Racism and privilege

[Stoked]

Just another anecdote.

I got a call from the school security officer today. My daughter's boyfriend was identified as being involved in some altercation in a park about a mile from where we live. Since he was in our house at the time, we were able to substantiate his alibi.

This is routine stuff, of course.

How does this fit into a racism thread? Are your daughter and her boyfriend an inter racial couple? Also good on you for ending any rumors regarding his involvement.

 

[One Brow]

No it is not. It is one persons attempt to control the words and thoughts of another based on how that first person views the world.

You don't believe that words and thoughts can carry dehumanizing cultural contexts?

 

[Stoked]

You don't believe that words and thoughts can carry dehumanizing cultural contexts?

Words absolutely can depending on the circumstances of how and when they are used. However that does not mean that they always do.

But all that is happening is one sides attempt to control the language of everyone in a way that they approve of. Well guess what? I can be respectful and treat people properly without talking in your approved way.

Neither side has the monopoly on decency and respect.

 

[moevillini]

...But that is quite an influence exerted by those 1 or 2 black people in the jury pool. Not sure what exactly it means, but they are having some major influence if just by their presence in a group of 27 they can change the outcomes of the trials so dramatically, even if they're not on the actual jury.

...Or perhaps a degree of political correctness? Or maybe a humanizing effect of seeing a black person as a potential juror that lessens in some small degree some inherent racial bias among the others?

since it's my post, let me clarify:

by political correctness, I meant the possibility of someone wanting to avoid being viewed as racist regardless of their actual attitude towards blacks

by the second part of my statement I meant that perhaps real attitudes were somehow influenced in a manner to cause less bias against blacks

I see it as at least a subtle difference between the two

 

[One Brow]

Words absolutely can depending on the circumstances of how and when they are used. However that does not mean that they always do.

Hence the reference to cultural contexts.

But all that is happening is one sides attempt to control the language of everyone in a way that they approve of. Well guess what? I can be respectful and treat people properly without talking in your approved way.

If the words were not objectionable in that cultural context, why would someone object to them? Has anyone ever objected to you calling meat between two pieces of bread a sandwich? What language is being controlled, that you feel is not dehumanizing?

Neither side has the monopoly on decency and respect.

I agree. One side has experience with being culturally disfavored, the other does not; neither state implies decency and respect in and of that state alone (along culturally, decency and respect are often assumed more in the favored than the disfavored).

 

[One Brow]

since it's my post, let me clarify:

That's generally what I thought you meant, but there is a very real connection between words and thoughts. Using different words changes our thoughts subtly.

 

[One Brow]

How does this fit into a racism thread? Are your daughter and her boyfriend an inter racial couple? Also good on you for ending any rumors regarding his involvement.

The young man in question is black, which is why I referred to this as "routine".

Were you asked for an alibi every few months when you were a teen?

 

[Stoked]

Hence the reference to cultural contexts.



If the words were not objectionable in that cultural context, why would someone object to them? Has anyone ever objected to you calling meat between two pieces of bread a sandwich? What language is being controlled, that you feel is not dehumanizing?



I agree. One side has experience with being culturally disfavored, the other does not; neither state implies decency and respect in and of that state alone (along culturally, decency and respect are often assumed more in the favored than the disfavored).

Haha oh Lord.

Thank you for showing me that I was correct.

 

[LogGrad98]

Haha oh Lord.

Thank you for showing me that I was correct.

Are you praying to OB????

 

[LogGrad98]

I wonder what the percentage of false convictions were. I didn't read the whole thing, so it might be in there, but is there any way to validate the results of the different juries? Are a much larger percentage of all-white juries falsely convicting, or was the conviction still warranted, and vice versa? It seems there is an underlying assumption that the 81% conviction rate with all-white juries is "wrong" and the 71% with at least one black on the jury is "right". In other words the assumption is that since the conviction rate is higher with an all-white jury it automatically means a higher false-conviction rate, while the lower conviction rate with at least one black juror is a lower false conviction rate, but is that really accurate? Is there any data showing false conviction rates, either way (convicting when innocent, acquitting when guilty)?

