Re: Re: youth crime enforcement bias (fwd)
MD writes: in the first place, everybody can see that the "funding" sources of the report prepared by the Justice Department are highly problematic. They are typical liberal type foundations such as Ford and Soros. As the NY Times article suggests "An unusual feature of the report is that its costs were underwritten by the Justice Department and several leading foundations: the Ford Foundation; the MacArthur Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation;[etc.] Basically, these foundations do not give a serious damn about racism in the criminal justice system just as they do not give a damn about human rights violations in any part of the world.. Does this mean that we should simply throw out all research done with similar funding, even if some of it suggests that racism is a serious problem in the US justice system? I don't think so. Foundation financing leads to a systematic bias in research, as has been pointed out many times, but that doesn't mean that any specific individual research project should be tossed out. Sometimes good research sneaks through, though perhaps using "Aesopian" language. Some of them provide good data even if they have conclusions we don't like. (We can emulate I.F. Stone, who knew how to dig up stuff that the powers that be didn't want us to know, even in the oppressive Truman-McCarthy era.) Further, there are a lot of biased and ideological papers that don't receive foundation financing (at least in economics). BTW, the only time I've asked for or received foundation funding was for my first year in graduate school. ... Shuger is asking, based on the report's findings (ie., black people are more likely to be "arrested" than white people or minority people are severely treated in each step of the justice system) to criticize the notion that white unarrest [?] is a prejudice and injustice. For him, it seems, white unarrest and black arrest is not a structural problem. I wouldn't know about his opinions on this matter. All I know is that he aims his skeptical -- curmudgeonly -- eye at all front-page stories in major U.S. newspapers. Sometimes he does so with vaguely leftish implications. Mostly, I'd agree, that his tendency is similar to that of the NEW REPUBLIC, which is neo-liberal and very weak on issues of racial discrimination (to say the least). (See the end of this message.) But we shouldn't spend too much time on Shuger as a person, since argument _ad hominem_ is a pretty useless activity. I'd agree with Brad he has a clear racist tinge to his thought, but his questions deserve to be answered, since his are questions that lots of white and even black people in the US think but don't vocalize or write down. Merely labeling the problem does not make it go away. When he implies that there are "law-abiding" whites so their unarrest is not a prejudice against blacks but a justice, in my view, he does an obscurantist nonsense. Whites are not arrested or less likely to be arrested because they are law-abiding, Mr Shuger!. They are NOT arrested because of the racist justice system in which black people find themselves racialized and criminalized vis a vie the whites. This suggests that whites are never arrested, but I would guess that that is not your intended meaning. I think it's a mistake to point to _only_ the criminal justice system as criminalized vis-a-vis the whites. Discrimination and segregation in housing, employment, schools, school funding, street-repair, etc. encourage more black people than whites to be poor, which in turn encourages them to engage in "street crime" as opposed to the white collar crime that more privileged folks can engage in. Further, there are important aspects of the criminal justice system these days (as oppose to that system in general) which are objectively racist, such as the war against drugs. Further, the fact that the system _as a whole_ gives most black folks the short end of the stick encourages them to view its rules -- embodied in the criminal justice system -- as simply a burden with few benefits. They are already stigmatized as not-law abiding. Because of this deeply structured prejudice,there are obvious racial disparities between whites and blacks interms of arrest, time of prisoning, incarceration, treatment by the criminal justice system, etc.. agreed. Some studies on racial disparities in crime rates offer similar results too. Turk's study (1971) suggests a link between the structural position of the "least powerful groups" in society, criminal labeling and unequal treatment. Diana Schully's (feminist, 1994?) study on rape presents even more devastating results such as differentail treatment between white and black women rape victims. Schully summarizes different case studies on how racism and sexism relate to one another (ie, if rapist is white, raped is black, or vice versa, or punishment of two rapists if one black and the other is white, etc..) Have you
Re: Re: youth crime enforcement bias (fwd)
MD writes: in the first place, everybody can see that the "funding" sources of the report prepared by the Justice Department are highly problematic. They are typical liberal type foundations such as Ford and Soros. As the NY Times article suggests "An unusual feature of the report is that its costs were underwritten by the Justice Department and several leading foundations: the Ford Foundation; the MacArthur Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation;[etc.] Basically, these foundations do not give a serious damn about racism in the criminal justice system just as they do not give a damn about human rights violations in any part of the world.. Does this mean that we should simply throw out all research done with similar funding, even if some of it suggests that racism is a serious problem in the US justice system? NO. I was not saying this. On the contrary, I was suggesting that Shuger does not really think that "racism is serious problem in the US justice system".He seems to think the figures in the report are over-stated although the data proves the contrary.Findings