Reply With Quote
No, what's amazing is that I continue to engage a couple of pedantic ankle-biters when I know perfectly well, neither of you will ever offer respond to a direct question, directly.
A systematic example of racism affecting more than three people:
No, what's amazing is that I continue to engage a couple of pedantic ankle-biters when I know perfectly well, neither of you will ever offer respond to a direct question, directly.
there's no racism, the blacks are lying
there's no rape, the girls are lying
Spurminator just did. Why not talk to him?No, what's amazing is that I continue to engage a couple of pedantic ankle-biters when I know perfectly well, neither of you will ever offer respond to a direct question, directly.
You're so oppressed, Yoni.
Because it's hard to talk very frequently when your head is buried firmly in the sand.
I think it's that he actually prefers the petty bickering he complains about. The pattern of posting is telling.
What percentage? 100% is also a percentage.
Be specific.
I haven't met them all.
So you don't know. Ok.
It's my opinion, so I do know.
lol
So what is the percentage of white people you were referring to. "A percentage" could refer to 0%, 100%, or anything in between.
Be specific.
Don't need to be.
If I think just one is that way, it's a percentage. And I do think at least one is.
So it is your opinion that either one, some, many, or all... are offended.
I'm astonished
Why are you so astonished?
From the U.S. Department of Justice in 1995 (That would be during the Clinton years, I believe)A systematic example of racism affecting more than three people:
The Racial Disparity in U.S. Drug Arrests
And, the article from where the above excerpt was taken:Although arrested whites and arrested blacks were about equally likely to be drug use deniers [Note: Which seems to be indicated by your top graph - Y.], these results nevertheless have implications for the SAMHSA survey. A larger fraction of the black population than the white population consists of criminally active persons and, therefore, a larger fraction of the black population than the white population would consist of criminally active persons who use drugs but deny it. Consequently, the SAMHSA survey would probably understate the difference between whites and blacks in terms of drug use. Whether the effect of such drug use denial among criminally active persons is large enough to account for the unexplained 13% is not known, but research on the topic should pursue this possibility.
RACE AND JUSTICE: MUCH MORE THAN YOU WANTED TO KNOW
I recommend the entire article.Usually when people talk about racial disparities in arrest rates for minor crimes, they’re talking about drugs. The basic argument is that black people and white people use drugs at “similar rates”, but black people are four times more likely to get arrested for drug crime. You can find this argument on pretty much every major media outlet: NYT, Slate, Vox, HuffPo, USA Today, et cetera. [NOTE: i.e., your two bar graphs (also from the U.S. Government) that show data without explanation. - Y]
The Bureau of Justice has done their own analysis of this issue and finds it’s more complicated. For example, all of these “equally likely to have used drugs” claims turn out to be that blacks and whites are equally likely to have “used drugs in the past year”, but blacks are far more likely to have used drugs in the past week – that is, more whites are only occasional users. That gives blacks many more opportunities to be caught by the cops. Likewise, whites are more likely to use low-penalty drugs like hallucinogens, and blacks are more likely to use high-penalty drugs like crack cocaine. Further, blacks are more likely to live in the cities, where there is a heavy police shadow, and whites in the suburbs or country, where there is a lower one.
When you do the math and control for all those things, you halve the size of the gap to “twice as likely”.
The Bureau of Justice and another source I found in the Washington Post aren’t too sure about the remaining half, either. For example, anecdotal evidence suggests white people typically do their drug deals in the dealer’s private home, and black people typically do them on street corners. My personal discussions with black and white drug users have turned up pretty much the same thing. One of those localities is much more likely to be watched by police than the other.
Finally, all of this is based on self-reported data about drug use. Remember from a couple paragraphs ago how studies showed that black people were twice as likely to fail to self-report their drug use? And you notice here that black people are twice as likely to be arrested for drug use as their self-reports suggest? That’s certainly an interesting coincidence.
I don't know the author's credentials but, he's at least as qualified as you and I to comment on the topic and, he's apparently got the time to research.
thought the blue font was implied with that last line
Sure. Although, since it's such a pervasive issue, you can certainly come up with three examples, off the top of your head.
So you aren't astonished?
What is your reaction to finding out a percentage can be one of many possible numbers?
Interesting articles, Yonivore. I'll read more of the second one when I have time, but they both seem reasonable overall and make a fair amount of valid points. I'll address the sections you quoted together since they're related (and the 1995 study is the source of most of the second article's points).
The 1995 study makes a good point about frequency being a factor, but also applied a lot of circular logic with regards to arrest frequency in metropolitan areas being a factor in why blacks are more likely to be arrested. The opposing side would argue arrest frequency in metropolitan areas is driven by a bias towards arresting blacks more frequently for illicit drug crimes. In the end it's worth noting that they acknowledge a 13% discrepancy that they can't explain without further analysis.
