Sen. Harry Reid, "We have too many judges on the Supreme Court."

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: daishi5
Sorry for the late reply, but I don't post from work. The paper I was talking about is Lott, John R.,Does a Helping Hand Put Others At Risk?: Affirmative Action, Police Departments, and Crime(2000). Economic Inquiry, April 2000. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=231100 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.231100
Does a Helping Hand Put Others At Risk?: Affirmative Action, Police Departments, and Crime .

It is important to point out that the study finds no evidence that hiring women affects the crime rate, only when standards are lowered to bring in more minorities and women does crime increase. I also wanted to discuss the one problem I have with AA. When AA gives preference to a minority who is completely equal in all other respects, no big deal. However, if a less qualified minority is chosen for a position, then other people who are affected by this position are hurt, albeit sometimes in a very minor fashion. If we force a business to hire a black man to help correct the wrongs of racism, and because of that several people who invest in that company make a few dollars less, that is not a big hurt. However, if the consequences of hiring that black man over a better qualified white man are that 3 more women are raped, that makes me really uncomfortable.

I firmly believe that we cannot implement AA, without there being some cost to society. Unfortunately, I have no way of estimating that cost, so I have to remain on the fence, because I do not know if it is a net positive, or a net negative.

In the study, Lott never made a proved causation between officer performance and crime rate. I do not think this is trivial. I do not think that LEOs deter or prevent crime on any large scale. They report on crimes after they are committed, and find suspects. A better study would have measured the quality of officer's reports and testimonies, things that LEOs can actually control.

I have not researched this, but I assume that crime is committed because of substance abuse, economic circumstances, perceived economic mobility, religion, family life, local culture, and policing policy (created by superior officers). Criminals do not consider the race or gender of the police. Few criminals consider officer performance before committing a crime; in urban communities with high rates of crime, police are assumed to be stupid racists if they're white, and stupid self-hating racists if they're of color. Whether this is true is unimportant.

I highly doubt an officer's ability to deter or prevent crime, and would like to see Lott's statistics compared with other data about urban communities, particularly those involving drug use and local economics.

Lott repeats concerns about female officer's physical abilities; never mind all the overweight male cops. A fit teenager or young adult will outrun and overpower many male officers, so this didn't seem like a fair argument against women officers.

Basically, I disagree with Lott's premise that quality of police officers has a measurable effect on crime.

I seem to have a hard time you really believe that the quality of your police force has little to no effect on crime. I cannot recall where I read this, but as I remember the single greatest impact on crime rates is the conviction rate. Repeat offenders cannot repeat their crimes from jail, and others who are near to them in some way are exposed in a very personel way to the realities of being caught and punished by the criminal justice system, thus causing them to choose not to commit a crime.

They do not think "our city has a highly effective violent crimes unit with a 75% conviction rate, and that means that I need at least [x] profit from a job to make up for the chance of being caught and its impact to me." Instead, it would most likely be something like "Steve got busted last week after breaking into that ladies home, I don't want to go to jail too." It is basically the same as cancer, when someone close to you dies of smoking, you become much more aware of the dangers of smoking. Thus, when a larger percentage of criminals are caught, a larger precentage of possible criminals decide that the danger of being caught is too great.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: daishi5
I seem to have a hard time you really believe that the quality of your police force has little to no effect on crime. I cannot recall where I read this, but as I remember the single greatest impact on crime rates is the conviction rate. Repeat offenders cannot repeat their crimes from jail, and others who are near to them in some way are exposed in a very personel way to the realities of being caught and punished by the criminal justice system, thus causing them to choose not to commit a crime.

They do not think "our city has a highly effective violent crimes unit with a 75% conviction rate, and that means that I need at least [x] profit from a job to make up for the chance of being caught and its impact to me." Instead, it would most likely be something like "Steve got busted last week after breaking into that ladies home, I don't want to go to jail too." It is basically the same as cancer, when someone close to you dies of smoking, you become much more aware of the dangers of smoking. Thus, when a larger percentage of criminals are caught, a larger precentage of possible criminals decide that the danger of being caught is too great.

I do not think deterrence works. I have been around enough young violent criminals to know that they do not consider the consequences of their actions. You cannot live a lifestyle where you have good odds to be dead or in jail while logically considering consequences. Drug addicts, who make up a large portion of violent criminals, are too desperate to care. A lot of theft, violence and murder isn't premeditated. A group of young men will see an opportunity, someone who is vulnerable, and take advantage of it. In the heat of the moment, surrounded by your buddies, you do not think about the police.

The criminal lifestyle is inherently arrogant. To believe that you will survive when everyone around you is dying and being arrested is to ignore logic. It requires a rejection of fear, and creates a superiority complex. This mindset does not allow for the consideration of cop performance, especially variable cop performance among officers. I think you're overestimating low level street criminals, the majority of which are young men living in a hypermasculine culture that considers fear of authority to be weakness.

