8 ms·

This article is describing what happens when an institution starts to lose trust. There's a perception, even by participants in the system, that the system resu

This article is describing what happens when an institution starts to lose trust. There's a perception, even by participants in the system, that the system results in too many wrongful convictions and too many wrongful acquittals. That's a problem that should be talked about and addressed, but blaming people who are knowledgable about the system (licensed attorneys) for a changing set of values due to reduced trust in the system is silly. If a system is consistently producing outcomes that are different from its value, the system is broken, and it people are going to rationally lost faith in its old customs.

twofornone 5y ago
>If a system is consistently producing outcomes that are different from its value, the system is broken, and it people are going to rationally lost faith in its old customs. Except the evidence that these ideologues cite for this divergence from values is inequality of outcome, which is a ridiculous metric to gauge the fairness of a system which presides over a culturally and genetically heterogeneous population. And that's the key issue with so called CRT, which has become somewhat of an umbrella term both for directly influenced pedagogy and ideologies with underpinnings which are simply similar to CRT in spirit: when you naively presume that all peoples are identical in ability and behavior, save for influences of the economic and justice systems (i.e. ignoring culture and genes), then naturally the only allowable answer to the question of inequity is discriminatory injustice. And the outcome of such shortsightedness is broken, often reverse racist policy, which is exceedingly quick to make excuses for suspects of the "right" (minority) demographic and particularly harsh on suspects of the "wrong" ("privileged") demographic. This is ultimately an overcorrection to the injustices of slavery/jim crow and WWII-era nazism - we've taken race and cultural blindness a step too far, conflating equal treatment under the law with equal outcome under the law (and in other institutions as well). If your ideology does not allow for differences in average behavior/ability/values as an explanation for different average outcomes then it becomes trivially easy to see the boogeyman of racism/sexism across institutions and justify what amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- etchalon 5y ago
  CRT specifically attacks equal treatment under the law. The idea it attacks outcomes is a woefully simplistic understanding of its core criticism.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    Again my point was that the only justification that these ideologues have for attacking equal treatment under the law is the "evidence" of unequal outcome by demographic. That and a healthy amount of cherry picking, like exaggerating the implications of 19 unarmed black male deaths in 2019 in a country of 300MM+. Unfortunately the standard for evidence in soft sciences is not particularly rigorous.
    - etchalon 5y ago
      You seem to be implying that statistically-significant deviations from expected averages isn't "evidence". I'm not sure what to say to that.
      - twofornone 5y ago
        I'm explicitly saying that discrimination is not the only cause for the multimodal distribution of outcomes, and that in a perfectly demographic blind justice system you would still see such statistical groupings, assuming all people were treated equally before the law.
        etchalon 5y ago
        To believe that, you'd need to start with evidence of at least one demographically blind system that resulted in significantly disparate outcomes amongst otherwise equal classes. But such evidence would point to the system not being demographically blind.
        Jensson 5y ago

twofornone 5y ago

>If a system is consistently producing outcomes that are different from its value, the system is broken, and it people are going to rationally lost faith in its old customs. Except the evidence that these ideologues cite for this divergence from values is inequality of outcome, which is a ridiculous metric to gauge the fairness of a system which presides over a culturally and genetically heterogeneous population. And that's the key issue with so called CRT, which has become somewhat of an umbrella term both for directly influenced pedagogy and ideologies with underpinnings which are simply similar to CRT in spirit: when you naively presume that all peoples are identical in ability and behavior, save for influences of the economic and justice systems (i.e. ignoring culture and genes), then naturally the only allowable answer to the question of inequity is discriminatory injustice. And the outcome of such shortsightedness is broken, often reverse racist policy, which is exceedingly quick to make excuses for suspects of the "right" (minority) demographic and particularly harsh on suspects of the "wrong" ("privileged") demographic. This is ultimately an overcorrection to the injustices of slavery/jim crow and WWII-era nazism - we've taken race and cultural blindness a step too far, conflating equal treatment under the law with equal outcome under the law (and in other institutions as well). If your ideology does not allow for differences in average behavior/ability/values as an explanation for different average outcomes then it becomes trivially easy to see the boogeyman of racism/sexism across institutions and justify what amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

etchalon 5y ago
CRT specifically attacks equal treatment under the law. The idea it attacks outcomes is a woefully simplistic understanding of its core criticism.
- twofornone 5y ago
  Again my point was that the only justification that these ideologues have for attacking equal treatment under the law is the "evidence" of unequal outcome by demographic. That and a healthy amount of cherry picking, like exaggerating the implications of 19 unarmed black male deaths in 2019 in a country of 300MM+. Unfortunately the standard for evidence in soft sciences is not particularly rigorous.
  - etchalon 5y ago
    You seem to be implying that statistically-significant deviations from expected averages isn't "evidence". I'm not sure what to say to that.
    - twofornone 5y ago
      I'm explicitly saying that discrimination is not the only cause for the multimodal distribution of outcomes, and that in a perfectly demographic blind justice system you would still see such statistical groupings, assuming all people were treated equally before the law.
      - etchalon 5y ago
        To believe that, you'd need to start with evidence of at least one demographically blind system that resulted in significantly disparate outcomes amongst otherwise equal classes. But such evidence would point to the system not being demographically blind.
        Jensson 5y ago