How about just answering my question? I’m simply asking what percent of crime in an all-white town the size of Furgeson you’d expect to come from the poorest 67%?
67%? Less than 67%? More than 67%?
Some number greater than 67, but according to the report, this was taken into account and there was still a disparity after considering both differing racial and economic circumstances of crime.
Can you show me where? For instance, the 93% number is talked about on pages 4 and 62. I don’t see where the get to something that would answer my question.
The part you bolded said " If it’s something that could easily be demonstrated then I’m interested". “Easily” means as opposed to reading through entire reports, and “demonstrated” means as opposed to saying “the report concluded that X”.
The first paragraph you quoted is just the conclusions of the report, rather than the evidence. The second controls for a bunch of variables with the notable exception of actual criminal activity, which is the specific factor I asked about.
Even Richard Parker’s cite (which I’ve disputed as above) only showed a 26% lower likelihood of being found with contraband, so by all accounts much of that 2.07 number appears to be justified.
Again, I thought my previous post was a direct answer, and a more helpful one to the discussion than idling speculating. But I’ll try again:
I think “more” is most likely, but this should not be treated as some kind of well-established premise. We don’t know the answer with very much certainty because we have relatively little evidence about the underlying rate of commission of most crimes independent from the policing of those crimes. Based on the limited data we do have, economic factors appear to play a role, though the extent to which that correlates with other factors that are the actual drivers–lead, say–is unknown.
That’s fair. But any reaction that concludes that the numbers are proof of racism is based on an assumption: that the higher numbers (higher than the 67%) are unreasonably for a non-racist explanation. You and iandyiiii both seem to agree with my assumption that it is reasonable that the numbers will be higher than 67%, just based on poverty alone. So, where is the cut-off that determines what that any number higher than X% is likely due to something other than poverty alone, e.g. racism?
If the only evidence we had were that Ferguson police had disparate arrests and prosecutions of black people, then I would agree that we would need to know more before concluding that racism was at work. As you suggest, poverty is another important variable.
But the DOJ didn’t rely just on this one fact. They computed the disparities in searches, arrests, fines, and other factors and then added: comparisons to other municipalities; interviews with city officials about their thoughts on African Americans; racist emails and how those emails were treated; anecdotes about individual encounters; community interviews about police interactions; and a whole host of other facts. From that totality of evidence, they concluded that there’s some racist policing happening in Ferguson, along with other problems.
They also did some statistical work, attempting to control for income and other factors. This isn’t like doing physics. It too involves some assumptions, and inferences, and the attempt to control for factors is never complete. But this evidence also pointed to race as the salient factor in the police decisions, and not some third factor like poverty.
There’s a lot of statistics fail in this thread. Case in point:
Care to explain how a lower observed rate of contraband justifies more than double the amount of exposures?
You don’t want to read the entire report, you want something easy, but you don’t find acceptable simply referring to the conclusion that the report draws. There’s a disconnect here. I could suggest you read the report to find the information you seek, but you’ve ruled it out. I could post the conclusion as a summary but you think that’s insufficient because it’s just the conclusion. I guess…good luck with that?
It’s already been done:
The black:nonblack arrest rate in Santa Monica, California is almost 2.5 times that of Ferguson.
I’m not sure if you’ve been following this discussion (or the issue entirely) but you may want to reread more carefully.
In brief, the 26% is not an “observed rate of contraband” which might be used to “justif[y]” some level of exposures. 26% is the difference in the rate of contraband being found among those searched, between blacks and whites.
Where it initially came up is that the study suggested that blacks who are searched are found to have contraband at lower levels than whites who are searched, then it would suggest that police are more aggressive about searching blacks than whites due to racism or stereotypes. I’ve quibbled with this above, but leave that aside here.
The point I made later was that if the police are stopping blacks at more than twice the rate of whites, and they are only finding contraband at a 26% lower rate, then it suggests that the entire 2.07 ratio is not unjustified.
