General US Politics Discussion

[sivispacem]

14 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

social sciences are not the most scientific studies of all studies

Social sciences are characterised by the application of scientific methodologies to social concepts.

 

17 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

A lot of data applied with crappy ideas as the "rules" lead to distorted conclusions

And the onus is on you to provide a scientifically coherent and empirically evidenced rebuttal if you believe this is the case, something you've been either unwilling or unable to do thus far. 

 

Both the subject matter expertise and mathematical workings of the papers' authors are clearly presented. If you wish your counters to hold any kind of weight the least you need to do is present the same.

 

21 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

If every so called peer

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

 

21 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Just one example of social sciences trying to make accurate predictions of an outcome

The only person stating or inferring this is not accurate is you, and you've provided literally no evidence to support this assertion other than anecdote.

[Raavi]

 

19 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

he study is horse crap...a minority cannot have a racial bias against their own race...the bias is based on something different....how hard is this to understand

You still have failed to prove or in any way or form substantiate the notion that minorities cannot be subject to the same implicit biases as caucasian people especially when they are in identical positions of power and part of the same in-group. Which if I had to make an educated guess is attributable to a fundamental lack of understanding of what constitutes implicit bias and how it inadvertently can impact decision-making.

 

19 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Are you really that concerned about my opinions that you are watching me write, 

If you are taking about the (It's spelled Raavi, go edit your post), it is a word filter - congratulations you discovered one of the Easter eggs we hid on the forum for our regulars. 

 

19 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

maybe that's what your researchers should do it court and they might have a better understanding of how court actually works.

See, when I pointed you to studies from subject matter experts, themselves legal practitioners, from some of the top US law schools, you cried foul. Because according to you their works were inherently 'biased' because they were professionals in the field. You cannot have it both ways.

[CosmicBuffalo]

1 hour ago, Raavi said:

 

You still have failed to prove or in any way or form substantiate the notion that minorities cannot be subject to the same implicit biases as caucasian people especially when they are in identical positions of power and part of the same in-group. Which if I had to make an educated guess is attributable to a fundamental lack of understanding of what constitutes implicit bias and how it inadvertently can impact decision-making. (The study says what it says, "racial bias" not implicit bias..dont try to misrepresent the wording.  If they meant implicit bias, they should have used those terms.)

 

If you are taking about the (It's spelled Raavi, go edit your post), it is a word filter - congratulations you discovered one of the Easter eggs we hid on the forum for our regulars. (What? Sorry about that...you are moderator...so I thought you had powers on here to watch what I am writing and how I am writing it.)

 

See, when I pointed you to studies from subject matter experts, themselves legal practitioners, from some of the top US law schools, you cried foul. Because according to you their works were inherently 'biased' because they were professionals in the field. You cannot have it both ways.  (Law schools are academia and I never disputed that a sizeable portion of practitioners although I would guess its actually on the lower end..subscribe to these hardcore beliefs.)

Racism means "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."  So, in order for black judges to have racial bias against black defendants that they would have to subscribe to such beliefs or something similar...which is completely bogus.

 

And this is all I can think about right now...

Edited February 29, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[Raavi]

36 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

the study says what it says, "racial bias" not implicit bias..dont try to misrepresent the wording.  If they meant implicit bias, they should have used those terms.

One of the other studies I linked you to actually went more in depth as to the degree of bias present. Implicit bias is also one of the most pervasive of biases, because it is not an obvious or conscious bias. It also existing intra-minority has been well documented. In fact the majority of people have some level of implicit racial bias. I'd recommend taking the Harvard IAT race sometime - the results might surprise you.

 

36 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Law schools are academia and I never disputed that a sizeable portion of practitioners although I would guess its actually on the lower end..subscribe to these hardcore beliefs.

Thing is though, they aren't hardcore beliefs at all. The racial disparities in the criminal justice system are well documented, and degrees of racial bias playing a considerate role in these discrepancies is not really a controversial statement unless of course you buy into the fanciful belief that academia is one giant conspiracy against conservatives. 

 

36 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Racism means "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."  So, in order to have black judges to have racial bias against black defendants that they would have to subscribe to such beliefs or something similar...which is completely bogus.

First of all, the study explicitly notes that explicit racism (racial animus) is not a likely cause. It predicates it more on racially biased prediction errors in terms of perceived danger levels for minority defendants amongst less experienced and part-time judges. Which is completely different than racial animus. Secondly inter-minority racism is in fact very much a thing, both between different minorities and also within the same minority community. You might want to look into internalised racism.

[CosmicBuffalo]

27 minutes ago, Raavi said:

One of the other studies I linked you to actually went more in depth as to the degree of bias present. Implicit bias is also one of the most pervasive of biases, because it is not an obvious or conscious bias. It also existing intra-minority has been well documented. In fact the majority of people have some level of implicit racial bias. I'd recommend taking the Harvard IAT race sometime - the results might surprise you.  (I took an implicit bias test, I am not sure which one it was, and I consciously make attempts to not judge by race.  And that's what this test concluded for me.  Implicit bias if believed actually is supposed to work in black defendants favor if they are in front of black judge...but you have some other convoluted justification for this contradiction to implicit bias.)

