Crime statistics

Slyfox696 said:

No reasonable person would suggest being a colorblind society is a racist view. However, no reasonable person would claim we are a colorblind society. Since race, unfortunately, does play a role in our society, and since race is used as justification for actions, then race needs to be considered as a factor in statistics.

Click to expand...

I'd agree. No reasonable person would. Unfortunately there are a lot of unreasonable people out there now a days.

Slyfox696 said:

I disagree with your position. Not because I disagree racists twist stats to perpetuate their beliefs, but because (and you even acknowledge this) those people are already racists and are just looking for anything to "justify" their position. I'm sure you agree racism isn't going to start dying out if we stop monitoring race in statistics, those who are racist will merely use something else to "justify". Certainly racism existed LONG before government collected statistics by race.

There is no such thing as having too much information from which to draw a conclusion. Certainly a person can become overwhelmed by information or can miss the forest for the trees, but any quality research with a clear focus can always use information correctly. And the more information one has, the better informed their opinion can be, if they so desire.

We are not a colorblind society. The likelihood of us becoming a colorblind society in the next 100 years is extremely small. As such, it is important for us to collect information in order to ensure we have the best opportunity to educate ourselves on any potential problems which may exist, especially if we indeed strive to be a colorblind society.

Click to expand...

I fully believe that we were on the path to an actual colorblind society until identity politics came around. We weren't there yet obviously...but we were getting there. The whole identity politics that has sprung up recently however has set us back decades.

Goshin said:

Well, when there ceases to be a vast disparity in criminality between different groups, then we start ignoring race in compiling statistics.


And what about statistics on....

poverty
education
unemployment

.... if we should ignore race in crime stats, shouldn't we ignore race in those too?

Ah HA.....


:coffeepap

Click to expand...

If people think that poverty, education and unemployment is a racial issue, they haven't been to the rural south. I would guess that all three are the main cause for crime, rather than color of skin.

MaggieD said:

Another poster mentioned in another thread that crime statistics collect and report crime statistics based on color. What purpose does that serve? We are told over and over again that whites are prejudiced against blacks and other minorities in this country.

What kind of example does our own government provide? What is the purpose of collecting data in this way? Why not also keep the stats by "baptized or not baptized" "Catholic" Christian or nonChristian"

See my point? What difference does color make and why, in a country that strives to be colorblind, do we collect and report crimemstats in this manner?

I thought this poster was brilliant to bring it up. Reallly got me thinking.

Your thoughts?

(I would thank that poster in this thread starter, but I'm not sure that's permitted.)

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

I've suggested the same thing before. All I ever got in response was that doing so would allow abuses to continue and that being a colorblind society is a racist view. BS imo since those stats are more often than not used to perpetuate racism.

Click to expand...

Well i do consider the implication that race is meaningful to be problematic. Differentiating with respect to race generally does give that implication.

But in this case, gathering racial data is the only mechanism we have to assess racial justice. The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law and we have an obligation to enforce that.

Absentglare said:

Well i do consider the implication that race is meaningful to be problematic. Differentiating with respect to race generally does give that implication.

But in this case, gathering racial data is the only mechanism we have to assess racial justice. The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law and we have an obligation to enforce that.

Click to expand...

So what you get out of the crime stats is that blacks are treated unfairly?

Kal'Stang said:

...
I fully believe that we were on the path to an actual colorblind society until identity politics came around. We weren't there yet obviously...but we were getting there. The whole identity politics that has sprung up recently however has set us back decades.

Click to expand...

Yessir. In 2008, it seemed all this racial stuff was going away fast. Everywhere I looked it seemed most people genuinely no longer cared what color you were. I genuinely felt we were well on our way to the colorblind society Dr King spoke of.

The past nine years have been stunning, in how fast things took a turn for the worse. I agree, all these racial identity political movements have set us back decades.

Absentglare said:

Well i do consider the implication that race is meaningful to be problematic. Differentiating with respect to race generally does give that implication.

But in this case, gathering racial data is the only mechanism we have to assess racial justice. The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law and we have an obligation to enforce that.

Click to expand...

Racial justice? How about we strive for human justice instead? That's the problem with identity politics...it always assumes that there is some sort of injustice happening to <insert X group here>. Usually based on the very statistics that is being used to claim that Y group is racist. What is never explained in those statistics is WHY X group may be getting charged with Z crime more than Y group. It just assumes that it has to do with the race/ethnicity/gender etc etc. The biggest example of this happening is when it comes to males being incarcerated more than females...yet no one ever hollers about misogyny because its generally understood that gender has nothing to do with the reason that more males are incarcerated than females. But when it comes to race? Then its all because of racism. Never due to anything else.

