Racism and privilege

[moevillini]

At any rate, I think that discussion misses the point, which was the comparison between the effects of conviction rates on black people (decreased by 10%) and whites (increased by 7%, to the point of being effectively the same) by the inclusion of blacks in the jury pool.

the article did not discuss whether or not the convictions were considered false or not, it didn't seem the research even looked into that possible aspect

If you read the original article, actually seating a black member on the jury seems to have no additional effect beyond what having a black person in the jury pool does. I'm not sure how to interpret that.

well, that was my point - the pool includes a total of 27 people of whom 6 are actually seated on the jury - so says the article.

 

[LogGrad98]

Is there any reason to think that a person accused of committing a crime is more like to have committed that crime, based on the racial mix of the jury pool selected? Also, it could well be that the 71% represent more guilty people going free, as opposed to the 81% representing more false convictions. So what? Are you saying that as long as we cant show these people are innocent, it's acceptable that they are convicted more often?

At any rate, I think that discussion misses the point, which was the comparison between the effects of conviction rates on black people (decreased by 10%) and whites (increased by 7%, to the point of being effectively the same) by the inclusion of blacks in the jury pool.

If you read the original article, actually seating a black member on the jury seems to have no additional effect beyond what having a black person in the jury pool does. I'm not sure how to interpret that.

So as long as the rates are equal it is fine, regardless of whether those extra and/or fewer people "should" have been convicted? Wow that is an interesting take. Instead of worrying about what makes the most fair and impartial jury, by analyzing cases and determining what the correct verdict would have been, you focus entirely on making sure that the same mistakes are made evenly across the board and then call it good. But even then, simply saying that the conviction rates are now even does nothing to account for the question of whether those convictions were right or wrong, so it is a false dichotomy. In this study they are racially profiling in reverse, assuming that lower rates of convictions for whites automatically means that the "right" verdict would cause more convictions, and that higher rates for blacks means that the right verdict implies fewer should have been convicted. Seems to me that the focus should be, regardless of race, on whether or not any individual "should" have been convicted in the first place. Since this data isn't presented in any form at all, my first thought is that it would be detrimental to their overall argument, so they left it out. They didn't even present any hard stats about overturned convictions, just anecdotes. Seems like one-sided and partial "science" to me.

 

[Stoked]

So as long as the rates are equal it is fine, regardless of whether those extra and/or fewer people "should" have been convicted? Wow that is an interesting take. Instead of worrying about what makes the most fair and impartial jury, by analyzing cases and determining what the correct verdict would have been, you focus entirely on making sure that the same mistakes are made evenly across the board and then call it good. But even then, simply saying that the conviction rates are now even does nothing to account for the question of whether those convictions were right or wrong, so it is a false dichotomy. In this study they are racially profiling in reverse, assuming that lower rates of convictions for whites automatically means that the "right" verdict would cause more convictions, and that higher rates for blacks means that the right verdict implies fewer should have been convicted. Seems to me that the focus should be, regardless of race, on whether or not any individual "should" have been convicted in the first place. Since this data isn't presented in any form at all, my first thought is that it would be detrimental to their overall argument, so they left it out. They didn't even present any hard stats about overturned convictions, just anecdotes. Seems like one-sided and partial "science" to me.

That is because you are white and as a white man you have the privilege of saying so.

 

[LogGrad98]

That is because you are white and as a white man you have the privilege of saying so.

I keep forgetting about that. Man this racism thing is hard. I used to just think that if I did the best I could in treating people equally, then that was a good thing. Now I know it has nothing to do with equal treatment, apparently. I don't know, it is so confusing. Is it ok to try to be a good person and try hard not to do anything differently because the other guy is of color, or do I have to feel guilty for what all white people have ever done to all people of color, or do I have to give every person of color a buck for their trouble, or so I have to subjugate white people to make up for it? Wow is it ever complicated. I think I will discuss this with my twice monthly basketball group at church on Saturday....8 of the 12 of us are black btw, and they have had a very different take on all this than most people I meet elsewhere. By the way, in their group I am one of their "n-words". Weird huh?

 

[One Brow]

Instead of worrying about what makes the most fair and impartial jury, by analyzing cases and determining what the correct verdict would have been, you focus entirely on making sure that the same mistakes are made evenly across the board and then call it good.

Most trials only occur in cases that are close calls to begin with. If the defendant is obviously guilty and not particularly high-profile, or obviously innocent but still needs to be convicted for some other reason, there will be a plea bargain (this is one of the points they make in the study). It's very naive of you to think some after-the-fact researchers, using limited funds, would be able to determine the "correct" call on these cases.