 

Thing is though, they aren't hardcore beliefs at all. The racial disparities in the criminal justice system are well documented, and degrees of racial bias playing a considerate role in these discrepancies is not really a controversial statement unless of course you buy into the fanciful belief that academia is one giant conspiracy against conservatives. (They very much are hardcore..hardly anyone on the right believe this and that's 50% of people...I would think most moderate individuals believe some of this. For instance, where police are involved just like I do...but to believe that this way of thinking is reaching into the highest levels of intellect and education is absurd...especially in communities that have large diverse communities.)

 

First of all, the study explicitly notes that explicit racism (racial animus) is not a likely cause. It predicates it more on racially biased prediction errors in terms of perceived danger levels for minority defendants amongst less experienced and part-time judges. Which is completely different than racial animus. Secondly inter-minority racism is in fact very much a thing, both between different minorities and also within the same minority community. You might want to look into internalised racism.  (Racial bias or in other words, judging people based on race and then using that as a negative is so far fetched of an idea to begin with, in all attorneys and judges, and to then try to put it on racial groups that have actually experienced real discrimination is absurd.)

 

"If I have two cases of larceny from a convenience store one white and one black, both with one prior offence, both represented by public defenders, both residing in the district where the alleged offence was committed, and one gets a significantly higher bail amount than the other. The only variable here is ethnicity. Which is precisely the type of disparities these studies found."  If you actually believe that a judge's analysis is anywhere close to this, you are so far off the mark.  First, off what was stolen, how was it stolen, was the item returned, was the item damaged, what is the prior offense, is it a conviction, are there other arrests that are not convictions, has the person failed to appear in court ever, how is the person acting in court, is the person paying attention, is the person standing, is the person answering the basic information, does the person have an address...I mean seriously all this information is processed rather rapidly.

Edited February 29, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[Raavi]

54 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

I took an implicit bias test, I am not sure which one it was, and I consciously make attempts to not judge by race. 

 

Conscious attempts in an implicit bias test actually skew the results, and are not what it tries to measure. This is one of the reasons it asks you to choose between the two options available as fast as possible. Implicit bias is for the most part unconscious. I would recommend taking the Harvard one as that really is the standard. 

 

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

 

54 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Implicit bias if believed actually is supposed to work in black defendants favor if they are in front of black judge

There is literature that it can work in favour of black defendants yes, but that is in trial settings. Bail court is a very different environment. The results in that study are also further compounded by the fact the racial biases where mostly among the less experienced and part-time judges. Which makes perfect sense, as it also found that more senior judges were significantly less prone to these same racial biases according to the same study. I have heard this colloquially being referred to as the rookie effect. 

 

54 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

.hardly anyone on the right believe this and that's 50% of people.

I am not really interested in what anyone on any side of political spectrum believes. I am interested in what can actually be proven,  in what is actually factual. As stated numerous times, the apparent racial disparities within the criminal justice system are well documented. In fact under the previous administration this was made explicit by both the AG and even the president. 

 

54 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

but to believe that this way of thinking is reaching into the highest levels of intellect and education is absurd.

What exactly about level of education makes one to immune implicit racial biases or even more explicit racism? I have shown you a multitude examples of transparently racist judges which according to you is impossible because racism somehow is halted after.. what exactly? How does something so engrained in a society suddenly stop impacting someone when they receive a certain diploma or if they reach a certain position of influence and/or power?

 

54 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Racial bias or in other words, judging people based on race and then using that as a negative is so far fetched of an idea to begin with

So you deny that racial bias exists in the first place? That is a bold statement. Can you back it up with anything other than anecdote?

 

54 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

If you actually believe that a judge's analysis is anywhere close to this, you are so far off the mark. First, off what was stolen, how was it stolen, was the item returned, was the item damaged, what is the prior offense, is it a conviction, are there other arrests that are not convictions, has the person failed to appear in court ever, how is the person acting in court, is the person paying attention, is the person standing, is the person answering the basic information, does the person have an address...I mean seriously all this information is processed rather rapidly.

The studies at hand actually filtered and accounted for many more variables, I just mentioned a few. It Is all there in those studies they outlined their methodology very explicitly. You have no idea how much painstaking work and care goes into this kind of research. Another study from 2011 found that black people received 7000 USD higher bail than whites for violent crimes, 13000 USD higher for drug crimes and 10000 USD higher for crimes related to public order. NOTING THAT: These disparities were in fact calculated after adjusting for the level of seriousness of the crime, the criminal history of the defendants amongst a host of other variables. The more independent studies that come to very similar conclusions on a given issue, the more you should really start scratching your head and considering the possibility that this in not some grand liberul conspiracy but the sad reality. 

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1990324

[CosmicBuffalo]

1 hour ago, Raavi said:

 

Conscious attempts in an implicit bias test actually skew the results, and are not what it tries to measure. This is one of the reasons it asks you to choose between the two options available as fast as possible. Implicit bias is for the most part unconscious. I would recommend taking the Harvard one as that really is the standard.  ("What? I consciously try to not judge people on race and this some how is skewing the results. I do this at all times, its not something I do just for this test. Trying to just produce this on the fly or at any given time would be quite difficult.)

 

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1 

(Cannot believe anyone takes this crap seriously.  You miss one question and it claims you have a preference. If you miss none, you have no bias.  When I completed the questionnaire, it claimed I had a moderate preference, but yet when I decline all comments, I get slight or none...lol.)

