I hope that this is true- the evolution of racial politics

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I have my own question. Now that there is going to be a black man in office, will the decision-makers in the criminal justice/law enforcement system now all of the sudden decide that it is a little odd that black people are disproportionately represented in the system? I have other questions too.

I would argue that the reasons behind this disparity have very little to do with "decision makers" in the criminal justice/law enforcement system (who I assume to be judges, lawmakers and police) - these decision makers have little control over educational or job opportunity, for example, two of the strongest correlating factors for finding oneself on the wrong side (rightly, wrongly or 'gray-area'-ly) of the legal system. The reasons behind the massive disparity on Death Row in Texas, for example, are much more complex than simply finding that black males get screwed by juries or judges - which is kind of ironic, as that's the classic mistake DSTC has been pointing out in this thread.

EDIT: I'm sure you realize all of this, and are more asking whether this is the opportunity for the "wake-up call" . . . my point is that whether or not it is, I'm not convinced it matters for that subset of the population. I'll go into more detail if you'd like, but I think that's a good start for feedback purposes.

[DrPhil]

This is all generally speaking, of course.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The reasons behind the massive disparity on Death Row in Texas, for example, are much more complex than simply finding that black males get screwed by juries or judges - which is kind of ironic, as that's the classic mistake DSTC has been pointing out in this thread.

It is a classic mistake, which is why I wasn't talking about getting "screwed by juries and judges." Structural and systemic processes are much more complex than that. We're looking at outcomes without assuming the intent of the actors or arguing that it only happens at one level. They generally occur at every step, before and after arrest.

For instance, crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentencing disparities are not just about judges (or juries) intentionally handing out tougher sentences for lower class and minority offenders. Social class is correlated with race just as the types of drugs that people deal and use are correlated with race. That affects arrest, as well, with an understanding that minorities and poorer people are arrested for crack cocaine than powder cocaine. Correlates of race such as education, employment, and social class are no secret to these decision makers and disparities in outcome are factors of these. Decision makers simply respond by saying that crack cocaine was/is linked to a violent crack cocaine epidemic and that the psychotic effects of crack cocaine are different than powder cocaine---prior offense and other legal factors are also considered. Still, there are race, social class, education, etc...correlates of this that result in a certain outcome despite intent and justification.

Suffice it to say that when controlling for prior convictions and other legal factors, a lot of research consistently finds extralegal factors such as race and social class are not salient while other research still finds them to be salient. That debate aside, the substantive significance of extralegal factors is not contingent upon statistical significance if we're arguing that there are more embedded and less visible processes that lead to very clear outcomes.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

For instance, crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentencing disparities are not just about judges (or juries) intentionally handing out tougher sentences for lower class and minority offenders. Social class is correlated with race just as the types of drugs that people deal and use are correlated with race. That affects arrest, as well, with an understanding that minorities and poorer people are arrested for crack cocaine than powder cocaine. Correlates of race such as education, employment, and social class are no secret to these decision makers and disparities in outcome are factors of these. Decision makers simply respond by saying that crack cocaine was/is linked to a violent crack cocaine epidemic and that the psychotic effects of crack cocaine are different than powder cocaine---prior offense and other legal factors are also considered. Still, there are race, social class, education, etc...correlates of this that result in a certain outcome despite intent and justification.

I really like this example - I think it nicely covers both the breadth of the issue and the depth of the problem.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Suffice it to say that when controlling for prior convictions and other legal factors, a lot of research consistently finds extralegal factors such as race and social class are not salient while other research still finds them to be salient. That debate aside, the substantive significance of extralegal factors is not contingent upon statistical significance if we're arguing that there are more embedded and less visible processes that lead to very clear outcomes.

All of this sort of research is subject to so many assumptions that it wouldn't be too hard to meet a 95% confidence interval supporting whatever hypothesis you set out to prove - I will say that it doesn't pass a "smell test" for me to simply claim that the entirety of the disparity in sentencing between whites and blacks is based on socioeconomic factors, though, and I'm quite suspicious of research that claims that as its analysis.

The issue, then, becomes whether the 'best' way to approach the problem (again, hypothetically) requires addressing the underlying factors or the agents - to me, it seems that a top-down approach attacking the underlying factors will naturally lead to change in the agents, but a.) that's a decidedly long-term solution that may not be practical and b.) it's quite pie-in-the-sky. With those caveats and to get back to preciousjeni's question, I'll guess it's not too likely that many decision makers stand up and say "hey, we're on the wrong path here when it comes to the legal or criminal justice systems" - at least not immediately - and that this shouldn't be expected until there's more awareness of the underlying factors involved.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

All of this sort of research is subject to so many assumptions that it wouldn't be too hard to meet a 95% confidence interval supporting whatever hypothesis you set out to prove - I will say that it doesn't pass a "smell test" for me to simply claim that the entirety of the disparity in sentencing between whites and blacks is based on socioeconomic factors, though, and I'm quite suspicious of research that claims that as its analysis.

After controlling for other factors, socioeconomic factors may be found to be the most salient. However, any good research will acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis so none of these findings should be taken in isolation from one another.

Unfortunately, policies and programs are often based on literal interpretations of research findings and the effectiveness of the policies and programs are assumed rather than tested.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The issue, then, becomes whether the 'best' way to approach the problem (again, hypothetically) requires addressing the underlying factors or the agents - to me, it seems that a top-down approach attacking the underlying factors will naturally lead to change in the agents, but a.) that's a decidedly long-term solution that may not be practical and b.) it's quite pie-in-the-sky. With those caveats and to get back to preciousjeni's question, I'll guess it's not too likely that many decision makers stand up and say "hey, we're on the wrong path here when it comes to the legal or criminal justice systems" - at least not immediately - and that this shouldn't be expected until there's more awareness of the underlying factors involved.

It isn't either/or to me. We need top-down and bottom-up approaches. It will take years to fully address disparities in factors like family attachment, education, and socioeconomic status. While we're working on that, we have too many poor people, minorities, and juvenile delinquents in the court and corrections systems without hope for rehabilitation or support mechanisms. This perpetuates a cycle of social disparity and violence that needs to be addressed. There's no point in improving education and other structural and cultural factors if there will be thousands of people released from facilities, and their family, who will have have difficulty adjusting to these improvements.

I am excited to be aware of the research on this and the outreach efforts that take a hands-on approach. There's a lot of stuff going on, even if the improvements are slow and seem to be falling on deaf ears.