Um - you lost me here. Please point out where anyone has suggested this. A white-on-black rape is reported. We know that it is very rare. That’s one data point, but for law enforcement it would thankfully be outweighed by another data point in that we know that the majority of rape claims are true.
Why does everyone keep assuming that anyone would only look at the white-on-black rape stat to the exclusion of everything else?!?
IME, it varies, however, “mixed” is not often an available option. One guy I know, for example, is identified as “Black” on one data base (state police record), Native American on another (Dept. of Corrections), and self identifies as “other”, indicating in person “black, white, and native American”. If you looked at him, you’d think a white guy w/a tan.
First, I have never suggested that such a pattern would be admissible or even relevant at trial. Investigators and the general public may use tons of factors that are not generally admissible at trial, not least hearsay, reputation evidence, etc.
Second, sure I can, it happens all the time “in the absence of other evidence.” Let us say I am looking for BTK. There were a jillion leads and tips that would have pointed to everyone from policemen to truck drivers to the guy who actually turned out to have done it – it was not by any means possible to determine from these tips and accusations whether the killer was local or transient, old or young, black or white.
Yet the police/FBI put together a suspect profile. Now, as “science” profiling is inexact and controversial. And, the profile was not right in all respects (IIRC, it overestimated the killer’s IQ and educational attainments and predicted he’d probably be single when he’d actually been married). But as to the basics (male, middle-aged, probably white) it was pretty much on point. And we know there are lots and lots of serial killers who fit that bill, seemingly out of proportion to the number of white males in the population. Yes, there have been black serial killers. Yes, there have been women. But if you were looking for a serial killer who liked to stab prostitutes along a given stretch of road, and had conflicting evidence as to guys who’d been seen near the locus of past crimes, and were doing surveillance or stops of cars along that road, would you (assuming no officer has yet observed an actual crime in progress) focus your efforts on the white guys in camper vans cruising slowly along the prostitution drag, or the black grandmas going to the church down the road? You know and I know what you would do, and you’d be closer to finding the truth doing that in most cases than by willfully ignoring what you knew about past serial murders and the race of their perpetrators.
This is not meant in any way to be an exact analogy to the Duke case. But if I read you right, your suggestion was that it was hard to imagine any circumstance in which past patterns that included (but were not limited) to race-of-offender were taken into account in an investigation. Well, there’s one – do you think it’s per se illegitimate or stupid of the police to do so in such cases? You’re free to do so, but I’m not sure I agree.
No one has established why white-on-black rape stats should be looked at at all.
What value does those number bring in assessing whether a crime occurred?
What does rape have to do with race?
um, because it was referenced in this thread? what significance does it have? Info that would be relevant as to the veracity of this particular accuser’s accusation has been presented and has been found to significantly decrease the liklihood of her telling the truth (the lack of DNA, the time line, the accused wherabouts at the time of the alledged attack, the fact she had bruises before the attack, etc etc etc). data points that (to me) are irrelevant include:
the racial demographics of all concerned
the ages of all concerned (not that anyone so far has broached those)
educational level of those concerned,
last years income tax paid,
height,
lefthandedness etc.
Funny thing is, of that list of ‘irrelevant data’ the only thing that anyone has brought to the table is the racial characteristics via the DoJ
Heurta given that with the crime of rape, unless the victim was incapcitated or killed, the liklihood is high that the racial demographics will be known.
exactly how do you propose that the police use the DoJ stats in their investigation of the crime of rape (given that you introduced the data - so saying it would just be useful for profiling where there are no witnesses to the event won’t do).
Huerta you have an eyewitness. It is ridiculus to “say” to that witness, especially when you **do **have other evidence, that because the DOJ has these stats that’s a data point, you x% of credibility. It makes no sense, when something as simple as “knowing” the assistant will render that data point to mush. If I self-indentify as black, but look white, what does that do to your data point? What if I’m a dark skinned hispanic and look black?
There’s so many variables to this stat it uselss, when you use it this way.
[emphasis supplied]
Ah, but there is the rub.
If the report were that the perpetrator were 10, or 80, I would not rule out giving any weight to this in determining the report to be possibly less plausible on a prima facie basis, even though 10 year olds and 80 year olds have certainly committed rape.
What if the accused, or the accuser, hasn’t paid income tax in ten years despite driving a fancy SUV and vacationing in St. Moritz every year? I might determine he’s a tax cheat, and thus a liar, and thus incrementally more likely to be lying here. YMMV.
If he were short enough that the plausibility of a particular type of physical attack or restraint alleged to have happened wasn’t plausible, I’d wonder. If she were Brigitte Nielsen alleging that Edgar Prado raped her, I’d wonder. I wouldn’t rule it out, but I wouldn’t disregard height as having any relevance (in the absence, etc.).
Would you ignore the not white guys in camper vans cruising slowly along the prostitution drag?
CMC fnord!