 

There is literature that it can work in favour of black defendants yes, but that is in trial settings. Bail court is a very different environment. The results in that study are also further compounded by the fact the racial biases where mostly among the less experienced and part-time judges. Which makes perfect sense, as it also found that more senior judges were significantly less prone to these same racial biases according to the same study. I have heard this colloquially being referred to as the rookie effect.   (No, more experienced judges have more experience with the law and applying them fairly.  More experienced judges are no less racially biased...the judge actually may start to recognize certain types of problems such as serious financial difficulty, mental health, or drug addiction as opposed to just thinking everyone is a criminal. Courts in which a bond is issued are actually in essence no different than any other court and depends on when the bond is set.  A lot of the times the prosecutor is not present which works in the defendants favor.  Some places set bond as soon as the person is brought to jail, some places set bond when the officer presents the case to a judge for an arrest warrant, some places set bond at first appearance or within 48 hours, most courts have strict rules for imposing bonds, and in most places they have set amount for bonds...one thing that probably comes with experience is less concern that if you release someone and that person commits a violent crime, then a more experience judge is unlikely to take as much heat as a new judge...a new judge might not be asked to return.)

 

I am not really interested in what anyone on any side of political spectrum believes. I am interested in what can actually be proven,  in what is actually factual. As stated numerous times, the apparent racial disparities within the criminal justice system are well documented. In fact under the previous administration this was made explicit by both the AG and even the president. (The right as a whole is unlikely to believe that racism or racial bias has any significant impact on the criminal justice system.)

 

What exactly about level of education makes one to immune implicit racial biases or even more explicit racism? I have shown you a multitude examples of transparently racist judges which according to you is impossible because racism somehow is halted after.. what exactly? How does something so engrained in a society suddenly stop impacting someone when they receive a certain diploma or if they reach a certain position of influence and/or power?  (Education is the supposed cure to racism...although I would argue consciously disregarding race is probably more effective.)

 

So you deny that racial bias exists in the first place? That is a bold statement. Can you back it up with anything other than anecdote? (No, I mean when applied to all attorneys and judges.  You are a little to quick on the draw...I like to post and then read then edit because it pops on different screen...I make a ton of typos and switching the background helps me catch them.)

 

The studies at hand actually filtered and accounted many more variables, I just mentioned a few. It Is all there in those studies they outlined their methodology very explicitly. In another study from 2011 they found that black people received 7000 USD higher bail than whites for violent crimes, 13000 USD higher for drug crimes and 10000 USD higher for crimes related to public order. NOTING THAT: These disparities were in fact calculated after adjusting for the level of seriousness of the crime, the criminal history of the defendants amongst a host of other variables  (I seriously doubt that any study can control all these variables...no two cases are the same as I said, to presume that excluding variables is going to grant some grand insight into the criminal justice system is about as lofty as it gets.)

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1990324

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[Raavi]

 

13 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

 More experienced judges are no less racially biased.

13 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

I seriously doubt that any study can control all these variables...no two cases are the same as I said

Except for the fact that the study found their less experienced and part-time bail judge colleagues are in fact more prone to racial bias. The racial disparities again cannot be explained away by the facts or the fact that "no two cases are the same". For that to actually be the case all the following statements have to be true: within the same statute the black defendant disproportionately committed the more severe variant, the black defendant had a longer and more marred criminal history, the black defendant had no ties to the community, the black defendant was less remorseful, the black defendant was less respectful, the black defendant was not standing and so forth and so forth as opposed to the white defendant in that same context. Which further all of a sudden has to stop being the case for the black defendant that sees the more senior bail judge. Which makes no sense because bail judges as the study noted were randomly assigned. It also would mean that black defendants are on average the worse defendants, which is a pretty racially biased thesis in and of itself. Do also note that the bail setting is just one of many settings were these gross racial disparities are evident. And also does not account for patterns like the majority (75%) of those currently federally sentenced for fentanyl trafficking being people of color, whilst this is not reflected in usage rates. Or any of the myriad other racial disparities within the US criminal justice system.

 

13 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Courts in which a bond is issued are actually in essence no different any other court

Except for the fact that they are. Judges get far less face-time with defendants than in regular trial settings. Especially in these huge metropolitan areas the study took place in. You often have multiple detention facilities (jails) spread over the district over which the court has jurisdiction. Where bail hearings take place by video-link and to the sum of hundreds a day. Making it a lot more of a mechanised process, which shows in the statistics.

 

13 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

he right as a whole is unlikely to believe that racism or racial bias has any significant impact on the criminal justice system

To be frank, the American right is so woefully anti-science in so many areas of discussion everything from man-made climate change to reproductive rights that I don't really care so much what they think about the criminal justice system. The US right wing also has a fetish for tough on crime policies and an aversion for penal welfarism, which are positions that are not grounded in evidence but rather knee-jerk reactions to crime. 

 

13 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Education is the supposed cure to racism...although I would argue consciously disregarding race is probably more effective

Disregarding race and then proceeding to say that "see racism doesn't exist" is like not testing anyone for a virus and then putting up headlines "there is no virus in our country". Also, disregarding race also serves to minimise the experience of tens of millions of black people in the US whom have and continue to experience the whole gamut of racial biases in their day to day lives. Education is a good avenue, however to cure the racial imbalance something like reparations that would allow people to better themselves economically should also seriously be discussed.

 

13 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

No, I mean when applied to all attorneys and judges

So there is no racial bias in judges and lawyers? Noting that I have provided with you a multitude of studies that showed the opposite plus a number of very recent cases pulled straight from practice that demonstrated very clear racial bias. How do you reconcile these two things? More importantly, what proves your thesis?