And I hardly think "black people lying about drug use" accounts for a 13 ppt difference. That same study says that white criminals were just as likely to lie about their drug use... and in neither case is lying during an anonymous interview the same as lying to a cop when you've been arrested.
As far as frequency, I wish there was better data available for weekly and daily drug use by race. In the study, while he states that blacks are more likely to report using drugs weekly, the BOJ's monthly usage data isn't sourced anywhere... Was that a self-reported number? Was it from a survey, or reported after arrest? No accusation here, we just don't really know what those numbers mean.
This more recent chart shows monthly illicit drug use rates are similar.
Source: http://www.samhsa.gov/
Another, specifically for marijuana like the charts I posted before:
The street-corner-drug-sales scenario is a point well taken, but it's (1) anecdotal, and (2) only covers specific incidents where the drug possessor is arrested while making a purchase. It does not explain the disparity of other arrests... of the stop-and-frisk and traffic stop variety, for example. One should also ask why cops are more commonly staked out on street corners looking for drug arrests and not, for example, watching fraternity and sorority houses which are just as likely (if not more likely) to have illegal drugs or underage drinking.
Your blog writer also brings up another thing worth discussion - the designation of crack as a "high penalty" crime... Until only recently (Thanks Obama), crack-cocaine possession carried 100x worse criminal penalty compared to a similar amount of powdered cocaine. That disparity is now 18:1.
So anyway, while there are certainly extenuating cir stances that make racial arrest discrepancies worse (as well as sentencing discrepancies, which is a whole other discussion), in a vacuum there is still not an equal playing field for blacks when it comes to drug arrests.
In think the point being, which you somewhat concede, is that it's a complex issue and simply throwing a chart at the wall doesn't tell the entire story.Interesting articles, Yonivore. I'll read more of the second one when I have time, but they both seem reasonable overall and make a fair amount of valid points. I'll address the sections you quoted together since they're related (and the 1995 study is the source of most of the second article's points).
The 1995 study makes a good point about frequency being a factor, but also applied a lot of circular logic with regards to arrest frequency in metropolitan areas being a factor in why blacks are more likely to be arrested. The opposing side would argue arrest frequency in metropolitan areas is driven by a bias towards arresting blacks more frequently for illicit drug crimes. In the end it's worth noting that they acknowledge a 13% discrepancy that they can't explain without further analysis.
And I hardly think "black people lying about drug use" accounts for a 13 ppt difference. That same study says that white criminals were just as likely to lie about their drug use... and in neither case is lying during an anonymous interview the same as lying to a cop when you've been arrested.
As far as frequency, I wish there was better data available for weekly and daily drug use by race. In the study, while he states that blacks are more likely to report using drugs weekly, the BOJ's monthly usage data isn't sourced anywhere... Was that a self-reported number? Was it from a survey, or reported after arrest? No accusation here, we just don't really know what those numbers mean.
This more recent chart shows monthly illicit drug use rates are similar.
Source: http://www.samhsa.gov/
Another, specifically for marijuana like the charts I posted before:
The street-corner-drug-sales scenario is a point well taken, but it's (1) anecdotal, and (2) only covers specific incidents where the drug possessor is arrested while making a purchase. It does not explain the disparity of other arrests... of the stop-and-frisk and traffic stop variety, for example. One should also ask why cops are more commonly staked out on street corners looking for drug arrests and not, for example, watching fraternity and sorority houses which are just as likely (if not more likely) to have illegal drugs or underage drinking.
Your blog writer also brings up another thing worth discussion - the designation of crack as a "high penalty" crime... Until only recently (Thanks Obama), crack-cocaine possession carried 100x worse criminal penalty compared to a similar amount of powdered cocaine. That disparity is now 18:1.
So anyway, while there are certainly extenuating cir stances that make racial arrest discrepancies worse (as well as sentencing discrepancies, which is a whole other discussion), in a vacuum there is still not an equal playing field for blacks when it comes to drug arrests.
I don't know that you can state, emphatically, there is not an equal playing field for blacks when it comes to drug arrests. But, if it's not, it's at least plausible it is blacks that are creating the factors leading to their disproportionate representation in the drug arrest category.
I'm astonished that you would bother sharing an opinion that tells us nothing. It would be the equivalent of sharing an opinion that the Spurs could lose their next game by many points, 1 point, or win by 1 point or many points
I think the chart shows it's reasonable to believe examples of racism in drug arrests have probably happened more than three times.
I think it's inconclusive, correlation does not imply causation. Reasonable people can disagree. And, reasonable people can believe there may be factors, other than race to explain the disparity.
Predicting the Spurs will lose is something.
What level of cer ude would satisfy you in this case?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