Goshin said:

Yessir. In 2008, it seemed all this racial stuff was going away fast. Everywhere I looked it seemed most people genuinely no longer cared what color you were. I genuinely felt we were well on our way to the colorblind society Dr King spoke of.

The past nine years have been stunning, in how fast things took a turn for the worse. I agree, all these racial identity political movements have set us back decades.

Click to expand...

I think it started around 2001-2 myself. Not long after 9/11 and the "War on Terror" started.

Kal'Stang said:

The stats are not just used by racists. It's also about those that will use the stats to try and push an agenda. For example: "X proves all republicans are racists! vote for democrats instead!" and visa versa.

Click to expand...

Again, the truth shouldn't be buried because people will twist it.

Kal'Stang said:

I'd agree. No reasonable person would. Unfortunately there are a lot of unreasonable people out there now a days.



I fully believe that we were on the path to an actual colorblind society until identity politics came around. We weren't there yet obviously...but we were getting there. The whole identity politics that has sprung up recently however has set us back decades.

Click to expand...

When do you think "identity politics" came around?

Politics are "identity politics" by nature. One side will always demonize the other side.

MaggieD said:

So what you get out of the crime stats is that blacks are treated unfairly?

Click to expand...

No, what we get out of crime stats is the only measurement we have of racial equality under the law.

I mean, you guys should be excited to gather these statistics if your belief is that race isn't a problem any more. We should be eager to showcase how equal our society is. We shouldn't be afraid to look, that just seems weak

Goshin said:

Yessir. In 2008, it seemed all this racial stuff was going away fast. Everywhere I looked it seemed most people genuinely no longer cared what color you were. I genuinely felt we were well on our way to the colorblind society Dr King spoke of.

The past nine years have been stunning, in how fast things took a turn for the worse. I agree, all these racial identity political movements have set us back decades.

Click to expand...

Dr King didn't speak of a society where we are blind to color (this is unrealistic, skin color is one of the easiest things to observe), he spoke of a society that that is multicultural.

Absentglare said:

Dr King didn't speak of a society where we are blind to color (this is unrealistic, skin color is one of the easiest things to observe), he spoke of a society that that is multicultural.

Click to expand...

I have a dream, where every child of God is judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Sounds like a colorblind society to me. And I don't think "multiculturalism" was even a word then, or that Dr King was an advocate of it.

Kal'Stang said:

Racial justice? How about we strive for human justice instead? That's the problem with identity politics...it always assumes that there is some sort of injustice happening to . Usually based on the very statistics that is being used to claim that Y group is racist. What is never explained in those statistics is WHY X group may be getting charged with Z crime more than Y group. It just assumes that it has to do with the race/ethnicity/gender etc etc. The biggest example of this happening is when it comes to males being incarcerated more than females...yet no one ever hollers about misogyny because its generally understood that gender has nothing to do with the reason that more males are incarcerated than females. But when it comes to race? Then its all because of racism. Never due to anything else.

Click to expand...

Identity politics?

I don't think of racial equality as a political goal. I think of it as a social goal. I thought we basically all want racial equality. Is that true?

Measuring the data shouldn't be a problem if the claim that the data will show no meaningful racial trend holds true.

You're right about men/women versus white/black. We don't generally call the fact that men are charged more "sexist". I suppose there's a difference between an accurate stereotype and an inaccurate stereotype.

A accurate stereotype correlates to the statistics. For example, men have, in general, more physical strength, relating to hormones. Not really a controversial claim.

With race, i think we're in a different situation. Are blacks more physically strong? Well i believe some studies have statistically established hormonal differences. But the suggestion there feels more offensive.

I think we're OK with treating men/women differently because we find those distinctions justifiably significant. With race, i think we're taking the methodology that the individual variation is too great to justify application of statistics against the individual.

MaggieD said:

Really? And what would others extrapolate from a comment you might say - "Boy!! Those blacks really know how to fry chicken.?

Click to expand...

As a brown person, I'm not afraid of being called a racist, especially by white people on a witch hunt for what they misperceive as racist. That **** doesn't work on me.

Yes when I go for Sushi I want a Japanese sushi chef. I don't care what stupid people extrapolate from that. I want authenticity.

Skeptic Bob said:

One of the most important reasons I can see is to help identify when and where the criminal justice system does and doesn't have bias.

Click to expand...

The problem is that people parse the data to give the results they want, not to get to the truth. They will take a statistic and focus on one small part of the data behind it, while ignoring the rest. The one small part is what they want to focus on, but the parts that are ignored are the true story.

Lord Tammerlain said:

The point being

Putting your (not yours Maggie) head in the sand to pretend their is no issue, does not make an issue go away. To know their might be an issue data is required.