 

 

[Creed Bratton]

I think you should all stop arguing with another imbecile and return to the actual subject at hand, which is the US politics discussion, not the US judicial discussion.

 

The fix seems to be in - superdelegates are ready to take down Sanders: https://www.newsweek.com/momentum-builds-among-democrats-stop-bernie-sanders-clinching-primary-nomination-1489697

 

If they do this, I hope they lose to Trump again.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

I'll phone bank for Trump if they f*ck Bernie over. And vote Republican downticket. The Democrats will be f*cked for a generation. No one will trust them.

Edited February 29, 2020 by TheSpectre

[Bartleby]

Be careful what you wish for. Voting based on spite can be a very dangerous thing - bear in mind President Trump has routinely undermined his own diplomatic and intelligence communities and openly invited foreign influence into the elections. I would think such acts which cut to the very core of American democratic principles would be objectively more egregious than a party using its existing machinery to choose its preferred candidate (unsavory as the machinery may be).

[sivispacem]

4 minutes ago, Bartleby said:

President Trump has routinely undermined his own diplomatic and intelligence communities and openly invited foreign influence into the elections

The greatest triumph Trump can claim is the utter whitewashing of foreign interference in support of him. How he's been able to quite successfully turn completely incontrovertible evidence into conspiracy theory narratives involving the Democrats, Ukraine and God knows who else despite literally everyone with event the merest insight into the subject publicly lampooning the notion at every opportunity is flabbergasting.

[Creed Bratton]

2 minutes ago, Bartleby said:

Be careful what you wish for. Voting based on spite can be a very dangerous thing - bear in mind President Trump has routinely undermined his own diplomatic and intelligence communities and openly invited foreign influence into the elections. I would think such acts which cut to the very core of American democratic principles would be objectively more egregious than a party using its existing machinery to choose its preferred candidate (unsavory as the machinery may be).

The DNC knows all this and they know that Bernie Sanders is their best shot at defeating Trump. Regardless of that, they are willing to f*ck him over. You don't fight corruption with corruption. Also, the establishment Democrats have shown time after time that they have no real intention of holding Republicans responsible for their numerous crimes. Removing Trump from office changes next to nothing unless the RNC feels the consequences of being a crime syndicate. That party needs to be dismantled, not just defeated at an election.

 

Then there's the question of voters and what they deserve. If the DNC does f*ck over Sanders, and the voters don't rebel against their puppet candidate and demand that their will be respected, then they deserve Trump as well.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

If they nominate Bloomberg and Sanders had the plurality, its akin to them saying "Get back in the gutter you filthy f*cking peasants." Which is exactly what they're going to do. It is a declaration of war on the working class. They want a war? They're gonna f*cking get one.

 

Say what you want about Trump, but at least he didn't bribe and buy his way his way into office like Bloomberg is attempting to do. 

Edited February 29, 2020 by TheSpectre

[Awful Waffle]

2 hours ago, Bartleby said:

I would think such acts which cut to the very core of American democratic principles would be objectively more egregious than a party using its existing machinery to choose its preferred candidate (unsavory as the machinery may be).

ah.

there's your problem right there.

 

you assumed that Republicans actually held American democratic values... how silly.

the only principle they care about is their own checking account.

[Bartleby]

2 hours ago, TheSpectre said:

Say what you want about Trump, but at least he didn't bribe and buy his way his way into office like Bloomberg is attempting to do. 

Well let's be real, Trump's attempts to fabricate an investigation into Biden's kid in Ukraine amount to extortion of a foreign official, for domestic political gain, and in such a way that assists a hostile nation (Russia) in a propaganda campaign (Crowdstrike) against Ukraine. I think it's rather absurd to imply that this is somehow a lesser offense than what you've characterized here in the case of Bloomberg.

 

@Awful Waffle: Oh believe me, I make no such assumption. I'm only noting that Trump has effectively removed the thin star-spangled veneer from atop their greed and power-hungry cynicism.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Bartleby

[sivispacem]

Plus Trump did absolutely bribe his way into office; except he offered policy input from right-wing nutters and literal white supremacists instead of cash. Mostly because he couldn't afford the latter.

[CosmicBuffalo]

9 hours ago, Raavi said:

 

Except for the fact that the study found their less experienced and part-time bail judge colleagues are in fact more prone to racial bias. (The study's premise is flawed and that's why it made the distorted conclusion.) The racial disparities again cannot be explained away by the facts or the fact that "no two cases are the same". (Why? Because all shoplifting's and prior offenses are the same...patently false.) For that to actually be the case all the following statements have to be true: within the same statute the black defendant disproportionately committed the more severe variant, the black defendant had a longer and more marred criminal history, the black defendant had no ties to the community, the black defendant was less remorseful, the black defendant was less respectful, the black defendant was not standing and so forth and so forth as opposed to the white defendant in that same context. (No, not all but some of your proposed factors could have been present which the judge evaluated by viewing the person and reviewing the case prior to setting the bond.) Which further all of a sudden has to stop being the case for the black defendant that sees the more senior bail judge. (No, senior judges may have more experience in diagnosing criminality v. some other cause, also senior judges are more secure in their position, so if the person is released and causes a violent crime, the senior judge is less likely to face consequences.) Which makes no sense because bail judges as the study noted were randomly assigned.  (The study's premise is flawed again and that why it came to a distorted conclusion.)  It also would mean that black defendants are on average the worse defendants, which is a pretty racially biased thesis in and of itself. (That could actually be a fact, it would take more research than just looking at the bond amounts and comparing statutory violations with no regard to the facts of each case or how the defendant presented in court.) Do also note that the bail setting is just one of many settings were these gross racial disparities are evident. (Each defendant is evaluated on facts and a worse criminal history, results in a worse punishment.) And also does not account for patterns like the majority (75%) of those currently federally sentenced for fentanyl trafficking being people of color, whilst this is not reflected in usage rates. (Sure it does, it may be an uncomfortable fact, but if each person indeed was to have a worse criminal history or underlying facts of the case are worse, the treatment by the justice system will be harsher.) Or any of the myriad other racial disparities within the US criminal justice system.

