (if for no other reason than the race<->income correlation). That's such a huge monkey wrench in any comparative statistics that murder conviction rates without any additional information don't strongly support either side of things.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Criminologists consider homicides to be reliable because it's difficult for police to ignore homicides. Moreover, these data also gel with victimization surveys--victims also report disproportionate black offenders, especially in violent crimes. Further, this violent crime rate disparity exists even when controlling for SES (socioeconomic status) differences between the races (contra your "race<->income correlation" remark). There's probably some error, but all sources suggest that crime rates are considerably higher among blacks than whites. Note again that virtually no one is arguing that blacks are inherently criminal, but that these disparities are a vestige of centuries of severe institutional racism--it would be shocking if no disparities remained only 60 years after the formal end of Jim Crow.
    - hansvm 6y ago
      > these data also gel with victimization surveys > this violent crime rate disparity exists even when controlling for SES That's exactly the kind of additional data I was asking for. I just didn't think murder conviction rates by themselves were sufficient evidence to support the claims they were being thrown against. > Criminologists consider homicides to be reliable because it's difficult for police to ignore homicides. That side-steps my point a bit doesn't it (in hindsight I should have been more clear)? Being difficult to ignore makes homicides generally reliable for some kinds of comparisons (e.g. comparing violent crime between countries), but that reliability doesn't transfer well. E.g., when a plausible suspect is thrown in jail the spotlight is removed from everyone involved. I gave specific examples where despite a high reliability in overall murder rates, piggybacking on that reliability to lend credibility to the racial distribution of conviction rates isn't justified (without additional information). The rest of your comment notwithstanding (I did appreciate it and do generally agree with you), rebutting by reaffirming points I already agree with and pulling in criminologists as experts in the vaguest way possible isn't satisfactory. > Note again that virtually no one is arguing that blacks are inherently criminal, but that these disparities are a vestige of centuries of severe institutional racism--it would be shocking if no disparities remained only 60 years after the formal end of Jim Crow. No argument here. I tend to agree with the claim, but the evidence (based on murder conviction rates) was suspect.
throwaway894345 6y ago
> but I smell a weasel in the phrase 'crime rate', First of all, it was only an example for how "systemic" can be used as a weasel word. That said, the higher crime rate for black Americans is well-documented--it shows up not only in law enforcement reporting but also in victim reports (note that the majority of victims who report a black offender are themselves black), media reports, and homicide statistics (these are regarded as highly reliable because it's frequently easy to tell that a crime has occurred). > Criminalizing blackness and then calling 'blacks' criminals was literally and explicitly part of the plan. As I alluded to in the previous paragraph, we can (and criminologists go to great lengths to) control for this by taking into account non-law-enforcement sources, especially sources who are least likely to be racially biased. > Being honest, precise, and consistent in your terminology isn't too helpful if you choose to ignore american history. History isn't ignored in the claim, "Racial disparities in police killings largely reflect disparate crime rates which are likely the effect of centuries of slavery and institutional racism". This is the moderate position. But again, this was all an example to illustrate how "systemic" is used as a weasel word; I'm not trying to veer off-topic into a race debate (although I'm perfectly happy to talk about it when it's on-topic). > 'Systemic' racism is the appropriate term because it must be understood as a whole for the parts to make sense. It's may be an appropriate term, but it's ambiguous and weasels regularly take advantage of that ambiguity. This undermines its utility. > Your misunderstanding kinda illustrates this. Cause really the remedy for police killings and for high "crime rates" among "blacks" are in fact the same, and relate to the manner and amount of policing. Big [citation needed] that current police practices principally drive crime rate disparities and not the prior centuries of institutional racism and slavery. No doubt that current practices play a role, but that they are a primary driver beggars belief. Note that 80% of blacks don't want less policing (only better policing): https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-r....
- frazbin 6y ago
  I want to believe you're coming to this in good faith, but in your last paragraph you mention "institutional racism", which is the same thing as systemic racism-- institution == system. This is not confusing because that is what it always means. 'Institutional' racism doesn't mean, like, racism at a university or something. You seem to be muddying the waters unnecessarily (intentionally?). Forgive my paranoia in these troubled times but could you be a paid shill come to waste our energy?
danudey 6y ago
Worth noting that police typically "randomly" drug search black people/drivers at a much higher rate than white people, even though white people are just as likely, or more likely to have drugs on them. It's then easy for (ignorant) people to point at those numbers and say look, 80% of the time when police search someone for drugs and find them, it's a black person, so obviously black people are more likely to have drugs on them so we should search them more. It's like a higher-level version of being arrested for resisting arrest (by asking "what are you arresting me for?")
- pc86 6y ago
  I'm curious on what evidence you base the statement "white people are more likely to have drugs on them than black people." When controlling for socioeconomic status I would expect no difference by race, and honestly when controlling for socioeconomic status I would only expect which drugs were found to change, and not necessarily the rate at which they were found.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/police-are-searching-black-drivers-more-often-but-finding-more-illegal-stuff-with-white-drivers-2/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/polic... > For years, police records have shown that black drivers tend to be less likely than white drivers to turn up with guns or drugs when searched at traffic stops. At the same time, black drivers are three times more likely than white drivers to be subjected to these searches, according to a 2013 federal survey. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/us/racial-disparity-traffic-stops-driving-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/us/racial-disparity-traff... > Here in North Carolina’s third-largest city, officers pulled over African-American drivers for traffic violations at a rate far out of proportion with their share of the local driving population. They used their discretion to search black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motorists — even though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white. > Officers were more likely to stop black drivers for no discernible reason. And they were more likely to use force if the driver was black, even when they did not encounter physical resistance.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

