Printable View
For the most part the system isn't sexist. I would agree that in terms of our system of laws we have had some latent bias in favor of women when it comes to custody hearings and a few other examples but by and large there is a specific reason that more men are incarcerated than women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Men charged with the same crimes as women face substantially longer jail sentences. Men are substantially more likely to face the death penalty for capital murder (as percentage of people who get convicted of it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I've never had a problem with people going to prison longer. But to bring clarity to the discussion... Loki do you think more men are incarcerated primarily because the system is sexist or do you think there is another reason why men are more likely to be in prison than women?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Which considering blacks are more likely to be serious offenders, just like males are, is to be expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's true even for comparable crimes and comparable degree of severity. Possible confounding by socioeconomic status influencing likelihood of making bail and getting a decent lawyer but even then. It's also true when you look at how innocent black people are treated wrt likelihood of being subjected to unwarranted unjustifiable stops, searches, use of force etc. You don't have a leg to stand on. You never did.
Fixed that for you. ;) I'm still waiting to get clarity on your position on males being so unjustly treated? Is it solely due to the sexist justice system or is there something else going on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
No, it's true also of innocent black women. Black women are more likely to be subjected to excessive unjustifiable force than white women. So you're not being as clever as you think.
OK I don't know the answer to this but there seems a simple way to end this argument - who is more likely to be subjected to excessive force: an innocent black woman, or an innocent white man?
Innocent black woman, because they're much more likely to be hysterical and dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
In reality the answer is difficult to ascertain. This study suggests that black women who're stopped by cops were almost as likely as white men to be subjected to any force at least in NYC but it's not the primary focus of the study so results for the whole dataset aren't available and gender is not discussed further in the text:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf
The usefulness of the findings can be questioned due to several important limitations but all those limitations are likely to underestimate the mistreatment of black people (based on other studies) so that doesn't really change anything. Overall, cops use force in a very small number of encounters, but in those encounters they're much more likely to use force if it involves a black person.
That said, I think you're in error about your question being a good way to settle the matter. You're changing two variables--race and gender--both of which are known to influence the behavior of police.
"Almost as likely" is an interesting way of phrasing "less likely" :haha:
No it seems a perfect way to settle the issue. You are tolerating the sexism despite the fact it is a bigger predictor than the racism. Why is that?
Not when the expected statistic ought to be "radically less likely" as it is when comparing black women to black men, or white women to white men.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Is it a bigger predictor, in light of the comparable numbers from racially homogenous samples? We aren't talking about rates of stoppage here, after all, but how likely force was to be used once a stop was made.Quote:
No it seems a perfect way to settle the issue. You are tolerating the sexism despite the fact it is a bigger predictor than the racism. Why is that?
I'm not sure why you're laughing because they were indeed almost as likely to be subjected to force than white men, and far more likely than white women were. Both are astonishing. If we expect men to be far more likely to be subjected to force, then black women shouldn't be nearly as likely to be subjected to force than white men. If we expect race to be a non-issue, then black women shouldn't be significantly more likely to be subjected to force than white women. By laughing you're just making yourself look dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's also stupid of you to laugh at that after it has been pointed out to you that the data is of limited value when it comes to answering your question, which is itself of limited value. Not only are there limitations inherent to the data used in the study, and to the methods used, but the specific portion I referenced describes only a small portion of the sample, namely one describing NYC's fucked up stop-and-frisk programme--a portion that consisted of around 90% men compared to around 50% for the total sample. The study is focused on race and not on gender. Gender was not analyzed in such a way that it can accurately answer your question. Afaict there are no good recent studies that specifically discuss your question. So perhaps I should be laughing at you for asking a question so dumb that no-one's bothered to look into it.
The racism of American cops is both more flagrant and less defensible than what you're portraying as their sexism. You're having difficulties understanding this because you're not very well informed about how much we actually know about racism in the justice system--as well as in every other domain of society--and seem to believe that research in criminology is conducted by uninformed people who don't know how to address obvious problems and objections. However, the disparities between how police treat black people and how they treat white people are to a very large extent indefensible to anyone who isn't a complete idiot. This is not as obviously the case wrt those aspects of crime that are rooted in sexism and/or gender differences. Those problems occur far upstream from the encounter with police and police are responsible for only a small portion of it, with other members of society playing greater roles. As such those problems are less interesting in a discussion about how American cops conduct themselves. It would be interesting to see if men stopped and searched or mistreated by cops are more likely to be innocent than women, similar to the situation with black and hispanic people in the US.Quote:
No it seems a perfect way to settle the issue. You are tolerating the sexism despite the fact it is a bigger predictor than the racism. Why is that?
Your question absolutely does not settle the issue and it is based on your severely limited understanding of the problems being discussed. Perhaps you have, in your fantasy world, had only two mutually exclusive explanations to choose between. In the real world however there are several important factors that interact with each other. One of those interactions is the one between gender and race.
I've never said race should be expected to be a non-issue, nor have I suggested sex should be expected to be a non-issue. In an ideal world they would be non-issues but we're not in an ideal world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It was never my hypothesis that we should expect them to be non-issues. It was my hypothesis that we should expect them to be issues. That it is not remotely astonishing if you've thought it through. The question we need to ask is why?