 

Except for the fact that they are.  (No they are not, they are literally the exact same for pleas.) Judges get far less face-time with defendants than in regular trial settings. (No, in a bond setting, the judge is required to evaluate each defendant including financial standing at the time they set bond and the judges takes more of an evaluation of defendant than she does when accepting a plea.) Especially in these huge metropolitan areas the study took place in. You often have multiple detention facilities (jails) spread over the district over which the court has jurisdiction. (No, only if their facilities are too small too house defendants which is not the case in most places.) Where bail hearings take place by video-link and to the sum of hundreds a day. (The judge is able to see the defendant and the defendant is able to see the Judge.  This is assuming a bond was not set prior to the first appearance which many charges come with a statutory bond.) Making it a lot more of a mechanised process, which shows in the statistics. (No, the reason hearsay evidence is such garbage evidence, you cannot evaluate the credibility of the speaker...in this scenario, a judge can get a lot of information from how person responds, treats the court, and answers any questions the court may have concerning the financial standing of the defendant.)  (Nearly all of your assumptions are wrong.)

 

To be frank, the American right is so woefully anti-science in so many areas of discussion everything from man-made climate change to reproductive rights that I don't really care so much what they think about the criminal justice system. (So open minded and tolerant) The US right wing also has a fetish for tough on crime policies and an aversion for penal welfarism, which are positions that are not grounded in evidence but rather knee-jerk reactions to crime. (So, 50% of the population is to be disregarded because you view their views as inferior.  Very telling.)

 

Disregarding race and then proceeding to say that "see racism doesn't exist" is like not testing anyone for a virus and then putting up headlines "there is no virus in our country". Also, disregarding race also serves to minimise the experience of tens of millions of black people in the US whom have and continue to experience the whole gamut of racial biases in their day to day lives. Education is a good avenue, however to cure the racial imbalance something like reparations that would allow people to better themselves economically should also seriously be discussed. ( I do believe that race exists and that it matters.  I strive to treat people the same regardless of race.)

 

So there is no racial bias in judges and lawyers? (No, just very little)  Noting that I have provided with you a multitude of studies that showed the opposite plus a number of very recent cases pulled straight from practice that demonstrated very clear racial bias. How do you reconcile these two things? (Yet you disregard the studies that contradict you.) More importantly, what proves your thesis? (Multiple studies...the funny thing is I do not completely disregard these studies, I think the causes and conclusions are wrong.  But it seems you outright disregard certain studies that contradict your views)

 

 

There are so many people that disagree with you.  Its actually pretty mind boggling that you think this issue is similar to climate change and medical vaccines which are both subjected to actual science as opposed to social science which may be trying their best, but simply is not on the same level of data and conclusions.  Mainly due to humans being so malleable and unique.

 

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[Smith John]

2 hours ago, sivispacem said:

except he offered policy input from right-wing nutters

Gotta love how you lot still speak of the right as if they're the wrong type of thought; or, by default on this forum - yes, yes, the wrong type of thought!

 

Being right-wing really isn't that bad, m8!

[Raavi]

 

1 hour ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

The study's premise is flawed and thats why it made the distorted conclusion

You keep saying this, but you have utterly failed to refute it. In fact you have not even read the entirety of the introduction, let alone paid mind to the methodology. You just read something that ran counter to your own rose coloured perception of reality and dismissed a multiple-year very robust study based on that one sentence. Which is not only completely disingenuous it is also farcical. The premise of the study is that there are racial disparities in the bail amounts that are set. Which has been proven by a multitude of studies. It further finds racial bias in less experienced and part time judges' risk assessments. You have also completely failed to disprove this.

 

1 hour ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

 Why? Because all shoplifting's and prior offenses are the same...patently false

Sure. Then black people disproportionately commit worse shoplifting offences than white people and disproportionately have worse antecedents ? I look forward to seeing you defending that proposition.

 

1 hour ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

No, not all but some could have present which the judge evaluated by viewing the person and reviewing the case prior to setting the bond

Cool. So that once again means that the black defendants consistently and disproportionately were the worse more incorrigible defendants than their white counterparts. As said, I look forward to seeing you defend that assertion.

 

1 hour ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

No, senior judges may have more expereience in diagnosising criminality v. some other cause, also senior judges are more secure in their position, so if they person is released and casues a violent crime, the judge is less likely to face consequences

Which supports the thesis brought for by the study at issue in that less experienced and part-time judges were more likely to rely on racially biassed stereotyping in terms of perceived danger. It, as the study also pointed out, doesn't mean that it comes from a position of racial animus or ill-intent. Them being less secure in their respective positions and more prone to repercussions from "bad calls" than their counterparts with more seniority could be one of the possible explanations why they were more likely to rely on these stereotypes, of course one would have to do more research to really establish that. 

