The disparity is just as consistent with the theory of a non-racist criminal justice system. Thus, the fact that there are disparities has zero impact upon the probability that the justice system is racist....
Whether the disparity is "just as consistent" is your unsupportable assertion, not a question of fact.
No, it is a matter of whether the both the competing theories make the prediction of disparity, given everything else that is known. They do. It is your assumption that only the racism theory makes this prediction that not only unsupportable assertion, but it directly falsified by fact and logic.
The burden of proof is 100% on you to show that the racism theory is more consistent with the observation of a disparity. Without this, the disparity provides no support or evidence for your theory.
Imagine that you show me a 4 of diamonds in a card deck. Then, I say the card you just showed me is a 4 of diamonds. The fact that was correct is "consist with" the theory that I have ESP. IS that support for and evidence for the theory that I have ESP? No, because what we already know about the world says that I would be correct, even without ESP because I saw the card.
Your analogy is faulty. Using observations to construct an explanation and using the observations as proof is bootstrapping. But you have not shown any evidence that is the case.
The analogy is perfect. The fact that we know I saw the card corresponds to the fact that blacks engage in more frequent corporal punishment. (If you want to deny that established empirical fact, then nothing you've said has any relevance to anything I said). The fact that I say "the card is a 4 of diamonds" corresponds to the observation of racial disparities in prosecution for excessive child "discipline". The theory that I have ESP corresponds to the theory that the justice system is racist.
In both cases, the value of the observation (that I said the card was a 4 of diamond, or that the racial disparity) has zero evidential value for the theory, because the other already known facts predict what was observed, even in a world where the theory is false.
No, it isn't even evidence in favor of that theory, not only to me. but to all rational people capable of evidence based reasoning and who grasp the principles of scientific thinking.
That is only true if you can show it is an example of bootstrapping. Since you haven't, all rational people capable of evidence based reasoning and who grasp the principles of scientific thinking know your claim is unproven at this juncture.
Wrong. The objective evidential value that an observation provides for the theory is independent of whether the theory is already presumed to be true.
Again, 100% of the burden is upon you. Claiming that observation X is evidence for theory A, inherently presumes that theory A is unique in its ability to predict X, and that given everything else know about the world that is related to X, we would not expect X to occur if theory A was false.
You have and cannot support this inherent presumption, thus your claim of evidence is unscientific.
The disparity is an irrelevant fact in relation to whether their is anti-black racism in the system, because it is predicted to be true whether or not any such racism exists.
All rational people capable of evidence based reasoning and who grasp the principles of scientific thinking understand that the size of the disparity would be affected by the factors which makes your claim rather pointless.
Observations about the specific size of the disparity are not the same as the mere existence of a non-zero disparity. IF you want to show that the disparity is too large to be predicted by any theory but racism by the officers and courts prosecuting crimes, then that is great. You will need to show evidence that the greater actual criminal behavior of blacks is only of size X, while the disparity is size Y. I have never seen you present any such argument. IT is always just of the form, 'look there is a disparity, that is racism'.