[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Psst. Hey X:
This report shows blacks and whites use illegal drugs–i.e., commit use and possession crimes at about the same rate–but that blacks are significantly and disproportionately arrested and convicted more often. In other words, although Whites are a much larger percentage of the population and use illegal drugs at the same rate:
? African Americans constituted 53.5 percent of all persons who entered prison because of a drug conviction;
? Blacks were 10.1 times more likely than whites to enter prison for drug offenses;
? A black man was 11.8 times more likely than a white man to enter prison for drug offenses;
? A black woman was 4.8 times more likely than a white woman to enter prison for drug offenses;
? Among all African Americans entering prison, almost two out of five (38.2 percent) were convicted of drug offenses, compared to one in four whites (25.4 percent); and
? Although still dramatic, the racial disparity in the ratio of black to white prison admission rates for drug offenses in 2003 was in most states less than in 1996. Nevertheless, because of the increase in the disparity in states with large populations such as New York and California, the racial disparity across the 34 states was higher in 2003 than it was in 1996. In 2003, the black prison admission rate for drug offenses was 10. 1 times that of whites. In 1996, it was 9.9 times greater.
P.S.
You are welcome.
[/quote]
Not all drug crimes are equivalent. Getting busted with a joint on you is not the same as getting busted with 100 plants in your basement is not the same as getting busted selling to elementary school kids.
Do you have more specific statistics? “Drug crimes” is too broad of a criteria to show bias. It could be just as easily that they commit different kinds of violations or with different quantities or with different types of drugs. It could also be that the correlation is actually with poverty which also happens to correlate to race. Or, more probably, some collaboration of factors.
Again correlation and causation seem to be getting confused here.
There are a vastly disproportionate number of blacks in the NBA and whites in the NHL, that does not prove racism or bias in the system.[/quote]
I agree there is a difference between intentional discrimination and mere “disparate impact”, but where there is obvious disparate impact I think this certainly justifies asking questions and digging a little deeper. X was getting slammed out of hand for suggesting that there might not be a direct correlation between conviction rate and commission rate of crimes or that there aren’t real disparities in the system. Getting data to support or refute this theory is tough for obvious reasons. But drug use is one crime that has been researched enough to where social scientists have a pretty good handle on actual commissions rates to compare to conviction rates. Not exact, no doubt, but there is a lot of data, more so than with other types of crimes. I suspect that’s why HRW focused on this particular type of crime, and the report explains the data it is relying on for you to judge for yourself if it has any validity.
I think the question is complex, but at some point if the stats raise the inference that there are real disparities based on race on commission versus conviction rate, the burden shifts to proponents of the system to show there are good racially neutral or harmless reasons for the disparities, not the other way around. This is just one report, and you make good points, but I think this report raises legitimate questions in my mind about whether there are, in fact, real and substantial inequities in the system based on race that need to be explained before we can safely declare no racial bias.