 

1 hour ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

(That could actually be a fact, i

Aha, so you consider black defendants disproprotionately being the worse and more incorrigible defendant than their white counterparts to be a more likely explanation than implicit racial biases amongst less experienced and part-time bail judges. I would posit that this says a lot more about you, and your own biases than the validity of this study.

 

1 hour ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Sure it does, it may be an uncomfortable fact, but each person indeed was to have a worse criminal history or underlying facts of the case are worse, there treatment by the justice system will be harsher

I wish you could appreciate how absurd the mental leaps you were making are in reality. You are once again posing that the more likely explanation for glaringly gross racial disparities (75%!!) is black people being worse than white people. 

 

Alright, bud. Let's up ante shall we? Let's take this recent report from the United States Sentencing Commission. Which found that males commiting the same crimes as whites receiving federal prison sentences that are, on average, nearly 20 percent longer. These disparities were observed “after controlling for a wide variety of sentencing factors,” including age, education, citizenship, weapon possession and prior criminal history. 

 

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf

 

Go ahead, explain that away?

 

1 hour ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

No they are not, they are literally the exact same for pleas

I said trial. Not plea. Trial. As in the 10% of criminal cases that actually sees a judge for longer than 15 minutes. Which categorically are wholly different than bail hearings.

 

1 hour ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

So, 50% of the population so be disregarded because you view their views as inferior.  Very telling.

I don't really remotely care about the views of people who are demonstrably false, harmful to society, and gleefully anti-intellectual . Taking for instance the issue of man-made climate change which presents a global threat - if you honestly think I'm going to entertain someone who denies this reality, I have bad news for you. But I'm sure manmade climate change is also based on flawed research because it is supported by 99% of evil academia, right? 

 

1 hour ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Multiple studies...the funny thing is I do not completely disregard these studies, I think the causes and conclusions are wrong.  But it seems you outright disregard certain studies that contradict your views

Yet you fail to refute them and instead just tar them as "garbage" "bullsh*t" or some other choice word based on a singular sentence. Also the notion that I disregard the very view studies/articles you have provided is patently false. I have taken them apart one by one. You have to counter the bail studies with anything other than your anecdotal conceptions and flailing unsubstantiated attacks on their methodology. 

 

1 hour ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

There are so many people that disagree with you.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

 

Maybe try to find something actually substantial, rather than articles from right wing journals and musings from right wing think tanks.

 

ALSO, please learn to use the quote system. It's really not difficult.

[CosmicBuffalo]

1 hour ago, Raavi said:

 

You keep saying this, but you have utterly failed to refute it. In fact you have not even read the entirety of the introduction, let alone paid mind to the methodology. You just read something that ran counter to your own rose coloured perception of reality and dismissed a multiple-year very robust study based on that one sentence. Which is not only completely disingenuous it is also farcical. The premise of the study is that there are racial disparities in the bail amounts that are set. Which has been proven by a multitude of studies. It further finds racial bias in less experienced and part time judges' risk assessments. You have also completely failed to disprove this.

As long as you believe that black judges are racially biased against black defendants and also believe that black judges have an implicit bias in favor of white defendants because their colleagues are white...the study was fine.

Quote

Sure. Then black people disproportionately commit worse shoplifting offences than white people and disproportionately have worse antecedents ? I look forward to seeing you defending that proposition.

As stated, I am not under any obligation to cite anything.  The facts of each case are different and so is the defendant's history...and if you need a study to understand this...its not surprising, but its terribly ignorant.

Quote

Cool. So that once again means that the black defendants consistently and disproportionately were the worse more incorrigible defendants than their white counterparts. As said, I look forward to seeing you defend that assertion.

Now, would be an appropriate time to cite the U.S. murder statistics which I am not going to cite directly because I am sure you are aware of them.  I am sure you have your justifications.

Quote

Which supports the thesis brought for by the study at issue in that less experienced and part-time judges were more likely to rely on racially biassed stereotyping in terms of perceived danger. It, as the study also pointed out, doesn't mean that it comes from a position of racial animus or ill-intent. Them being less secure in their respective positions and more prone to repercussions from "bad calls" than their counterparts with more seniority could be one of the possible explanations why they were more likely to rely on these stereotypes, of course one would have to do more research to really establish that. 

The first conclusion is the one you keep skipping...why?  Because the rational breaks down as to why a black judge would have a racial bias against a black defendant.  Unless you are also ready to gobble down black judges have an implicit bias towards white defendants because their colleagues are white....gd this is literally scorched earth level stupid.

Quote

Aha, so you consider black defendants disproprotionately being the worse and more incorrigible defendant than their white counterparts to be a more likely explanation than implicit racial biases amongst less experienced and part-time bail judges. I would posit that this says a lot more about you, and your own biases than the validity of this study.

No, I just think each case is evaluated on its individual merits.

Quote

I wish you could appreciate how absurd the mental leaps you were making are in reality. You are once again posing that the more likely explanation for glaringly gross racial disparities (75%!!) is black people being worse than white people. 