include: "Among young people who have not been sent to a juvenile prison before, blacks are more than six times as likely as whites to be sentenced by juvenile courts to prison." And: "Similarly, white youths charged with violent offenses are incarcerated for an average of 193 days after trial, but blacks are incarcerated an average of 254 days and Hispanics are incarcerated an average of 305 days." If Shuger does not believe in these figures, he can not think racism is serious issue at all.. I certainly believe that the figures in the report set out important facts. They do not deeply explain, however, why a big differential gap exists in the treatment of white and black criminals. This was the point of civil rights activist Soler (see the article). I am NOT saying that we should throw out the findings of the justice department.On the contrary, I am asking, based on their findings, how we can come up with an explanation of institutional racism. At this point, Shuger is not the proper reference point to criticize the report. Just as I don't rely on CATO's critique of affirmative action and the welfare state in the honor of so called black people (see one of the CATO papers on labor laws),I don't rely on NEW REPUBLIC journalists (neo-liberals) when they criticize state reports. Definetely, the capitalist state plays a substantive role in the institutionalization of racism, but Shuger commits even more racism than the so called politically correct bureaucrats in his beleif that blacks are unequally treated because of their cultural preferences-- different people, different cultures, different races, etc..Accordingly, Shuger ends up rationalizing racism from the standpoint of cultural theory. (See the sub-cultural experience thesis and the type of crime associated with blacks in my contribution to Brad's reply). I don't think so. Foundation financing leads to a systematic bias in research, as has been pointed out many times, but that doesn't mean that any specific individual research project should be tossed out. The point is about *Shuger*, not about the report per se (since I have not seen the report in details. I just stated its funding) Further, there are a lot of biased and ideological papers that don't receive foundation financing (at least in economics). oh really? BTW, the only time I've asked for or received foundation funding was for my first year in graduate school. cool! But we shouldn't spend too much time on Shuger as a person, since argument _ad hominem_ is a pretty useless activity. I don't see why you see this argument about Shuger as _ad hominem_. What he says is pretty clear to me just as it should be clear to you. If you think his comments about blacks (Brad's example) are excusable, I disagree with you. Furthermore, his recent comments on the report concerning statistical clarity do not justify his previous comments. When he implies that there are "law-abiding" whites so their unarrest is not a prejudice against blacks but a justice, in my view, he does an obscurantist nonsense. Whites are not arrested or less likely to be arrested because they are law-abiding, Mr Shuger!. They are NOT arrested because of the racist justice system in which black people find themselves racialized and criminalized vis a vis the whites. This suggests that whites are never arrested, but I would guess that that is not your intended meaning. I did *not* say whites are _never_ arrested. I meant that blacks are more likely to be sentenced, according to the report, by courts to prison. The reasons for that are structural racism, diproportionate treatment of blacks and discrimination based on "race", not lack of loyalty to the law as Shuger suggests. In other words, the constructuion of "law abiding citizen" is racially biased in favor of whites, which is what Shuger does not WANT to see in accordance with his
Re: youth crime enforcement bias (fwd)
Jim Devine: the author, Scott Shuger, was simply asking questions about these issues. I was hoping for answers to these questions rather than name-calling based on a partial reading. first, let me decompose the neo-liberal journalist Mr.Shuger's article and his critique of the report, within the scope of the literature on criminology and race. second, let me look at the report, which says that "Racial Disparities Are Pervasive in Justice System". For the time being, I will leave aside New York Times interpretation of the report. This is another issue. in the first place, everybody can see that the "funding" sources of the report prepared by the Justice Department are highly problematic. They are typical liberal type foundations such as Ford and Soros. As the NY Times article suggests "An unusual feature of the report is that its costs were underwritten by the Justice Department and several leading foundations: the Ford Foundation; the MacArthur Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Walter Johnson Foundation; the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which specializes in issues relating to young people; and the Center on Crime, Communities and Culture of George Soros's Open Society Institute". Basically, these foundations do not give a serious damn about racism in the criminal justice system just as they do not give a damn about human rights violations in any part of the world.. They fund such studies to look "politically correct. BUT, this is NOT Shuger's point. Shuger is not criticizing the report because there are capital interests behind it. Shuger is asking, based on the report's findings (ie., black people are more likely to be "arrested" than white people or minority people are severely treated in each step of the justice system) to criticize the notion that white unarrest is a prejudice and injustice. For him, it seems, white unarrest and black arrest is not a structural problem.When he implies that there are "law-abiding" whites so their unarrest is not a prejudice against blacks but a justice, in my view, he does an obscurantist nonsense. Whites are not arrested or less likely to be arrested because they are law-abiding, Mr Shuger!. They are NOT