If the police are stopping and frisking 100 times a day, it tells you nothing, if they are frisking purple people 90 times a day and green people 10 times a day despite purple people being one 10% of the population, their could be a big issue regarding police policies. One that might be causing resentment and dislike for the police. That would not be recognised as being a problem without such data.

Click to expand...

..and if purple people are committing 98% of the crime that stop and frisks could prevent, then they are applying their resources intelligently.

Skeptic Bob said:

One of the most important reasons I can see is to help identify when and where the criminal justice system does and doesn't have bias.

Click to expand...

If folks named Joe (or are left handed) get arrested/convicted at a rate three times more often than folks named Fred (or are right handed) is that evidence of justice system bias against folks named Joe (or are left handed)?

Skeptic Bob said:

One of the most important reasons I can see is to help identify when and where the criminal justice system does and doesn't have bias.

Click to expand...

If folks named Joe (or are left handed) get arrested/convicted at a rate three times more often than folks named Fred (or are right handed) is that evidence of justice system bias against folks that are named Joe (or are left handed)?

OlNate said:

I think as long as disparity exists based on nothing but color the statistics need to continue to be reviewed...but I'm not sure the statistics are collected just to prove disparity. The majority of these statistics are simply raw data...for example, when folks are processed by the system, a "mug shot" is taken...this is for identification purposes. Their fingerprints are taken, their height is recorded, and yes, their ethnicity is also recorded. That information is all loaded into a giant database somewhere. The only time it becomes specifically tied to race is when people are looking to understand trends, and group that data into buckets that they are looking at - so, if they are using the prison data in this example, they could determine prison population percentage by race. They could also group by height or eye color, if those properties were available in the data.

This is why statistical evidence can be powerful...the collection method is generally not biased if done correctly (honestly and consistently), and as such it's kind of difficult to refute. The interpretation can be debated, but not the numbers. The flip side is that when problems are addressed, this will show in the numbers as well - if we were truly "color blind", it would be supported by the same statistics as those that demonstrate disparity today.

Click to expand...

The problem is that people are starting with a conclusion and then working the data back to prove themselves right. That's what you just did. Good methodology starts with a theory and then uses all of the data to either prove or disprove it, giving precedence to the right conclusion and not to proving your theory right. You assume that the disparity is strictly due to color, but have you looked at ALL the other factors?? The saddest thing about this is that the goal that we can all agree on: Reducing the number young black men going to jail - is hampered by assuming only one cause, since if there are other causes that are more impactful, they get ignored. Assuming racism ("nothing but color") means that you fail to address any of the other problems which are most likely a far bigger problem. Things like a culture which glorifies violence and crime, treating people who are working hard as being fools for doing so, the breakdown in the family structure, a failure to give these young men a vision of their future that isn't based on crime and violence.

ttwtt78640 said:

If folks named Joe (or are left handed) get arrested/convicted at a rate three times more often than folks named Fred (or are right handed) is that evidence of justice system bias against folks named Joe (or are left handed)?

Click to expand...

I suppose if you could tell a "Joe" by looking at him. A cop can't tell in passing that my name is Bob or that I am an atheist. He can tell that I am a middle-aged white male.

faithful_servant said:

..and if purple people are committing 98% of the crime that stop and frisks could prevent, then they are applying their resources intelligently.

Click to expand...

One would have to respect unreasonable search and seizure

Stopping a purple person just because they were purple, would not be a reasonable search. Certainly just as important a right as the right to bare arms or free speech

faithful_servant said:

The problem is that people are starting with a conclusion and then working the data back to prove themselves right. That's what you just did. Good methodology starts with a theory and then uses all of the data to either prove or disprove it, giving precedence to the right conclusion and not to proving your theory right. You assume that the disparity is strictly due to color, but have you looked at ALL the other factors?? The saddest thing about this is that the goal that we can all agree on: Reducing the number young black men going to jail - is hampered by assuming only one cause, since if there are other causes that are more impactful, they get ignored. Assuming racism ("nothing but color") means that you fail to address any of the other problems which are most likely a far bigger problem. Things like a culture which glorifies violence and crime, treating people who are working hard as being fools for doing so, the breakdown in the family structure, a failure to give these young men a vision of their future that isn't based on crime and violence.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Skeptic Bob said:

I suppose if you could tell a "Joe" by looking at him. A cop can't tell in passing that my name is Bob or that I am an atheist. He can tell that I am a middle-aged white male.

Click to expand...

Rest assured that not all encountered by or even stopped by police are arrested so they must use more than one's appearance to make the call as to whether to make an arrest or not. That being said, the sorting (who to arrest and who not to arrest) could be based on anything. My point was that jumping to a conclusion of bias from statistics alone is foolish - simply because correlation is not causation.