You can see the actual numbers on page 65 of the report. 24% of blacks who are searched found with contraband, versus 30% of whites who are searched. If you start with the assumption that blacks who are stopped should be searched at the same rate as whites, and that the rates of contraband found should be the same 30% (which are the study’s assumptions), then this suggests that the “excess” 1.07 blacks stopped are found to have contraband at a rate of about 18%. This does not suggest that the entire excess is motivated by racism or stereotypes, which was my point above.
Not a problem, this is not a big deal for me, and I’m not saying that the report it wrong. The report made a claim and I asked if there’s any backup for it. “Read the whole report and you’ll see the backup” doesn’t do it for me, and “the report says so so it must be true” doesn’t do much either. If that leaves me with uncertainty as to whether the claim is true or not, then so be it. Life will go on.
Yes I understand. Black people have a lower rate of being found with contraband than white people. You are assuming that, if that rate of searching was instead lowered to be equal with white folks, then the rate of contraband would shoot up to be higher than that of white people? The fact that the black rate is ‘only’ 74% of that of the white rate is evidence of this?
Unfortunately, there is no actual evidence for this assertion, and it is the definition of begging the question. If you assume black people are more likely to commit crimes, then it would be true that black people commit more crimes.
The fact is that, given this study, any given black person who is searched is only 74% as likely as a white person to be carrying contraband. That is a huge difference. These were traffic stops, and inherently random. There is no selection bias at play here.
You seem to be assuming that you can split the black population that was searched into two different populations, those most and least likely to be carrying contraband, and just stop searching the latter group to end up with a higher rate of contraband than white people. Since these were random traffic stops: nope. That is your statistics fail.
Sorry for the double post, but holy crap, I just realized this:
Even if all of this were true, then why do you think the ‘excess’ (:rolleyes:) black people are being stopped? Under your assumption, they carry contraband at only 60% the rate of white people, so wouldn’t these police efforts be better served stopping white people, since there are some ‘excess’ white people that are carrying contraband at a higher rate? Unless, maybe, there is some other reason these people are being stopped?
I mean, think about this. You are admitting that these black people are carrying contraband less often, but are being stopped anyway, and you don’t think this is motivated by anything nefarious?
To sum up, they are stopping these people because they are black, even though they are less likely to be committing crimes (your own argument!). What is the issue here?
Isn’t there a statistical nuance hidden there in “white people”? Am I to believe that a minivan full of white folks who look like they just got out of church gets stopped precisely as often as a beat-up ol’ POS full of purple-haired white kids who look like they are out to score some crank for the Dethklok concert?
Pull the other one, its got bells. Pull the middle one, I’ll give you a nickel.
Again, it doesn’t seem like you understand the Justice Department report. You need to understand what they’re saying first, before commenting on it.
The assumptions that you’re criticizing are not my assumptions. They are those of the Justice Department, and are the basis for their conclusions. Until you understand that, there’s nothing to discuss. (The same goes for your subsequent post as well.)
No, you’re not to believe that. Now a question for you:
Do you think a minivan full of white folks who look like they just got out of church should get stopped precisely as often as a beat-up ol’ POS full of purple-haired white kids who look like they are out to score some crank for the Dethklok concert?
Does probable cause exist for either stop?
My understanding of the DOJ report (which you admit to not reading and not being interested in reading) is in line with regginbrow’s interpretation, and not yours. The DOJ interpretation (as I understand it) is that at least some part of the disparity in searches is probably due to racial bias on the part of the Ferguson PD, especially when all the other data is considered together.
ISTM that this is part of the initial question.
That’s also my own understanding of the DOJ interpretation. Not sure what your point is.
You said that regginbrow doesn’t understand the DOJ report. I don’t see anything in his posts that is contrary to the report.
Judging from reporters’ work last fall it doesn’t seem to contain any surprises: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from-poverty/