arrested because of the racist justice system in which black people find themselves racialized and criminalized vis a vie the whites. They are already stigmatized as not-law abiding. Because of this deeply structured prejudice,there are obvious racial disparities between whites and blacks interms of arrest, time of prisoning, incarceration, treatment by the criminal justice system, etc.. Some studies on racial disparities in crime rates offer similar results too. Turk's study (1971) suggests a link between the structural position of the "least powerful groups" in society, criminal labeling and unequal treatment. Diana Schully's (feminist, 1994?) study on rape presents even more devastating results such as differentail treatment between white and black women rape victims.Schully summarizes different case studies on how racism and sexism relate to one another (ie, if rapist is white, raped is black, or vice versa, or punishment of two rapists if one black and the other is white, etc..) Shuger, instead of asking the whys and hows of these problems, demystfies racism by raising obscure questions about the injustices of white arrest!! I forget the figures in Schully's book now. I recommend the book but i remember the turkish title only. from today's SLATE Magazine: The NYT off-lead, by the paper's national crime reporter, Fox Butterfield, a story nobody else fronts, is that a new comprehensive study purports to show that black and Hispanic teenagers are treated more severely than their white counterparts in the juvenile justice system. Findings include: "Among young people who have not been sent to a juvenile prison before, blacks are more than six times as likely as whites to be sentenced by juvenile courts to prison." And: "Similarly, white youths charged with violent offenses are incarcerated for an average of 193 days after trial, but blacks are incarcerated an average of 254 days and Hispanics are incarcerated an average of 305 days." And? isn't this a racism problem? (by just looking at the data)!! The story says that although in the past, when studies have found racial disparities in say, the number of inmates, critics have said the cause was simply that minorities commit a disproportionate that it finds disparities at each stage of the juvenile justice process. but civil rights activist Soler says a different thing according to the NY Times article.Soler comments on the weaknesses of *both* the previous studies and the report. In the past, when studies have found racial disparities in the number of adult black or Hispanic prison inmates, critics have asserted that the cause was simply that members of minorities committed a disproportionate number of crimes. That may be true, Mr. Soler said, but it does not account for the extreme
Re: Re: youth crime enforcement bias (fwd)
Jim Devine: the author, Scott Shuger, was simply asking questions about these issues. I was hoping for answers to these questions rather than name-calling based on a partial reading. first, let me decompose the neo-liberal journalist Mr.Shuger's Hey! Shuger is not a neo-liberal. I'm a neo-liberal. Shuger is a guy who believes that the reason African-American college students have fewer computers than white college students is that African-Americans prefer to spend their money on fast cars and loud music systems. What he is... is unprintable... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: youth crime enforcement bias (fwd)
Yes, Brad! and Shuger subscribes to "sub-cultural experience thesis"-- the thesis that relates racial inequalities to "cultural preferences" ie., I am an African American and I disbenefit from the system because I culturally "prefer" to do so, not because the system is racially biased. against me. This is a liberal position for it assumes people choose their preferences freely. The man is a hidden racist! Let's not save the man and leave the honor of the discussion to anti-racist struggle! Mine Doyran SUNY/Albany Shuger is a guy who believes that the reason African-American college students have fewer computers than white college students is that African-Americans prefer to spend their money on fast cars and loud music systems. What he is... is unprintable... Brad DeLong
Re: youth crime enforcement bias (fwd)
1. Which study is SLATER magazine referring to? Who did the study? SLATE magazine is Microsoft's on-line magazine of opinion, edited by Michael Kinsley. Its line is similar to that of the NEW REPUBLIC, but more coherent. The article is from their daily news summary. 2. Minority people are likely to be more "arrested" because of the racist justice system that "racializes", so to speak, race. Race is already part of this racial system, so the argument that race has no importance in criminal issues obscures rather than challenges racism . When SLATER says race does not matter, but "the difference in jail time", it denies the ideology of racism which associates crime with race. It is more of a liberal trick SLATER is doing here! the author, Scott Shuger, was simply asking questions about these issues. I was hoping for answers to these questions rather than name-calling based on a partial reading. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: youth crime enforcement bias (fwd)