> but I smell a weasel in the phrase 'crime rate', because law enforcement is discretionary and also/therefore racist This is why homicide rates are useful. For most cases, it is pretty obvious a crime of some sort occurred.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
Okay, but you can't extrapolate homicide rate to find the rate of e.g. drug use. This is a complicated issue with many interwoven contributing factors. There's no one magic figure you can point to that explains or disproves everything.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  It doesn't disprove anything, but it puts the onus back on those who claim that the police are racist, that we live in a racist ethnostate, and that we've improved very little with respect to institutional racism since the antebellum period.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    > it puts the onus back on those who claim that the police are racist, that we live in a racist ethnostate, and that we've improved very little with respect to institutional racism since the antebellum period. No, it doesn't.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      You're mistaken.
hansvm 6y ago
> but I smell a weasel in the phrase 'crime rate', because law enforcement is discretionary and also/therefore racist > This is why homicide rates are useful. For most cases, it is pretty obvious a crime of some sort occurred. Tldr; homicide conviction rates are subject to other artifacts and can't support either side very well without additional data. Law enforcement is discretionary not just in deciding what counts as a crime but in who they decide to investigate and other tactics employed. Not that this hugely affects any relative statistics, but the murder false imprisonment rate is estimated at 4-11%, and false imprisonment (as far as we can tell from subsequent DNA exhoneration and whatnot -- this might not be representative of all murders) disproportionately affects black people. Not that this necessarily says anything about broad crime racial statistics, but it could throw any direct comparisons off. More importantly though, 30-40% of murders go unsolved, and it's probably not reasonable to assume that distribution to reflect the distribution of successfully convicted murders (if for no other reason than the race<->income correlation). That's such a huge monkey wrench in any comparative statistics that murder conviction rates without any additional information don't strongly support either side of things.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Criminologists consider homicides to be reliable because it's difficult for police to ignore homicides. Moreover, these data also gel with victimization surveys--victims also report disproportionate black offenders, especially in violent crimes. Further, this violent crime rate disparity exists even when controlling for SES (socioeconomic status) differences between the races (contra your "race<->income correlation" remark). There's probably some error, but all sources suggest that crime rates are considerably higher among blacks than whites. Note again that virtually no one is arguing that blacks are inherently criminal, but that these disparities are a vestige of centuries of severe institutional racism--it would be shocking if no disparities remained only 60 years after the formal end of Jim Crow.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    > these data also gel with victimization surveys > this violent crime rate disparity exists even when controlling for SES That's exactly the kind of additional data I was asking for. I just didn't think murder conviction rates by themselves were sufficient evidence to support the claims they were being thrown against. > Criminologists consider homicides to be reliable because it's difficult for police to ignore homicides. That side-steps my point a bit doesn't it (in hindsight I should have been more clear)? Being difficult to ignore makes homicides generally reliable for some kinds of comparisons (e.g. comparing violent crime between countries), but that reliability doesn't transfer well. E.g., when a plausible suspect is thrown in jail the spotlight is removed from everyone involved. I gave specific examples where despite a high reliability in overall murder rates, piggybacking on that reliability to lend credibility to the racial distribution of conviction rates isn't justified (without additional information). The rest of your comment notwithstanding (I did appreciate it and do generally agree with you), rebutting by reaffirming points I already agree with and pulling in criminologists as experts in the vaguest way possible isn't satisfactory. > Note again that virtually no one is arguing that blacks are inherently criminal, but that these disparities are a vestige of centuries of severe institutional racism--it would be shocking if no disparities remained only 60 years after the formal end of Jim Crow. No argument here. I tend to agree with the claim, but the evidence (based on murder conviction rates) was suspect.