Bump.

 

[moevillini]

Are you praying to OB????

No. They are reasoning together.

 

[One Brow]

I wonder what the percentage of false convictions were. I didn't read the whole thing, so it might be in there, but is there any way to validate the results of the different juries? Are a much larger percentage of all-white juries falsely convicting, or was the conviction still warranted, and vice versa? It seems there is an underlying assumption that the 81% conviction rate with all-white juries is "wrong" and the 71% with at least one black on the jury is "right". In other words the assumption is that since the conviction rate is higher with an all-white jury it automatically means a higher false-conviction rate, while the lower conviction rate with at least one black juror is a lower false conviction rate, but is that really accurate? Is there any data showing false conviction rates, either way (convicting when innocent, acquitting when guilty)?

Is there any reason to think that a person accused of committing a crime is more like to have committed that crime, based on the racial mix of the jury pool selected? Also, it could well be that the 71% represent more guilty people going free, as opposed to the 81% representing more false convictions. So what? Are you saying that as long as we cant show these people are innocent, it's acceptable that they are convicted more often?

At any rate, I think that discussion misses the point, which was the comparison between the effects of conviction rates on black people (decreased by 10%) and whites (increased by 7%, to the point of being effectively the same) by the inclusion of blacks in the jury pool.

If you read the original article, actually seating a black member on the jury seems to have no additional effect beyond what having a black person in the jury pool does. I'm not sure how to interpret that.

 

[moevillini]

At any rate, I think that discussion misses the point, which was the comparison between the effects of conviction rates on black people (decreased by 10%) and whites (increased by 7%, to the point of being effectively the same) by the inclusion of blacks in the jury pool.

the article did not discuss whether or not the convictions were considered false or not, it didn't seem the research even looked into that possible aspect

If you read the original article, actually seating a black member on the jury seems to have no additional effect beyond what having a black person in the jury pool does. I'm not sure how to interpret that.

well, that was my point - the pool includes a total of 27 people of whom 6 are actually seated on the jury - so says the article.

 

[LogGrad98]

Is there any reason to think that a person accused of committing a crime is more like to have committed that crime, based on the racial mix of the jury pool selected? Also, it could well be that the 71% represent more guilty people going free, as opposed to the 81% representing more false convictions. So what? Are you saying that as long as we cant show these people are innocent, it's acceptable that they are convicted more often?

At any rate, I think that discussion misses the point, which was the comparison between the effects of conviction rates on black people (decreased by 10%) and whites (increased by 7%, to the point of being effectively the same) by the inclusion of blacks in the jury pool.

If you read the original article, actually seating a black member on the jury seems to have no additional effect beyond what having a black person in the jury pool does. I'm not sure how to interpret that.

So as long as the rates are equal it is fine, regardless of whether those extra and/or fewer people "should" have been convicted? Wow that is an interesting take. Instead of worrying about what makes the most fair and impartial jury, by analyzing cases and determining what the correct verdict would have been, you focus entirely on making sure that the same mistakes are made evenly across the board and then call it good. But even then, simply saying that the conviction rates are now even does nothing to account for the question of whether those convictions were right or wrong, so it is a false dichotomy. In this study they are racially profiling in reverse, assuming that lower rates of convictions for whites automatically means that the "right" verdict would cause more convictions, and that higher rates for blacks means that the right verdict implies fewer should have been convicted. Seems to me that the focus should be, regardless of race, on whether or not any individual "should" have been convicted in the first place. Since this data isn't presented in any form at all, my first thought is that it would be detrimental to their overall argument, so they left it out. They didn't even present any hard stats about overturned convictions, just anecdotes. Seems like one-sided and partial "science" to me.