But even then, simply saying that the conviction rates are now even does nothing to account for the question of whether those convictions were right or wrong, so it is a false dichotomy. In this study they are racially profiling in reverse, assuming that lower rates of convictions for whites automatically means that the "right" verdict would cause more convictions, and that higher rates for blacks means that the right verdict implies fewer should have been convicted.

1) Who are "they"?
2) Present your reasons for thinking the convictions rates should be different, if you have any. Because right now, it soulnd a lot like JAQing off, and I think you can and have done better.

They didn't even present any hard stats about overturned convictions, just anecdotes. Seems like one-sided and partial "science" to me.

From the study:

Our data set consists of all felony trials for which jury selection began in Sarasota and Lake Counties, Florida, during 5.5- and 10-year periods, respectively, in the 2000s. The data are unusually rich in providing information on the age, race, and gender not only for each of the 6–7 members of the seated jury but also for the approximately 27 members of the jury pool for the trial from which the seated jury is selected. The data set also contains detailed information about the race and gender of the defendant, the criminal charge(s), and the final jury verdict.

How many overturned convictions do you think there would be from two counties over a ten-year period?

 

[One Brow]

I used to just think that if I did the best I could in treating people equally, then that was a good thing.

Humans are very bad judges of when they are treating different people equally.

However, thanks for pulling out the "I've got black friends" patter and "why should I oppress white people" whine. That really clarifies things.

 

[Stoked]

Humans are very bad judges of when they are treating different people equally.

However, thanks for pulling out the "I've got black friends" patter and "why should I oppress white people" whine. That really clarifies things.

They are equally bad judges of when they are not being treated unfairly.

 

[One Brow]

They are equally bad judges of when they are not being treated unfairly.

I'm glad you agree.

 

[Stoked]

I'm glad you agree.

I'm glad you are carrying all my racial guilt for me. The liberation!

 

[♪alt13]

@ OB

How did you become a Jazz fan? Are you originally from St. Louis?

I ask because I have always thought that the West, Midwest, Northeast, and South are incredibly different. I wonder if part of the reason why you see things from a different perspective comes from living where you do.

I for one haven't met a person from east of Colorado that I feel like I truly understand. From our perspective you guys out there live in a different kind of world. A world that to us looks like it is more influenced by fear and therefore hate.

 

[LogGrad98]

Humans are very bad judges of when they are treating different people equally.

However, thanks for pulling out the "I've got black friends" patter and "why should I oppress white people" whine. That really clarifies things.

Well all we have is our judgement, what else are we supposed to use, your judgement? Should we set up a committee and have everyone's racism status verified and published or something so we all know how we are doing? You have been going in circles so much it seems like you are arguing this just to argue it and not to get to any point. We all are racist, there is nothing we can do about that, but we are terrible judges of how racist we are, but we shouldn't be racist, but we are no matter how hard we try, and there is no way to know when we are and when we aren't since we are such terrible judges of when we are being racist or not, but we shouldn't be racist, and every effort we make to be racist is wrong because we have no way to accurately judge when we are being racist or not. This is a severely useless discussion, since you have a blanket statement of "well you can't know when you are and when you aren't so you just always are whether you want to be or not and no matter how hard you try you always will be" so you can ignore valid arguments (still haven't addressed whether or not we should be concerned about valid convictions, just twisted it around that we can't know what we don't know blah blah blah again) and I am guessing feel superior since you can thwart everyone's attempts to get to a valid point or conclusion other than "you are, always have been, and always will be racist".

I guess, as usual, we can agree to disagree. You can keep worrying about always being a privileged white racist with no means or hope of ever changing, and I will continue playing basketball and having barbecues with my black friends and talking about issues that matter to them (and me) and do my best with my permanently flawed racial judgement to be a little less racist each day.

Cheers!

 

[Gameface]

@ OB

How did you become a Jazz fan? Are you originally from St. Louis?

I ask because I have always thought that the West, Midwest, Northeast, and South are incredibly different. I wonder if part of the reason why you see things from a different perspective comes from living where you do.

I for one haven't met a person from east of Colorado that I feel like I truly understand. From our perspective you guys out there live in a different kind of world. A world that to us looks like it is more influenced by fear and therefore hate.

From my time in the Navy my interaction out in public east of the Mississippi typically left me wanting to punch people in the face for their bad manners. I suppose to them I was a rube who went around expecting people to act decently.