Says the habitual admitted criminal.
-
Features
Another cop "fears for his life" - Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back
- Thread starter RavenSky
- Start date
Says the habitual admitted criminal.
Good example of the difference in U.S. "justice"
angelo
Deleted
How about the details on the teen? I rather suspect something psychiatric was going on there.
They missed the obvious--compare police shootings to arrests. That shows blacks are slightly less likely to be shot than whites.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 40,005
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,829
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I am yet to be convinced that it is a wise use of statistics to repeatedly manipulate them until you find one perspective whose results might be interpreted as support for your prejudices, and to then declare that the statistics support your position.
Even when the technique for finding such a result is obvious, that does not render it honest, nor does it mean that it is helpful.
laughing dog
Contributor
I am interested in what details you think could reasonably explain such a discrepancy between jail time for leaving kids in a car (no deaths) and no jail time in the deliberate death of a baby.
It's not manipulating them to find the one perspective.
The thing is, if you don't interact with the police it's exceedingly unlikely you'll be shot by the police. Thus you don't want the number of people in the community, but the number of interactions with the police. AFIAK we do not have this data but we have a reasonable proxy for it: the number arrested.
- - - Updated - - -
We treat crimes committed for psychiatric reasons differently.
These give-birth-and-kill cases do seem to be treated as psychiatric but I don't know why.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,829
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
That's an ABYSMAL approximation for number of interactions with police.
The vast majority of police interactions with the general public do not result in an arrest being made.
You are abusing the data to try to bully it into supporting your prejudices.
laughing dog
Contributor
In simple terms, you have no answer.
lpetrich
Contributor
What makes you so sure?
I marvel at the softness on white crime that the resident right-wingers show.
The sentence seems very light for the crime--hence I suspected something else was going on.
The followup confirmed that. I do not know why they consider the give-birth-and-discard cases psychiatric, but they do.
Since she was not confined to a psychiatric ward for murdering her baby, it doesn't seem that they found her "guilty but insane" or anything else that would explain the discrepancy.
As I said, I don't understand what's going on.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
1. The number of interactions with police (or even interactions with police that lead to a charge) is not the number we need either if one group is disproportionally targeted by police. Thought experiment: There's one group with 10% criminals and one group with 5% criminals. Police are rewarded for how many criminals they catch, so it's reasonable for them to target the group with the higher number of criminals even without any racist intent. The result being that 50% of the group with the higher base crime rate (and thus 50% of the criminals in that group) run into random checks, while only 20% of the group with the lower crime rate are checked. Thus 5% of one group and 1% of the other group are charged for their crimes. With your method, we'd conclude that there are 5 times as many criminals proportionally in one group when in reality it's merely twice as many.
2. Even ignoring that, the number of arrests is not a reasonable proxy for the number of (hostile) interactions with police when members of one group are more likely to be arrested when charged with the same crimes. And even that can to a reasonable extent be explained without accusing anyone of racist intent: If the members of one group are on average much poorer, thus less likely to afford bail or a good lawyer, that's exactly what will happen even if every judge and every jury is colorblind.
Given such dynamics, it's very easy to get from a maybe 30% higher base crime rate to a 3-4 times higher conviction rate before even taking overt racism into account. What is, however, racist is to take that conviction rate, ignoring all the factors that contribute to it, and conclude that therefore, members of that group just are 3-4 times more likely to be criminals.
laughing dog
Contributor
But that did not stop you from trying to explain the no jail time in the case of a mother killing her baby and jail time for the mother who left her kids in the car.
Not understanding why doesn't change the facts--give-birth-and-discard is not treated the same as killing a baby.
The white woman did NOT "give birth and discard". She THREW THE NEWBORN OUT THE WINDOW!!
The black woman, otoh, did NOT "kill a baby". She made a horrible tragic mistake that caused the death of her baby (whom she loved and cared for) because she was trying to get a job and not be the "freeloader" too many conservatives and libertarians claim single mothers are. Maybe if you people would not have demanded the impossible from her, her child would still be alive.
White woman outright KILLED her baby, yet you are defending her while denigrating the other mother. Why is that?
angelo
Deleted
Would a sane mother murder her child?