 

[Stoked]

So as long as the rates are equal it is fine, regardless of whether those extra and/or fewer people "should" have been convicted? Wow that is an interesting take. Instead of worrying about what makes the most fair and impartial jury, by analyzing cases and determining what the correct verdict would have been, you focus entirely on making sure that the same mistakes are made evenly across the board and then call it good. But even then, simply saying that the conviction rates are now even does nothing to account for the question of whether those convictions were right or wrong, so it is a false dichotomy. In this study they are racially profiling in reverse, assuming that lower rates of convictions for whites automatically means that the "right" verdict would cause more convictions, and that higher rates for blacks means that the right verdict implies fewer should have been convicted. Seems to me that the focus should be, regardless of race, on whether or not any individual "should" have been convicted in the first place. Since this data isn't presented in any form at all, my first thought is that it would be detrimental to their overall argument, so they left it out. They didn't even present any hard stats about overturned convictions, just anecdotes. Seems like one-sided and partial "science" to me.

That is because you are white and as a white man you have the privilege of saying so.

 

[LogGrad98]

That is because you are white and as a white man you have the privilege of saying so.

I keep forgetting about that. Man this racism thing is hard. I used to just think that if I did the best I could in treating people equally, then that was a good thing. Now I know it has nothing to do with equal treatment, apparently. I don't know, it is so confusing. Is it ok to try to be a good person and try hard not to do anything differently because the other guy is of color, or do I have to feel guilty for what all white people have ever done to all people of color, or do I have to give every person of color a buck for their trouble, or so I have to subjugate white people to make up for it? Wow is it ever complicated. I think I will discuss this with my twice monthly basketball group at church on Saturday....8 of the 12 of us are black btw, and they have had a very different take on all this than most people I meet elsewhere. By the way, in their group I am one of their "n-words". Weird huh?

 

[One Brow]

Instead of worrying about what makes the most fair and impartial jury, by analyzing cases and determining what the correct verdict would have been, you focus entirely on making sure that the same mistakes are made evenly across the board and then call it good.

Most trials only occur in cases that are close calls to begin with. If the defendant is obviously guilty and not particularly high-profile, or obviously innocent but still needs to be convicted for some other reason, there will be a plea bargain (this is one of the points they make in the study). It's very naive of you to think some after-the-fact researchers, using limited funds, would be able to determine the "correct" call on these cases.

But even then, simply saying that the conviction rates are now even does nothing to account for the question of whether those convictions were right or wrong, so it is a false dichotomy. In this study they are racially profiling in reverse, assuming that lower rates of convictions for whites automatically means that the "right" verdict would cause more convictions, and that higher rates for blacks means that the right verdict implies fewer should have been convicted.

1) Who are "they"?
2) Present your reasons for thinking the convictions rates should be different, if you have any. Because right now, it soulnd a lot like JAQing off, and I think you can and have done better.

They didn't even present any hard stats about overturned convictions, just anecdotes. Seems like one-sided and partial "science" to me.

From the study:

Our data set consists of all felony trials for which jury selection began in Sarasota and Lake Counties, Florida, during 5.5- and 10-year periods, respectively, in the 2000s. The data are unusually rich in providing information on the age, race, and gender not only for each of the 6–7 members of the seated jury but also for the approximately 27 members of the jury pool for the trial from which the seated jury is selected. The data set also contains detailed information about the race and gender of the defendant, the criminal charge(s), and the final jury verdict.

How many overturned convictions do you think there would be from two counties over a ten-year period?

 

[One Brow]

I used to just think that if I did the best I could in treating people equally, then that was a good thing.

Humans are very bad judges of when they are treating different people equally.

However, thanks for pulling out the "I've got black friends" patter and "why should I oppress white people" whine. That really clarifies things.

 

[Stoked]

Humans are very bad judges of when they are treating different people equally.

However, thanks for pulling out the "I've got black friends" patter and "why should I oppress white people" whine. That really clarifies things.

They are equally bad judges of when they are not being treated unfairly.

 

[One Brow]

They are equally bad judges of when they are not being treated unfairly.

I'm glad you agree.