Your leaps are so out there. Trying to pretend the entire justice system is infected with racial bias and that this is an accept fact.  You realize every time you claim a study is invalid that concludes against this, you appear more foolish than the last time.

Quote

Alright, bud. Let's up ante shall we? Let's take this recent report from the United States Sentencing Commission. Which found that males commiting the same crimes as whites receiving federal prison sentences that are, on average, nearly 20 percent longer. These disparities were observed “after controlling for a wide variety of sentencing factors,” including age, education, citizenship, weapon possession and prior criminal history. 

As stated, the facts of each case matters..same crime rarely if ever means the same set of facts. Also prior criminal history, to pretend that everyone's criminal history can be reduced to some sort of stat or be divorced from a sentence rendered is just laughable.

Quote

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf

 

Go ahead, explain that away?

Just did, facts, facts, facts, that's what matters.

Quote

I said trial. Not plea. Trial. As in the 10% of criminal cases that actually sees a judge for longer than 15 minutes. Which categorically are wholly different than bail hearings.

Here is what I said, "Courts in which a bond is issued are actually in essence no different than any other court and depends on when the bond is set."  Bond hearings are the same as almost all court hearings.  Here is what you said about bond courts. "Except for the fact that they are."  Bond courts and hearings are essentially the same as courts that hear pleas, and in fact more information is available during a bond hearing than a plea.  To even compare a bond hearing to an actual trial is laughable and is gross misunderstanding of the legal system.

Quote

I don't really remotely care about the views of people who are demonstrably false, harmful to society, and gleefully anti-intellectual . Taking for instance the issue of man-made climate change which presents a global threat - if you honestly think I'm going to entertain someone who denies this reality, I have bad news for you. But I'm sure manmade climate change is also based on flawed research because it is supported by 99% of evil academia, right? 

Then why are you criticizing my personal stances. "Also, disregarding race also serves to minimise the experience of tens of millions of black people in the US whom have and continue to experience the whole gamut of racial biases in their day to day lives. Education is a good avenue, however to cure the racial imbalance something like reparations that would allow people to better themselves economically should also seriously be discussed." This was written in response to "I strive to treat everyone the same regardless of race."  Which was in response to the implicit bias test you proposed, that was also garbage, and gave me a score of no preference for race....lol.  Way to try to equate social science with actual physical science...this is literally justification to disregard all your ideas.

Quote

Yet you fail to refute them and instead just tar them as "garbage" "bullsh*t" or some other choice word based on a singular sentence. Also the notion that I disregard the very view studies/articles you have provided is patently false. I have taken them apart one by one. You have to counter the bail studies with

anything other than your anecdotal conceptions and flailing unsubstantiated attacks on their methodology. 

Right, you cited 9 studies from the wa po guy.  Nice try though, you have dismantled nothing.  You called one study racist because it was based on IQ and I have been laughing ever since.

Quote

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

 

Maybe try to find something actually substantial, rather than articles from right wing journals and musings from right wing think tanks.

So writing a book about discrimination and disparate impacts, I guess that's nothing...go read his book, you're so ready to discredit everyone that disagrees with your uniformed nonsense.   Thomas Sowell has clearly better reasoning than you and most of people you are citing as authoritative.

Quote

ALSO, please learn to use the quote system. It's really not difficult.

You happy. I would bet...no.

Edited March 1, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[Svip]

I guess it's time to eat my own words.  Klobuchar and Bloomberg certainly don't look like likely compromise candidates at this point.  I assume some more candidates will drop out after Super Tuesday (in addition to Steyer who just dropped out).  Klobuchar could not capitalise on her good performance in New Hampshire, largely because the field was still big and divided.  But Buttigieg proved what we already knew, he just won't make it.

 

You may say, didn't Buttigieg outperform Klobuchar at every turn, why is she more likely than him then?  If a choice of compromise candidate is between Buttigieg and Klobuchar, she looks like the more progressive choice, by virtue of being a woman alone, I'm afraid.  And largely because I expect Buttigieg to drop out after Super Tuesday, and she won't.  The reason being that if Buttigieg completely tanks on Super Tuesday, which I expect, he will drop out.  But Klobuchar will likely win her home state of Minnesota, giving her campaign some momentum to stay on, probably picking up Buttigieg's voters.

 

To summarise; I see no path for Buttigieg, but I see a faint faint hope for Warren and Klobuchar.  Bloomberg remains an unknown factor heading into Super Tuesday, and Sanders and Biden looks like the front runners.

[sivispacem]

10 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

So writing a book about discrimination and disparate impacts, I guess that's nothing...

Is this the right point to mention that, having dismissed academics as biased and uninformed, you're quoting as a rebuttal an academic who, as an economist, has by definition little to no technical grounding in the subject you're citing him in the context of...and who, as Raavi has rightly pointed out, us far from an objective and impartial voice.

 

10 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

As long as you believe that black judges are racially biased against black defendants 

I see your basic reading comprehension hasn't improved since the last time you selectively misrepresented my views then completely ignored my rebuttal.

 

12 hours ago, Smith John said:

Gotta love how you lot still speak of the right as if they're the wrong type of thought; or, by default on this forum - yes, yes, the wrong type of thought!

You're fixating on the wrong thing here. It's cute that you leap into a rabid, frothing attack at any occasion that "right wing" is mentioned, but the actual words of importance are "nutters" and "white supremacists".

 

It's possible to be right wing and not a nutter, as much as you seem dedicated to dispelling this notion with your incoherent ramblings at the merest mention of the right.