That said, I do think that law enforcement policy can change urban crime. I just doubt the influence of individual police. I accept your first point about repeat offenders, but it was not in the study. In my previous post, I mentioned a desire to measure LEOs reports and testimonies and compare them by race. It would be interesting to see how well police officers do at solving cases, catching criminals and providing evidence to the prosecution.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: daishi5
I seem to have a hard time you really believe that the quality of your police force has little to no effect on crime. I cannot recall where I read this, but as I remember the single greatest impact on crime rates is the conviction rate. Repeat offenders cannot repeat their crimes from jail, and others who are near to them in some way are exposed in a very personel way to the realities of being caught and punished by the criminal justice system, thus causing them to choose not to commit a crime.

They do not think "our city has a highly effective violent crimes unit with a 75% conviction rate, and that means that I need at least [x] profit from a job to make up for the chance of being caught and its impact to me." Instead, it would most likely be something like "Steve got busted last week after breaking into that ladies home, I don't want to go to jail too." It is basically the same as cancer, when someone close to you dies of smoking, you become much more aware of the dangers of smoking. Thus, when a larger percentage of criminals are caught, a larger precentage of possible criminals decide that the danger of being caught is too great.

I do not think deterrence works. I have been around enough young violent criminals to know that they do not consider the consequences of their actions. You cannot live a lifestyle where you have good odds to be dead or in jail while logically considering consequences. Drug addicts, who make up a large portion of violent criminals, are too desperate to care. A lot of theft, violence and murder isn't premeditated. A group of young men will see an opportunity, someone who is vulnerable, and take advantage of it. In the heat of the moment, surrounded by your buddies, you do not think about the police.

The criminal lifestyle is inherently arrogant. To believe that you will survive when everyone around you is dying and being arrested is to ignore logic. It requires a rejection of fear, and creates a superiority complex. This mindset does not allow for the consideration of cop performance, especially variable cop performance among officers. I think you're overestimating low level street criminals, the majority of which are young men living in a hypermasculine culture that considers fear of authority to be weakness.

That said, I do think that law enforcement policy can change urban crime. I just doubt the influence of individual police. I accept your first point about repeat offenders, but it was not in the study. In my previous post, I mentioned a desire to measure LEOs reports and testimonies and compare them by race. It would be interesting to see how well police officers do at solving cases, catching criminals and providing evidence to the prosecution.

I think you underestimate and stereotype criminals. Yes, there are many who are arrogant, and do not use logic at all, but not all of them. I am sure there are criminals of all types, and some of them will be deterred, but not all of them. I know you spend a lot of time arguing against stereotypes of race and sexuality, I think you don't realize how you are stereotyping criminals. Some of them cannot be deterred, but some of them are just one small deterrent away from remaining a law abiding citizen. This study suggests that lowering the test standards has a bad effect on crime. It is not proof.

I did not intend to get into a deep discussion of the true effects of AA on the effectiveness of police. I wanted to discuss the potential costs that other members of society must bear when we enact policies to correct the wrongs of the past. There is no free lunch, and AA is no different. While some people oppose it and think it is useless or discriminatory ,I recognize that it has its benefits. However, I also know that there is a cost, and that the cost is mostly invisible, but all too real. Because, I do not know what that cost is, I do not feel that I can support one side or the other, but I was interested in hearing how you would feel if the cost of AA was very high for innocent people. My hypothetical question is not meant as a dismissal of AA, but merely to discuss this possibility.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: daishi5
I think you underestimate and stereotype criminals. Yes, there are many who are arrogant, and do not use logic at all, but not all of them. I am sure there are criminals of all types, and some of them will be deterred, but not all of them. I know you spend a lot of time arguing against stereotypes of race and sexuality, I think you don't realize how you are stereotyping criminals. Some of them cannot be deterred, but some of them are just one small deterrent away from remaining a law abiding citizen. This study suggests that lowering the test standards has a bad effect on crime. It is not proof.

I did not intend to get into a deep discussion of the true effects of AA on the effectiveness of police. I wanted to discuss the potential costs that other members of society must bear when we enact policies to correct the wrongs of the past. There is no free lunch, and AA is no different. While some people oppose it and think it is useless or discriminatory ,I recognize that it has its benefits. However, I also know that there is a cost, and that the cost is mostly invisible, but all too real. Because, I do not know what that cost is, I do not feel that I can support one side or the other, but I was interested in hearing how you would feel if the cost of AA was very high for innocent people. My hypothetical question is not meant as a dismissal of AA, but merely to discuss this possibility.

I realize that I'm stereotyping, and that not all criminals are alike. I am describing a certain type of criminal; the ones who are most effected by an increase in person of color police. I think that young men of color are constantly told that their value is a measure of their property (more so than mainstream society). An example of this cultural difference is the white middle class style that is clothes with holes in them. Looking like you're homeless is only cool if you aren't actually homeless.

