Social A Judge Asked Harvard to Find Out Why So Many Black People Were In Prison

Why don't Asian countries thrive, even though Asians who emigrate to the U.S. do thrive?

When I said thrive I means fitting in the community, contributing, generating good things, being a positive impact.

Asian countries ARE thriving, they have exceeded exceptionally for the last decades, they are still poor but have come a long way and are an impressive market. Mean time African Americans do it just as bad as their ancestors in Africa, but in a much better environment.

Without sacrifice the gap will be there, that's the mentality people need to understand, if families sacrifice themselves for the future of their families they will be better off in the future, that culture is lacking and harms them more than any laws from the 60s
 
Yeah because you can't read for shit. What do you disagree with?

1. Blacks in the US commit more crime than white people (per capita).
2. Blacks in the US have higher testosterone.
3. Testosterone is linked to aggressive behavior.

Blacks have all that but whites don't? I mean they only invaded north America and other countries killing millions ... Not counting the killing today.


Not sure if your serious lmao. They sure have alot of testosterone too .


So ignorant to think a person race has anything to do with aggression lol.
 
They are. It'd interesting that the black family survived Jim crow and slavery, but not welfare.
Blacks were actually succeeding despite the system set up to hold them down. Soon as welfare shower up all their gains were wiped out. The commies got them hard
Starting in the 70s families of all races starting breaking down as single motherhood rose across the board. But even before that blacks did have more unstable families, probably not unrelated to the poverty that was foisted upon them through systemic policies. So while every race saw an increase in out of wedlock births, blacks had a higher starting point and thus remain more likely to have out of wedlock births today as they did decades ago.

No one really knows why this happened. Obviously some people who disagree with welfare and want to cut it like to blame welfare but there are other relevant trends that date back to that period as well. We had a move from Keynesian economics under Reagan to more neoliberal deregulation, the rise of second wave feminism, increased access to contraception and abortion. Lots of things could've precipitated it.
 
The war on drugs obviously targets low income poverty areas. Blacks and minorities live in those areas at a higher rate than whites.

It has been shown by data that whites were getting less time or even no time at all for drug charges while blacks were going to prison for years for same charges .

I don't think people should go to prison for drugs to start with.

You don’t account for previous criminal records and neither do the studies. No two criminals have the same criminal backgrounds. As someone who has studied and used criminal background checks for years, I can 100% tell you that the white vs black career criminals have very different criminal histories. There were almost always long and violent backgrounds for one group and the other was filled with mostly misdemeanors. My opinion is that the sentences for both groups were a joke and rarely commensurate with their crimes or history.

I will say that when checking triple I’s(fbi record of everything a person has been charged with not just convictions) the people I usually did a check on were for the required charges-domestic, dui, shoplifting, serious crimes, and specifically, people from Cleveland.

Why Cleveland? Because that is where most of our serious drug dealers come from. They flood smaller towns and cities for up to hundreds of miles away in a study of economics-buy low in big city and sell high in smaller areas. But in checking the histories of the Cleveland criminals(exclusively black) they have crazy long histories. Average was probably around 9-10 pages vs 1-4 pages for the rest of criminals. I was shocked to see people get so little time for malicious wounding with a firearm or armed robbery and get 13 months over and over again.

What this has taught me is that you have a smaller number of offenders that reoffend over and over again. I think we should not have three strikes law as it stands, but when someone gets that third violent criminal felony, they go away for 25 years instead of life. But these are often the same people dealing drugs as well.

As for the over policing aspect, police go where the crime is. Police don’t go out saying “let’s get a black guy” they answer calls on these subjects or patrol the areas with the highest violent crime. That is almost always the black communities by their own doing.
 
Starting in the 70s families of all races starting breaking down as single motherhood rose across the board. But even before that blacks did have more unstable families, probably not unrelated to the poverty that was foisted upon them through systemic policies. So while every race saw an increase in out of wedlock births, blacks had a higher starting point and thus remain more likely to have out of wedlock births today as they did decades ago.

No one really knows why this happened. Obviously some people who disagree with welfare and want to cut it like to blame welfare but there are other relevant trends that date back to that period as well. We had a move from Keynesian economics under Reagan to more neoliberal deregulation, the rise of second wave feminism, increased access to contraception and abortion. Lots of things could've precipitated it.
I disagree with some of that, as black marriage did survive everything else.

One thing is that blacks tend to stick together and support each other. No matter what. I think when some got into stupid self destructive stuff in the late 60s, instead of being outcasts, they dragged many downloads with them. They took a positive trait and turned it around and now it is destructive
 
You don’t account for previous criminal records and neither do the studies. No two criminals have the same criminal backgrounds. As someone who has studied and used criminal background checks for years, I can 100% tell you that the white vs black career criminals have very different criminal histories. There were almost always long and violent backgrounds for one group and the other was filled with mostly misdemeanors. My opinion is that the sentences for both groups were a joke and rarely commensurate with their crimes or history.

I will say that when checking triple I’s(fbi record of everything a person has been charged with not just convictions) the people I usually did a check on were for the required charges-domestic, dui, shoplifting, serious crimes, and specifically, people from Cleveland.