[Raavi]

13 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

As long as you believe that black judges are racially biased against black defendants and also believe that black judges have an implicit bias in favor of white defendants because their colleagues are white...the study was fine.

We have been over this ad nauseam at this point. Yet you keep deliberately misrepresenting and omitting the key qualifiers in the introduction and conclusion of that study. They explicit find the racial biases in less experienced and part-time bail judges. You actually came up with a plausible explanation for this - namely that with more seniority comes more security in terms of being less prone to averse consequences for bad calls.

 

13 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

As stated, I am not under any obligation to cite anything.  The facts of each case are different and so is the defendant's history...and if you need a study to understand this...its not surprising, but its terribly ignorant.

This is just a cop-out as to not torpedo your own system of misguided beliefs. You cannot simply take mounts of evidence of racial disparities, and decades worth of research and then just go "nah, facts, facts of the case". Especially because these studies explicitly correct for everything from defendants that is to be taken as a factor in a bail-setting decision. Yet you keep glossing over this methodological reality as it is inconvenient for your own warped view of reality.

 

13 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Now, would be an appropriate time to cite the U.S. murder statistics which I am not going to cite directly because I am sure you are aware of them. 

Now, would be an appropriate time to again cite black people who are convicted of murder are about 50% more likely to be innocent than others.

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf

 

13 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

ay to try to equate social science with actual physical science...this is literally justification to disregard all your ideas.

To disregard legal academia and social science as junk science because it does not fit your hyper partisan rose coloured view of reality is justification to conclude you are just an absolute moron and I am wasting my time trying to reason with you. I hope for the sake of your clients that non of them are minorities.

 

13 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

You called one study racist because it was based on IQ and I have been laughing ever since.

Wait a minute, first you said you threw that study in as essentially bait, and now you are again advocating the notion that black people being dumber explains away racial disparities in the US criminal justice system. Which is just pseudo-science pedalled by those who subscribe to ethno-nationalist f*cktards. 

 

13 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Trying to pretend the entire justice system is infected with racial bias and that this is an accept fact.  You realize every time you claim a study is invalid that concludes against this, you appear more foolish than the last time.

The mental gymnastics required to be confronted with dozens of studies that proof the existence of racial disparities at every level and then to then try to explain it away by "nah facts lol", "nah black people dumb dumbs",  "nah black people assholes to judges lol" "nah black people disproportionately worse criminals than whites lol" rather than accepting that there are levels of racial bias present. Incredible.

 

That explains a lot though, you are just a racist yourself. 

 

 

[CosmicBuffalo]

Extreme Wa Po guy is actually less biased than you

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/01/30/mass-incarceration-new-jim-crow-class-war-or-both/

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/680988

https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/racial-disparities-suspension-rates-arent-driven-discrimination-least-wisconsin

https://www.city-journal.org/html/racial-profiling-myth-debunked-12244.html

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-02/ncsu-rns021104.php

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27590768?seq=1

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

 

Enjoy reading the footnotes and buying all the studies.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235217300880

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235299000252

 

 

 

Studies that show criminal justice is not racist but not directly taking on the issue.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004723521630143X

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235218300400

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235218303702

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235202001952

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235207000207

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004723521630099X

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235217302465

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235218304483

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235219304398

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004723521730096X

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235210000796

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209001482

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0047235284901144

 

Red dead being broken is not your friend...I complied this list in an hour.  I am so glad everyone that studies criminal justice is in agreement with your flagrantly biased on objectively wrong ideas.

 

Just for fun....liberal bias in criminal justice research.

https://www.conservativecriminology.com/studies-cited-in-our-book.html

Edited March 1, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[sivispacem]

38 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

I complied this list in an hour.

Posting thirteen academic papers entirely unrelated to the topic at hand isn't much of an achievement though, is it?

 

38 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Just for fun....liberal bias in criminal justice research.

Ahh, a book written solely to rebut ideology rather than empirical study sold with the tagline "important counterpoint to virtually every other academic text on crime".

 

Which is a very long winded way of saying "wrong".

[CosmicBuffalo]

Just now, sivispacem said:

Posting thirteen academic papers entirely unrelated to the topic at hand isn't much of an achievement though, is it?

Are you questioning academia?  How dare you! 

 

Im going to disagree on the unrelated part of your sentence.  Because you know, every one of the articles is related and highly relevant and counter to his position.

[sivispacem]

1 minute ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Are you questioning academia?

No, I'm questioning your general competence.

 

2 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Im going to disagree on the unrelated part 

Then you can summarise then argue the specific relevance of each individual paper's conclusions, in turn, to the topic at hand, can't you?

 

Chop chop.

[CosmicBuffalo]

Just now, sivispacem said:

No, I'm questioning your general competence.

 

Then you can summarise then argue the specific relevance of each individual paper's conclusions, in turn, to the topic at hand, can't you?

 

Chop chop.

Lol, enjoy reading each and every footnote.

[sivispacem]

4 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Lol, enjoy reading each and every footnote.

If you're not able to explain each article's conclusions, never mind their specific relevance to the topic at hand, then your assertion that they are relevant is entirely meaningless.

 

But in reality I don't think you ever expected to be challenged on the subject, because you desperately hoped a hopelessly transparent Gish gallop would deflect from your repeated inability to respond to other contributors' actual points rather than imaginary straw men.