Young MoC have a distinct drive for economic success, and for a large number of them, the path to that success is through criminal activity. This is a stereotype, I know, but it is based on cultural analysis. Evidence has shown that people emulate their roll models and young black and Latino men have pretty shitty roll models.

You ask, would I support Affirmative Action if it was proven to have high societal costs? Perhaps. It depends on the costs. If it is proven detrimental to MoC and women, then of course I wouldn't support it, but I do not think that is the case. I really believe that strong roll models are important for the next generation of society. I think that it is crucial that young women and MoC see competent, intelligent women and MoC in positions of power.

Opponents of Affirmative Action complain about "dumb minorities" replacing intelligent white men, but I rarely see that (Justice Thomas and Michael Steele being the only examples that come to mind). I wrote this before, but I'll repeat: affirmative action exists for white men too. Many businesses, universities and government positions have more qualified candidates than vacancies. Often, it comes down to personality, and connections. It's safe to say that the characteristics of the person making the hiring or admissions decision determines the characteristics of those whose personalities she will like and have professional networks with. Most politicians have family and friends in politics, and that's not a coincidence.

Affirmative Action is discriminatory, so it will be problematic any time it does not mirror the discrimination in the system. It could also be problematic if it replaces white men with women and MoC who are inferior workers. But, I do not think this is so common. First, I think that the additional perspective that women and MoC provide is valuable (see the study about women judges). Second, I do not believe that white men are that great are running things anyway. If recent history teaches us anything, it's that white men can be just as criminal and incompetent as everyone else. I'm not saying that a more diverse government and banking system would have prevented this, but I doubt they would have made it worse.

I support Affirmative Action because meritocracy is a myth. I think that the societal benefits of having women and MoC in positions of power outweigh the harms created by the discriminatory process. If this is reversed, then I will reverse my opinion on AA.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234
The simple fact is that when you have no real appreciation for the effects of the racism, pst and present, you are not going to much understand why it's just to make corrections.

The simple fact is that, as usual, you just jump to conclusions with no evidence, such as:

Even simpler facts are that you failed to respond to the points in my post for the most part, that my comment was using the general 'you' as in 'if you put your hand in a hornet nest, you will probably get stung', and that it left some room for you to show whether it applied to you or not, and finally that you failed to note what points don't need evidence, but rather need logic and values.

If I argue that capital punishment is always immoral based on its not valuing human life, I don't need 'evidence' to argue the point.

"You have no real appreciation for the effects of racism"
Hah. I was a sociology major in college. I've probably read and studied racism and other social issues at least as much as you have, maybe more.

It's to your credit you did - but not all who do have a clue anyway. Michael Savage has a degree in anthropology, but is clueless.

A degree in sociology does not guarantee you an appreciation of the legacy effects of past racist policies. It does suggest you are more likely to have an informed view.

I invite you to express that informed view if that's the case...

"You are not going to much understand why it's just to make corrections."
You just presuppose AA is the only 'just correction' available, and if someone opposes that, or questions its legality, they're opposed to all 'just corrections.' BS.

No, I don't - there are many other measures that are better in many situations, and AA should be used in a very careful and restricted manner.

My posts are defending AA from the universal attacks like yours which say it should never be used, not that it should be viewed as 'the only 'just correction' available'.

Look, I'll repeat one simple point, since I don't think you are going to get much more from this post.

When black families were kept in the worst parts of cities, denied education, denied money, for generations, while white families got those things, it creates an unequal playing field even after you snap your fingers and say 'ok, no more discrimination allowed'. You don't understand the effects.

It's a great accomplishment for blacks to then overvcome a lot of that to become qualified for positions - but often whites are 'better qualified' given the advantages.

This is what you can see in a community where blacks are underrepresented in the workforce - a cycle that they don't have the positions, so they are disadvantaged to get the things needed to beat white competitors, leaving them out of the positions disproportionately, leaivng them unable to get the things to help them compete, leaving them out of the positions, and it continues. This is where a bit of 'brute force' to level the palying field a little helps them get the positions - and their kids a better education etc.

It's just a small step and you can't undo most of the racism effects.

But to someone who is disadvantaged by the history of racism, it's important.

It requires them to do their part, and when the reason for them not getting something is their own fault, and the other issues are better addressed, fine, they lose out.

You don't seem to have any appreciation though for things such as the effects on 'culture' that that sort of racist history causes - it's understandble that you don't understand it.

We didn't used to understand the psychology of domestic abuse the way we do now, either.

From the founding of our country until fairly recently, 'spousal rape' did not exist legally. It took more understanding for people to see why it's a crime.

You seem to be locked into only one narrow view of race issues, one which does not include any effort to change the effects today that are caused by past racist policies.