Kal'Stang said:

I'd agree. No reasonable person would. Unfortunately there are a lot of unreasonable people out there now a days.

Click to expand...

Sure, there's always been unreasonable people and will always be unreasonable people. The important thing is to not get caught thinking the unreasonable ones speak for all, especially when the unreasonable ones often are in the clear minority.

I fully believe that we were on the path to an actual colorblind society until identity politics came around. We weren't there yet obviously...but we were getting there. The whole identity politics that has sprung up recently however has set us back decades.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think there's a big difference between being a colorblind society and a society which doesn't talk about race. Perhaps we were a society which didn't discuss race and racial disparities, but that doesn't mean we were colorblind. Racial angst doesn't simply blow up because all of a sudden we had a terrorist attack or a black president. Look back at any moment of time and you can see racial issues and tensions. Obviously the most visible would be the Civil War and the long-term ramifications of its conclusion, but that's far from the only issues we've had. Whether it was Irish migrants, those of the Jewish faith, Asian immigrants, Japanese during World War 2, Muslims after 9/11 (and, really, before as well) or blacks (well, anytime really), our country (and really society throughout history) has always had issues with race. It didn't just suddenly occur.

Additionally, I'm curious as to when you think identity politics came around, as I'm quite certain the Civil War could easily be seen as the result of identity politics.

Goshin said:

Yessir. In 2008, it seemed all this racial stuff was going away fast. Everywhere I looked it seemed most people genuinely no longer cared what color you were. I genuinely felt we were well on our way to the colorblind society Dr King spoke of.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I heartily disagree, as would thousands, if not millions, of Muslims in this country I suspect.

I think you also are missing a key change in our society since 2008. Certainly we had a black President and things have changed since 2008, but I think you also underestimate the impact the technological revolution has had on our society. Whereas before police misconduct could be swept under the run via a "he said, she said" excuse, we now have cell phones which can record actual police misconduct. We have things like Twitter and YouTube, which allow anyone with a little time on their hand to publicly blast their opinion, regardless of how stupid or uninformed it may be. Streaming video has been a huge boon to political extremists like InfoWars or The Young Turks.

To be clear, I'm not saying your position is that President Obama changed everything. I am, however, challenging the idea racial tension was going away. I think you are not only allowing time to erase some memories of the before times, but also not fully grasping the fact that before 2008, so many people you hear from today would never have had a voice ten years ago. Don't confuse your lack of hearing with a lack of tension. Racial tensions don't build up overnight.

faithful_servant said:

The problem is that people are starting with a conclusion and then working the data back to prove themselves right. That's what you just did. Good methodology starts with a theory and then uses all of the data to either prove or disprove it, giving precedence to the right conclusion and not to proving your theory right. You assume that the disparity is strictly due to color, but have you looked at ALL the other factors?? The saddest thing about this is that the goal that we can all agree on: Reducing the number young black men going to jail - is hampered by assuming only one cause, since if there are other causes that are more impactful, they get ignored. Assuming racism ("nothing but color") means that you fail to address any of the other problems which are most likely a far bigger problem. Things like a culture which glorifies violence and crime, treating people who are working hard as being fools for doing so, the breakdown in the family structure, a failure to give these young men a vision of their future that isn't based on crime and violence.

Click to expand...

I agree, you need to drive to root cause, statistics are only indicators - I'm a logistics analyst by trade, and I go through tons of statistics and metrics to assist in root cause analysis. But on their own, the data is useless, you still need to group that data in such a way as to identify the problems and drive actions. When you take this approach, there are various different methodologies you can employ, but there is always a certain level of discipline required to make sure you don't make the statistics say what you want. I've made some pretty expensive mistakes that way. When it comes to the disparity in the number of black people in jail, clearly we haven't found the right analytical methodology, because we still have the problem, we haven't arrived at the correct actions based on the analysis to address the issue....though I would suggest that we know enough to understand that the impacts of racism, or more accurately disparity in opportunity created by white supremacy (not talking about Nazis right now, just the demonstrable way that society has for a long time been constructed to benefit white people over other demographics) play a big role.

But ultimately, you still need the data. You can improve your analysis if you realize it is faulty, but you can't do anything unless you have the data, which, if properly stored and referenced, should never change, regardless of how many different ways you slice and dice it. The answer is in there, you just need to find it. That's why I think data of all types should be kept and collected...maybe we don't get it figured out now, or in this generation, but build a big enough, complete enough data set, and you can figure anything out. Making mistakes along the way simply refines the understanding of the data. It's not something to be afraid of.