Race and Crime

you sure are showing me, not.

 

No it doesn't. Conclusion:

"Where official policies or practices are racially discriminatory, the State party to the treaty must act affirmatively to prevent or end them. Indeed, full compliance requires elimination of racial inequalities resulting from structural racism." This is not saying that there is structural racism/racially discriminatory policies or practices in the US!

You haven't quoted from the US Sentencing Commission.

Based on what evidence?

 

The entire article is full with claims that racial bias plays a roll in the discrepancy of how black people end up being arrested THAT much more, and it mentions in the conclusion that structural racial discrimination must be dealt with... and so it's crystal clear they are telling that structural racism exists. Who cares that you are trolling around claiming the exact opposite.

I did not since I replied to your "Why would the US government make a policy to counter systemic racism"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-names-still-less-likely-to-get-the-interview

Well well... source number 7.

 

You haven't quoted anything from the article which contains "racial bias."

Which doesn't mean that it exists.

How is that the reason that you didn't quote from the US Sentencing Commission?

 

HRW says cops are flat out racial profiling black people. That's seeing black people as suspicious because they are black. And you think that's not applying a racial bias?
/facepalm

They are telling the US government to it must be dealt with, and the US government can't deal with it if it does not exist. Simple.

Because I can't be bothered. the US sentencing commission is rather clear.
They see black people get harsher sentences compared to white people under the same circumstances as in criminal history etc.
The only difference is the color of the skin. It's probably above your head to make a conclusion out of that.

 

Yes it does because they view ANY racial disparity that disfavors blacks to be "structural racism"

 

In the same way they see men as suspicious because they are men is a sex bias. But its not sexism against men. Its a result of their lived experience in enforcing criminal law.

And its not racism in the case of blacks.
"There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved." The Reverend Jesse Jackson. (Kennedy 1998, 16)

 

You're deflecting

He recognizes the racial bias, while this is not disputing HRW and their opinion about systemic racism.

 

It's his racial bias that leads him to believe that he is more likely to be mugged at night on the street by black people, not white.

Jesse's bias isnt racism. And any bias that leads to a disparity is labeled by CRTers and HRW as systemic racism. Its not, its the police knowledge that blacks make up 57% of their murder suspects and 54% of their robbery suspects, even though they are only 13% of the population. And thats why Jesse is relieved when its white faces walking up behind him on the streets at night.

 

It's rather clear he finds the racial bias painful.

It is, because they say it is and I do not care about your opinion if you can't find a source to back it up.

 

They might say that in other parts of the article, but in that conclusion statement which I quoted, they are not saying that. That statement is something that even the most hardcore conservative can agree with, myself included. You too perhaps.

 

Response to post 1235

Still, Jesse racial bias isnt racism and neither is the police racial bias.

 

You haven't quoted anything to do with that.

Quote where they are specifically addressing the US government.

And again, you haven't quoted from the US sentencing commission.

 

The requirements of a malign intent as well as a racially disparate effect for a finding of racial discrimination in United States constitutional jurisprudence differ from those in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which the United States has ratified.[3] In defining discrimination, the treaty decouples intent from impact. Prohibited discrimination occurs where there is an unjustifiable disparate impact on a racial or ethnic group, regardless of whether there is any intent to discriminate against that group. Where official policies or practices are racially discriminatory, the State party to the treaty must act affirmatively to prevent or end them. Indeed, full compliance requires elimination of racial inequalities resulting from structural racism.[4]

As a party to ICERD, the United States is bound by its provisions and obligated to ensure its fulfillment.[5] It must "condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms."[6] It must not engage in any act or practice "of racial discrimination against person, groups of persons or institutions and ... [it must] ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation."[7] In addition, it must "review governmental, national and local policies, and . . . amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists."[8]

 

Even Dixon quoted it in post 1187.

you already quoted this yourself in post 1227.

Again: so what.

 

This is YOUR argument, not @dixon76710's! So YOU should be quoting from the study in order to support YOUR argument!

Here is the quote from post 1227, and as you can see, there is nothing in it which is addressing the US government:

"Where official policies or practices are racially discriminatory, the State party to the treaty must act affirmatively to prevent or end them. Indeed, full compliance requires elimination of racial inequalities resulting from structural racism."

So what? Well you made a claim that the US sentencing commission said something, but you did not quote from it!

 

The "US government" would be the "State party to the treaty" they refer to.

 

You should have read it yourself, like dixon did.
You're not even making an argument.

Who else but the US government can implement different policies for American governmental agencies?

Again. So what. You're not even making an argument.

 

The US government isn't the only State party to the treaty, is it?

 

No, but the next sentence makes clear who they are referring to.

"As a party to ICERD, the United States is bound by its provisions and obligated to ensure its fulfillment."

You are the one who agreed with their assessment. Why do you now seem to deny it?

 

The point is that it equally applies to all States party to the treaty.

What assessment? That there is institutional racism?

 

This is YOUR argument, not @dixon76710's! So YOU should be quoting from the study in order to support YOUR argument!

Is the article talking about implementing different policies for American governmental agencies?

So your claim about the US sentencing commission remains totally unsupported!

 

No one claimed otherwise.

This one

HRW considers any racial disparity to be the result of structural racism. For instance the police focusing on where they get all the complaints of people selling drugs out on the street in the open, which predominately occurs in high crime minority areas, is structural racism because it results in a disparate impact upon blacks. Remember, you "100% agree with what Human Rights Watch is saying here"

 

So what. It's been quoted, yet you're making no attempt to make an argument.

Who else but the US government can implement different policies for American governmental agencies?

I gave a link / can lead a horse to water, can't make it drink.

 

You did not quote anything about racial profiling. Simple!

You haven't quoted the article talking about implementing different policies for American governmental agencies!

Uh, you've already admitted that you did not quote from the US sentencing commission!