Why Cleveland? Because that is where most of our serious drug dealers come from. They flood smaller towns and cities for up to hundreds of miles away in a study of economics-buy low in big city and sell high in smaller areas. But in checking the histories of the Cleveland criminals(exclusively black) they have crazy long histories. Average was probably around 9-10 pages vs 1-4 pages for the rest of criminals. I was shocked to see people get so little time for malicious wounding with a firearm or armed robbery and get 13 months over and over again.

What this has taught me is that you have a smaller number of offenders that reoffend over and over again. I think we should not have three strikes law as it stands, but when someone gets that third violent criminal felony, they go away for 25 years instead of life. But these are often the same people dealing drugs as well.

As for the over policing aspect, police go where the crime is. Police don’t go out saying “let’s get a black guy” they answer calls on these subjects or patrol the areas with the highest violent crime. That is almost always the black communities by their own doing.

There was studies done with same crimes and same drug charges too and showed pretty much same data.
 
Your whole theory on race is very anti-science. Melanin in skin has nothing to do with criminality. Also the so called "races" are so recently removed from each other that the sort of brain-difference you are suggesting is simply impossible biologically. Superficial differences like stature and skin color mutate and change a lot faster than brain chemistry.
Where did you pull this out from? The central nervous system expresses 80% of our coding genome, meaning if there are differences (which there clearly are) there's an 80% change they'll affect the brain. In fact no one claims the color of skin is what constitutes race, that's just one of the many differences between people who have been geographically isolated for over 200k years (I can give you on others if you're actually curious).
Let me educate you on evolution: it did not stop at the neck. Thank me later.
 
I disagree with some of that, as black marriage did survive everything else.

One thing is that blacks tend to stick together and support each other. No matter what. I think when some got into stupid self destructive stuff in the late 60s, instead of being outcasts, they dragged many downloads with them. They took a positive trait and turned it around and now it is destructive
You can disagree but facts are facts
Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites. Every year about one million more children are born into fatherless families. If we have learned any policy lesson well over the past 25 years, it is that for children living in single-parent homes, the odds of living in poverty are great. The policy implications of the increase in out-of-wedlock births are staggering.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

So even in 1965 the rate of out of wed lock births among blacks was higher than of whites in 1990 by which time over half of black infants were born out of wed lock
 
"The average Black person’s sentence is 168 days longer than a sentence for a white person. Even when the researchers controlled for criminal history, jurisdiction, and neighborhood, they concluded: “[R]acial disparities in sentence length cannot solely be explained by the contextual factors that we consider and permeate the entire criminal justice process.”
They've failed to take one important factor into consideration though. Sentences in a large number of convicts are going to vary. One race has to have longer sentences in statistics because obviously it would be unrealistic if sentences were exactly uniform, that would be an extremely unlikely statistical fluke. I'm not saying it's wrong. I think with the public perception of black gang culture, it will probably have an impact on some judge's decision on a sentence. But a study like this is not proof of anything.
 
Damn where I live my ethnic group is the reason crime numbers are some of the highest in the nation. At least we can acknowledge it’s because we like having a good time.
 
When I said thrive I means fitting in the community, contributing, generating good things, being a positive impact.

Asian countries ARE thriving, they have exceeded exceptionally for the last decades, they are still poor but have come a long way and are an impressive market. Mean time African Americans do it just as bad as their ancestors in Africa, but in a much better environment.

Without sacrifice the gap will be there, that's the mentality people need to understand, if families sacrifice themselves for the future of their families they will be better off in the future, that culture is lacking and harms them more than any laws from the 60s
Oh, so that's your definition of "thrive".

African-Americans are thriving by your definition. They have fit in the community - they've shaped the cultural zeitgeist of the U.S. for decades, contribute - from the actual sweat equity that they put into the nation to the intellectual contributions, generated good things from music to entertainment to inventions and IP and are being a positive impact - without African American efforts, no one would have a right to vote except white men, not Asians, not women, not Hispanics. And that's all within the last 100 years.

Or are you going to look for some way to diminish all of the contributions that African Americans made, make, and continue making to the US while still pretending that dirt poor, poorly run Asian nations are "thriving".
 
Oh, so that's your definition of "thrive".

African-Americans are thriving by your definition. They have fit in the community - they've shaped the cultural zeitgeist of the U.S. for decades, contribute - from the actual sweat equity that they put into the nation to the intellectual contributions, generated good things from music to entertainment to inventions and IP and are being a positive impact - without African American efforts, no one would have a right to vote except white men, not Asians, not women, not Hispanics. And that's all within the last 100 years.

Or are you going to look for some way to diminish all of the contributions that African Americans made, make, and continue making to the US while still pretending that dirt poor, poorly run Asian nations are "thriving".

Wakanda Forever
 
Blacks have all that but whites don't? I mean they only invaded north America and other countries killing millions ... Not counting the killing today.
That doesn’t refute anything I said.

Not sure if your serious lmao. They sure have alot of testosterone too .