throwaway894345 6y ago

> but I smell a weasel in the phrase 'crime rate', First of all, it was only an example for how "systemic" can be used as a weasel word. That said, the higher crime rate for black Americans is well-documented--it shows up not only in law enforcement reporting but also in victim reports (note that the majority of victims who report a black offender are themselves black), media reports, and homicide statistics (these are regarded as highly reliable because it's frequently easy to tell that a crime has occurred). > Criminalizing blackness and then calling 'blacks' criminals was literally and explicitly part of the plan. As I alluded to in the previous paragraph, we can (and criminologists go to great lengths to) control for this by taking into account non-law-enforcement sources, especially sources who are least likely to be racially biased. > Being honest, precise, and consistent in your terminology isn't too helpful if you choose to ignore american history. History isn't ignored in the claim, "Racial disparities in police killings largely reflect disparate crime rates which are likely the effect of centuries of slavery and institutional racism". This is the moderate position. But again, this was all an example to illustrate how "systemic" is used as a weasel word; I'm not trying to veer off-topic into a race debate (although I'm perfectly happy to talk about it when it's on-topic). > 'Systemic' racism is the appropriate term because it must be understood as a whole for the parts to make sense. It's may be an appropriate term, but it's ambiguous and weasels regularly take advantage of that ambiguity. This undermines its utility. > Your misunderstanding kinda illustrates this. Cause really the remedy for police killings and for high "crime rates" among "blacks" are in fact the same, and relate to the manner and amount of policing. Big [citation needed] that current police practices principally drive crime rate disparities and not the prior centuries of institutional racism and slavery. No doubt that current practices play a role, but that they are a primary driver beggars belief. Note that 80% of blacks don't want less policing (only better policing): https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-r....

frazbin 6y ago
I want to believe you're coming to this in good faith, but in your last paragraph you mention "institutional racism", which is the same thing as systemic racism-- institution == system. This is not confusing because that is what it always means. 'Institutional' racism doesn't mean, like, racism at a university or something. You seem to be muddying the waters unnecessarily (intentionally?). Forgive my paranoia in these troubled times but could you be a paid shill come to waste our energy?

danudey 6y ago

Worth noting that police typically "randomly" drug search black people/drivers at a much higher rate than white people, even though white people are just as likely, or more likely to have drugs on them. It's then easy for (ignorant) people to point at those numbers and say look, 80% of the time when police search someone for drugs and find them, it's a black person, so obviously black people are more likely to have drugs on them so we should search them more. It's like a higher-level version of being arrested for resisting arrest (by asking "what are you arresting me for?")

pc86 6y ago
I'm curious on what evidence you base the statement "white people are more likely to have drugs on them than black people." When controlling for socioeconomic status I would expect no difference by race, and honestly when controlling for socioeconomic status I would only expect which drugs were found to change, and not necessarily the rate at which they were found.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/police-are-searching-black-drivers-more-often-but-finding-more-illegal-stuff-with-white-drivers-2/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/polic... > For years, police records have shown that black drivers tend to be less likely than white drivers to turn up with guns or drugs when searched at traffic stops. At the same time, black drivers are three times more likely than white drivers to be subjected to these searches, according to a 2013 federal survey. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/us/racial-disparity-traffic-stops-driving-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/us/racial-disparity-traff... > Here in North Carolina’s third-largest city, officers pulled over African-American drivers for traffic violations at a rate far out of proportion with their share of the local driving population. They used their discretion to search black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motorists — even though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white. > Officers were more likely to stop black drivers for no discernible reason. And they were more likely to use force if the driver was black, even when they did not encounter physical resistance.