- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 18,361
- Reaction score
- 13,801
Let's say you have two groups that commit crimes at relatively similar rates, which is what most studies indicate.
You police one group less, so you reveal less crime within that group, and the people within that group is proven to be treated less severely by the system so in the end it returns less incarcerations.
The other group is policed far more aggressively and while police actions return similar per capita instances of crime in the the end crime is found far more often in that group. That group is also prosecuted more aggressively and is less likely to be able to afford as good a defense so in the end it returns more incarcerations.
The numbers returned by these actions indicate there is more crime in one of the groups and so that policing of that group escalates. It's a feedback loop.
And a perfect example of systemic racism.
It's why stop and frisk was hated so much. If you stopped white people as often as you stopped black people you would have revealed just as much crime, although you would have been a lot less likely to prosecute, because they're white.
If you want to discuss homicide specifically, here's my position.
Prosecute the symptoms to the fullest extent of the law but don't ignore the root disease. Address WHY it's a problem and maybe, just maybe, listen to what sociologists have to say about it.
I'm saying absolutely lock up murderers but don't just do that and call it a day.
So...a subset of the overall population is responsible for a disproportionate amount of homicides. But that same subset also commits non-homicdal crimes at similar rates to other subsets of the population? I haven't reviewed statistics on this, but that's a pretty big leap of faith to make, IMHO. Conventional wisdom would argue those two statements aren't compatible, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.