Jim Devine wrote: the author, Scott Shuger, was simply asking questions about these issues. I was hoping for answers to these questions rather than name-calling based on a partial reading. The Slate report must have been based on the following article, which Doug fwd to lbo. New York Times - April 26, 2000 Racial Disparities Are Pervasive in Justice System, Report Says By FOX BUTTERFIELD lack and Hispanic youths are treated more severely than white teenagers charged with comparable crimes at every step of the juvenile justice system, according to a comprehensive report released yesterday that was sponsored by the Justice Department and six of the nation's leading foundations. The report found that minority youths are more likely than their white counterparts to be arrested, held in jail, sent to juvenile or adult court for trial, convicted and given longer prison terms, leading to a situation in which the impact is magnified with each additional step into the juvenile justice system. In some cases, the disparities are stunning. Among young people who have not been sent to a juvenile prison before, blacks are more than six times as likely as whites to be sentenced by juvenile courts to prison. For those young people charged with a violent crime who have not been in juvenile prison previously, black teenagers are nine times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile prison. For those charged with drug offenses, black youths are 48 times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile prison. Similarly, white youths charged with violent offenses are incarcerated for an average of 193 days after trial, but blacks are incarcerated an average of 254 days and Hispanics are incarcerated an average of 305 days. "The implications of these disparities are very serious," said Mark Soler, the president of the Youth Law Center, a research and advocacy group in Washington who also is the leader of the coalition of civil rights and youth advocacy organizations that organized the research project. "These disparities accumulate, and they make it hard for members of the minority community to complete their education, get jobs and be good husbands and fathers," Mr. Soler said. The report, "And Justice for Some," does not address why such sharp racial imbalances exist. But Mr. Soler suggested that the cause lay not so much in overt discrimination as in "the stereotypes that the decision makers at each point of the system rely on." A judge looking at a young person, Mr. Soler said, may be influenced by the defendant's baggy jeans or the fact that he does not have a father. In the past, when studies have found racial disparities in the number of adult black or Hispanic prison inmates, critics have asserted that the cause was simply that members of minorities committed a disproportionate number of crimes. That may be true, Mr. Soler said, but it does not account for the extreme disparities found in the report, nor for disparities at each stage of the juvenile justice process. "When you look at this data, it is undeniable that race is a factor," Mr. Soler said. The report, the most thorough of its kind, is based on national and state data initially compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, a Justice Department agency; the Census Bureau and the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research arm of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The report was written by Eileen Poe-Yamagata and Michael A. Jones, senior researchers with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, in San Francisco. An unusual feature of the report is that its costs were underwritten by the Justice Department and several leading foundations: the Ford Foundation; the MacArthur Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Walter Johnson Foundation; the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which specializes in issues relating to young people; and the Center on Crime, Communities and Culture of George Soros's Open Society Institute. Hugh B. Price, the president of the National Urban League, said that "this report leaves no doubt that we are faced with a very serious national civil rights issue, virtually making our system juvenile injustice." Mr. Soler and the coalition that put the report together want Congress to give the Justice Department at least $100 million to reduce racial disparities and require states to spend a quarter of their federal juvenile justice grants on the issue. A spokesman for Representative Bill McCollum, the Florida Republican who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, said he would have no comment because he had not seen the report. Mr. McCollum sponsored a bill last year that would have increased the number of juveniles tried in adult court. Nationally, the report found that blacks under the age of 18 make up 15 percent of their age group, but 26 percent of those young people
Re: youth crime enforcement bias (fwd)
1. Which study is SLATER magazine referring to? Who did the study? SLATE magazine is Microsoft's on-line magazine of opinion, edited by Michael Kinsley. Its line is similar to that of the NEW REPUBLIC, but more coherent. The article is from their daily news summary. My question was *not* about SLATE magazine. it was about the "recent comprensive study" mentioned in Shuger's acticle. I asked what the findings of the study was to understand SLATE's criticism. in any case, Carrol has just clarified it. 2. Minority people are likely to be more "arrested" because of the racist justice system that "racializes", so to speak, race. Race is already part of this racial system, so the argument that race has no importance in criminal issues obscures rather than challenges racism . When SLATER says race does not matter, but "the difference in jail time", it denies the ideology of racism which associates crime with race. It is more of a liberal trick SLATER is doing here! the author, Scott Shuger, was simply asking questions about these issues. I was hoping for answers to these questions rather than name-calling based on a partial reading. first, i need to read the article (which was my original question) to understand what he was trying to say. i can not rely on a neo-liberal magazine like SLATE without reading what is referred to. second, i don't think i did a partial reading. I read what it was written in SLATE. if you don't "partially" read the article, you will see that the author's questions were still racially biased. Shuger's claim that race does not matter, but "differences in jail time" or "clustering of groups" is a denial of systematic racism par-exellence. Racism is the ideology of "race does not matter" (like "class does not matter"). Shuger assumes we are living in a racially neutral system, the system that exactly makes the same claim as Shuger does.. i don't see a big challange to the study he is criticizing here, but let me read the study first. Mine