My hypothesis is that men are more likely than women to be criminals so are targetted more; just as blacks are more likely than women to be criminals so are targetted more. The profiling may be ethically wrong but - and I appreciate this is controversial - it is rational. As men are more likely to be criminals than women to a greater extent than blacks are than whites, if the police are acting rationally then white males will be at bigger risk of profiling than black females.
Limited value data that matched expectations completely.Quote:
It's also stupid of you to laugh at that after it has been pointed out to you that the data is of limited value when it comes to answering your question, which is itself of limited value.
Except it doesn't match your expectations. I am going to repeat this for you again. What Minx cited, limited as it was, was not about who gets stopped. It was about who the police used force against AFTER a stop was made. It completely bypasses the profiling issue altogether because that step wasn't included, it's examining things after that step.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
After the stop people can still be a danger. Men are more likely to be dangerous than women, blacks are more likely than whites to be dangerous. If the police use force rationally, the same logic still applies.
If it was just racism or just sexism then the logic wouldn't apply.
Except that the police assumes a priori that blacks are more dangerous and therefore use force even before anything happens. See the Oklahoma case. The victim "looks like a bad guy". Why? Because he's big and black.
Big black guys are more likely to be dangerous than puny white women so assuming that they are more dangerous is rational.
You put me in a dark alley and give me a loaded weapon then put me face to face with a lion and face to face with a hamster then I'm more likely to shoot the lion than the hamster. Even if the lion was not attacking.
And you'd be fined for animal cruelty. I'd hope that shooting a human being would get you a bigger punishment.
I'd only be fined if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that I had no right to self defence.
If the lion was running at me and I shot it I don't think a court in the world would convict. I wouldn't need to wait until it was a second away from killing me before I felt in danger.
If the hamster did the same thing I wouldn't shoot.
If a big dog did the same thing I might be more likely to shoot it than the hamster but less likely than the lion.
First he pulled the "I'm not touching you" to whitewash the harassment. Now he is playing the "it's coming right for us!" line. This is like reading cheesy southpark fanfic.
If the police are worried about being shot, as you claim they are, the physical size of the person doesn't make any difference to how much of a danger they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Big black guys are more likely to pull the trigger on a cop than a puny white woman is. Though firearms are not the only danger.
"more likely" != "likely", if the difference is risk is 0.01 vs 0.1 then that doesn't exactly justify the pre-emptive killings the US police apparently favour, and that you are currently performing Olympic level mental-gymnastics to try and justify, now does it?
Actually it does justify it. Because not every person in the USA is getting shot, just some, the issue repeatedly raised is the ratio of shootings but if the ratio of risk is higher then the ratio of shootings will rationally also be higher. If the ratio is 0.01 to 0.1 then rationally the ratio of killings of the latter group should be at least 10x higher.
Again if the Police weren't so routinely getting killed or injured then they wouldn't be preemptively shooting either. The root cause of the problem needs tackling not just the symptom.
Randblade, please understand this: there is no amount of bullshit or sophistry you can indulge in that can possibly justify the assertion that the US police officers getting routinely killed or injured (they actually *don't* but never mind) justifies randomly executing young black men on flimsy pretexts.
No amount of ridiculous analogies about animals or red herrings about gender are going to make it ok for the police to, e.g. stop and search a young black man, pin him to the ground because he was 'resisting arrest' (he wasn't) and then shoot him in the back of the head because they felt "threatened" (they weren't).
There is no possible 'bigger picture' or 'root cause' that makes any of this ok or acceptable.
Make that the starting point of your thoughts.
He'd make a great apologist for dictators. Some Ukrainians supported Hitler; understandable to starve them all to death. Some Kurds rebelled; perfectly ok for Hussein to try to kill them all. Some white guys kill a whole bunch of people throughout the world; perfectly legitimate to use violence against all white people. Oh wait, he wouldn't support the last statement for obvious reasons.
How about you recognise the starting point that I've said all along that unacceptable officer-shootings are not OK and that they should be prosecuted? That to further that there should be to make clear what is happening every officer should be made to wear body cameras to record what is happening and use as evidence against either suspect or police officer as the case may be?
While Lewk and I have both been saying we should make the police wear body cams that can and should be used as evidence as to what happened in the incident, there are very few alternative productive proposals other than "waahhh the popo pigs are waycist"
The issue is that there are very few crystal clear wrong shootings and most come in a shade of grey. Shining more light on the matter, compiling more evidence and cutting the risks will all reduce the number of grey shootings, by either shining a light on what happened or better by preventing it in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
maybe you glossed over the definition of preemptive, or maybe you don't know it, or maybe you really are this big of an asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
but this is not the response of a normal or mentality healthy person.
Preemptive self-defense is legal, if it is reasonably justifiable. The only way it is justifiable is if there is a high enough risk. QED the higher risk is what justifies it.
Considering I used the word "preemptively" in my post and said it was justified I clearly didn't "gloss over" the word.
This is largely a war term (ie: caroline test), as preemptive by definition is a response before self-defense is required. A preemptive shooting would be a cop shooting someone under the anticipation that they may turn violent. Not as a response to them acting like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You're basically trying to legalize pre-crime ala minority report, and thats insane.