So ignorant to think a person race has anything to do with aggression lol.
 
Oh, so that's your definition of "thrive".

African-Americans are thriving by your definition. They have fit in the community - they've shaped the cultural zeitgeist of the U.S. for decades, contribute - from the actual sweat equity that they put into the nation to the intellectual contributions, generated good things from music to entertainment to inventions and IP and are being a positive impact - without African American efforts, no one would have a right to vote except white men, not Asians, not women, not Hispanics. And that's all within the last 100 years.

Or are you going to look for some way to diminish all of the contributions that African Americans made, make, and continue making to the US while still pretending that dirt poor, poorly run Asian nations are "thriving".

Exactly. But that still not enough to show their worth to some people. It's sad when you think about it.
 
And why do you think that is? Are people of african descent somehow biologically incapable of living peaceful lives with intact families? Or might there perhaps be some deeper, underlying social problems that have largely contributed to creating the situation you just described?

I mean just the trauma of the slave trade alone was more than enough to leave emotional scars for many generations , not to mention racial segregation and the war on drugs, one right after the other like a 1-2-3 combo. America has done fuck all to repair that profound level of damage that was done to the collective psyche of the american descendants of slavery. Instead they are told to simply put the past behind them and get their shit together.

Healing trauma like that takes a lot of time and effort and it wont happen at all if our society is still busy inflicting more trauma.

Imagine never being a slave and not knowing anyone alive who was a slave, but being "traumatized" by it.

My great grandfather was at the Battle of the Somme. Can I be traumatized by that and use it as a crutch and excuse for every piss poor decision I make ? Can I demand "reparations" from the Germans for my "pain and suffering"? Give me a fucking break. How about taking some fucking responsibility for your own piss-poor decision making and choices in life?

Speaking of "underlying social problems", did "underlying social problems" rape the sperm out of Antonio Cromartie, Travis Henry and Eric Wright (Eazy E) testicles and forcefully rape this sperm into the uteruses of all the different women they had kids with ?

Eric Wright - 11 kids with 8 different women.

Travis Henry - 11 kids with 10 different women confirmed, more suspected, $170,000 a month in child support payments, which he repeatedly has failed to make.

Antonio Cromartie - 13 kids, so many he can't even remember all their names.



Let me guess, "slavery", right?
 
Last edited:
You want the honest answer or the one that will help you sleep at night?

The honest answer is that the criminal justice system has been disproportionately directed at policing black communities from the end of slavery. That the Jim Crow era legality of segregation made it justifiable to direct police resources at black individuals simply for being somewhere that someone else decided they should not be. There is a legacy issue there.

Moreover, the Hoover era FBI instructed local police to focus on black leaders within their communities as potential hotbeds of insurrection and a source of attacks on American national security (part of COINTELPRO).

The legacy of these choices meant that even though black and white communities used drugs at similar rates, the police were inclined to look at black communities more aggressively. This meant more arrests. Long term, it contributed (contributed, not that it's the only element) to the destruction of those communities. Reinforcing a cycle of poverty whereby yong black offenders received prison snetences while their non-black counterparts didn't. Which makes it harder for those individuals to eventually obtain jobs and lift themselves out of poverty. Thus making crime a more attractive option, relative to someone without a criminal conviction who can still seek work.

Or did you want the simplistic answer of "Well, they commit more crime." I hope not because it's not true. Drug use, which makes up the majority of these arrests and sentences, is the same in both communities.

Perhaps you want to simple answer of "Police see black drivers engaged in illegal activity and so stop their cars more often for that." That's not true either, the discrepancy between black and white traffic stops pretty much disappears after dark, right when the ability of the officer to easily discern the race of the driver declines.

The core honest answer is that you find more of what you're looking for. If you're looking for black criminals, you're going to find them. If you're looking for white criminals, you're gonig to find them too. But when you're looking more aggressively for black criminals than white criminals, you're going to find more black criminals than white criminals. And then you'll use finding more black criminals as justification to increase your aggressive search for black criminals, resulting in finding even more black criminals. Then that resutl justifies even more aggressive searching.

Note, this isn't a claim that black people aren't committing crimes. It's an explanation for why there's a discrepancy in the arrest and incarceration rates. Or to put it in words that will probably rustle some jimmies: We shouldn't see a reduction in arrested black criminals. We should be seeing an increase in arrested white ones.

3% of the population (black males 16-40) committing over 50% of the murders in America each year.

Care to explain away that discrepancy and somehow link it to racism?
 
Kyle Rittenhouse will get his day in court

Lol @ comparing Kyle to some Crips pulling a driveby in a Blood neighborhood and killing an 8 year old eating ice cream on her front porch.

Cause those 2 are definitely similar circumstances, AMIRITE ?
 
Eric Wright - 8 kids with 11 different women.


PIkprkZ.gif
 
Its obviously a culture problem. A lot of minorities come to America with literally nothing like my family but we dont have any criminals in my family.

Yes, but they don't have the same history as blacks in America. Africans from Africa do well here too but their history was different as well. They usually grew up with there families including their fathers.
 
Back
Top