Chronicles in Post Racial America: Bus Fare Violations

[ronburgundy]

As already pointed out (and dogmatically disregarded), the reported arrest rates could easily be reflective of the violation rates and repeat offense rates. But adding to that is the problem that the rates of arrest do not appear to be computed based upon valid base-rates. The report seems to have conditionalized number of arrests simply upon number of people in each group that make any use of the transit system. But what matters is not simply a dichotomous use or not-use measure, but a quantitative measure of the typical number of rides and number of miles ridden by each person.
The more often and longer distances one rides, the more likely they are to get caught riding for free.

Only 0.8% of St. Paul residents are NA. So, the fact that the report shows 3% of those who use they system are NA, then we know that NAs are 3 times more likely to use the system in general. Almost all the same factors that lead more people in a group to use a transit system, also make those who use it, use it more often and for more total miles. That makes it nearly certain that due to their more frequent use and longer rides, those NAs who ride for free are more likely to get caught than whites that ride for free but ride less often and for less miles.

IOW, not only do all relevant facts predict higher rates of this crime among NAs, but even if the % of them who stole free rides were the same, those who do are more likely to get caught because they ride it more often and for more miles.

Do you believe that all demographic groups receive the same scrutiny by authority figures?

The data presented go beyond official arrest rates, and are not merely contingent upon "scrutiny by authority figures." National surveys of individuals that measure their victimization show that NAs are victimized by other people at much higher rates, and even with a higher % of the perps being "other race" than is typical within other groups, those rates show that NAs are notably more likely to victimize other people, and most of their victims are other NAs. Their higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, and poverty (also all measured without relying on "scrutiny by authority figures") all cohere with and predict this observed result.

I believe in reasoned analysis of empirical data, rather than cherry-picking and misinterpreting data to fit whatever my general beliefs are. Transit authorities picking on NAs fit your general presumptions (aka your beliefs), thus you take any data that has a whiff of racial injustice and blindly accept it as "evidence" for a conclusion you already accepted, ignoring the far larger and more reliable body of evidence that shows your interpretation of that data is unsound.

Whether some authorities sometimes give more scrutiny to some demographics is irrelevant to whether these particular authorities in this particular context are giving extra scrutiny to a particular demo solely for their ethnic/racial status, and unrelated to any legit reason for differential treatment (which is what is claimed by the OP).
The fact is that all relevant data collected prior to the OP report predicts that without any racial bias and based only on legit law enforcement factors, blacks and NAs would be arrested more for fare infractions. Thus, the OP data present nothing that supports a racial bias. Evidence of bias requires data not already clearly predicted by data related to factors other than such bias (such as all the data supporting higher rates of criminal actions by the groups who are unsurprisingly getting arrested more).

 

[fromderinside]

Now that Derec is no longer calling Native Americans by the term Siberian Americans but instead calling everyone African Americans including himself, we can start calling him a thug.

Again, thug has nothing to do with race but everything to do with behavior.

One's behavior is always seen and judged from another's racial perspective. So just exactly what are you saying? You see blacks behaving in a way you judge to be thuggish from your personal whitish youngish conservative middle classicist point of view? Not a very generalist perspective methinks who is one classified as you except for the conservative, young, ish thangs.

 

[J842P]

I'm leaning hard in your direction on this one, but to play devil's advocate, propensity to commit crime, or at least violent crime, may be an indicator of propensity to be a first time offender in a particularly violent or disorderly way. Not all fare evasions are done the same way. It is one thing to jump the turnstyle when you think nobody is watching. It is another to do it in front of an officer and flip them off. It is yet another to swear at or spit at or assault the officer who comes to talk to you. It would be interesting to see the percentage of these first time offenses that come with an additional charge.

While certainly within the realm of possibility, I can't see something like that accounting for a 150% difference between races. That indicates deliberately having a different set of standards based on the person's race.

It certainly could. Just raw percentage differences in probability are pretty useless for arriving at such a conclusion.

 

[J842P]

Once again we have the assumption that a disparate outcome means discrimination.

In a case like this how you deal with the police makes a big difference in the outcome.

Loren,

Can you have discrimination WITHOUT disparate outcomes?

Sure. The discrimination could be ineffective. Or you would have had disparate outcomes without discrimination, and discrimination pushed you towards the proportional outcome.

 

[Derec]

One's behavior is always seen and judged from another's racial perspective.

Silly moral relativism.

So just exactly what are you saying? You see blacks behaving in a way you judge to be thuggish from your personal whitish youngish conservative middle classicist point of view?

So you don't think stealing, robbing, drug dealing, etc. is thuggish from any other point of view?

Not a very generalist perspective methinks who is one classified as you except for the conservative, young, ish thangs.

If so-called "black culture" endorses these behaviors then there is something seriously wrong with that culture rather than with the term "thug" which is clear enough.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Silly moral relativism.

So just exactly what are you saying? You see blacks behaving in a way you judge to be thuggish from your personal whitish youngish conservative middle classicist point of view?

So you don't think stealing, robbing, drug dealing, etc. is thuggish from any other point of view?

Not a very generalist perspective methinks who is one classified as you except for the conservative, young, ish thangs.

If so-called "black culture" endorses these behaviors then there is something seriously wrong with that culture rather than with the term "thug" which is clear enough.

What do you know about black culture?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What do you know about black culture?

I'm guessing a cartoonish hip-hop street gang one.

 

[Toni]

Do you believe that all demographic groups receive the same scrutiny by authority figures?

The data presented go beyond official arrest rates, and are not merely contingent upon "scrutiny by authority figures." National surveys of individuals that measure their victimization show that NAs are victimized by other people at much higher rates, and even with a higher % of the perps being "other race" than is typical within other groups, those rates show that NAs are notably more likely to victimize other people, and most of their victims are other NAs. Their higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, and poverty (also all measured without relying on "scrutiny by authority figures") all cohere with and predict this observed result.

Maybe you could answer the question instead of attempting to impress us all with your google skills.

I believe in reasoned analysis of empirical data, rather than cherry-picking and misinterpreting data to fit whatever my general beliefs are.

Thanks for saying that because it's not the least bit obvious that is actually what you believe from reading any of your posts.

Transit authorities picking on NAs fit your general presumptions (aka your beliefs), thus you take any data that has a whiff of racial injustice and blindly accept it as "evidence" for a conclusion you already accepted, ignoring the far larger and more reliable body of evidence that shows your interpretation of that data is unsound.

You have no idea what my general presumptions are. You have no idea what my beliefs are. You are making assumptions not based on data but on your own prejudices.

Whether some authorities sometimes give more scrutiny to some demographics is irrelevant to whether these particular authorities in this particular context are giving extra scrutiny to a particular demo solely for their ethnic/racial status, and unrelated to any legit reason for differential treatment (which is what is claimed by the OP).

Really? So the transit authority is different than the general population across the country?

BTW, it sounds very much as though you are admitting that different demographics are scrutinized differently.

The fact is that all relevant data collected prior to the OP report predicts that without any racial bias and based only on legit law enforcement factors, blacks and NAs would be arrested more for fare infractions.

Really? So failing to look at transgressions of certain demographics while much more carefully scrutinizing other demographics presents an unbiased sampling? I did not know that.

Thus, the OP data present nothing that supports a racial bias. Evidence of bias requires data not already clearly predicted by data related to factors other than such bias (such as all the data supporting higher rates of criminal actions by the groups who are unsurprisingly getting arrested more).

You know, it's ok to say you don't really know the answer or you don't understand the question. I wasn't asking about the OP. I was asking about what YOU believe.