Um, if I knew my maths and the stats of the case (which in Mathworld allowed for only the existence of cars, and them only maroon or red, with red the overwhelming majority) I would regrettably have to discount the probability, as it’s nearly three times likelier that the car really was red and has been mistakenly identified as maroon! That’s with the independent lab tests attesting to the unusual acuity of the eyewitness and all. Y’all been following the math?
am I correct in interpreting this post as you saying you believe that something about the racial characteristic itself makes a person somehow more or less credible/likely to be a rapist?
(I don’t see any other way to interpret this post)
That’s what I’m getting too. That they believe there’s something in the “blackness” that’s causing the stat, i.e a lack of “attractiveness” as opposed to the proximity and ‘segregation’ that better explains it.
Yall, Huerta believes race is a behaviorial determinant. You’re not going to get him to admit it in succinct terms because he insists on packing his posts with filler.
But it’s all there.
I already posted some of the CDC’s take on rape, but apparently that’s not good enough for him. He treats race like a protective factor of some sort. Nevermind that he ain’t got not proof. That’s his position and he’s stickin’ to it!
And unfortunately, conning others into agreeing with him.
I’m betting he will continue to equivocate with meaningless disclaimers, but yes, this is his argument.
He gets upset when we call this line of reasoning racist, but there is no better word for it.
As with all your other bets against the odds, this one has you ending up a loser.
To answer the question, I have never posited that there is anything in the white or black genome or whatever you want to call the “racial characteristic,” by which people commonly refer to ethnic, genetic commonalities among people of similar genealogical/ethnic descent that “makes a person somehow more or less credible/likely to be a rapist.” Nor am I saying that now. Really, check my posts.
That’s not a disclaimer or an equivocation, by the way, dumbass. It’s a flat denial that you’re not going to be able to gainsay.
Nor do I think there is a white-guy-with-a-weedy-mustache-and-big-glasses serial killer gene.
That doesn’t mean that demographic patterns (including but NOT limited to factors including the ethnic mix of an alleged crime) don’t exist that plausibly lead us to make guesses about which patterns of victimization are more or less plausible. They are dependent upon the era, sociology, economics, cultural mores, inter-group dynamics. These environmental factors, though, can lead to some pretty strong correlations between particular demographic characteristics (within a particular environment) and the incidence of particular behaviors, such that a given demographic trait can serve as a de facto proxy or predictor for particular behaviors.
There is nothing in being an Englishman that makes you more likely to wreak mayhem at a soccer game than if you were a white American. Nonetheless, in predicting where trouble will break out, I will look to the fact of English football hooliganism and American soccer non-hooliganism in the present era, and plan accordingly – and this is as to people with the exact same genome.
Change the circumstances, and any predictive value of race/ethnicity-related patterns could change. If you told me that the time period in question was 1840 and a servant (black or white) had accused her wealthy white boss/master of molesting her I’d say: that’s totally inconsistent with the known pattern of behaviors associated with that ethnic cohort (wealthy whites) at that time, and I’m going to afford it some serious plausibility. None of this has anything to do with genotype, and I never claimed or implied it did.
Notice how both wring and holmes (and myself) interpreted your last post the same way. You need to ask yourself why multiple people all reach the same conclusion without you stating something explicitly.
You haven’t shown how this supposedly works, that’s the thing. Several times I’ve dissected your thought process and shown why your conclusions are erroneous. “Plausibility” is completely separate from “prevalence”; the latter does not give you a grasp on the former at all. But you act as if it does.
I’ve already explained the problem with latching onto a factor that is possibly only correlated with risk factors. When it causes you to overlook the factors that really determine the likelihood of rape (e.g. intimate relationships), then you look like an idiot.
But if a person said they saw a soccer riot break out in in America, there is nothing implausible about that assertion. How come? Because, as you say:
OK. I didn’t think so, but didn’t want to wade back thru all the posts in this thread to figure that out again. (There have been some references to jurors in this thread, of that I’m ceratin. But I don’t remember by whom and in what context.)
Sorry, because you didn’t read me right. I left it much more open ended that I should have (my bad) as I was still thinking along the lines of this case: where we have a specific accuser and a specific (or specific) person(s) accused. In the BTK case, if we had witnesses saying it was a Black man in his early twenties, the profile info would (hopefully) be seen as less valuable and the focus would shift more towards Black men in their 20s.
You did earlier imply that the DA should use crime statistics to help determine the likelihood that such a crime as this did happen (your post #289), or at least in determining the veracity of the accuser. That’s my major source of contention, but I’m still unlcear as to why we, as debaters, would want to make this into more of a racial thing than it already is.
So, it turned out that the DoJ data you referred to was bogus, or rather it was wrongly interpretted. The best I could dig up was that something on the order of 5-10% of all rapes are White on Black (cited either in this thread or Bricker’s). But I still don’t see how that fits into a case like this because the relavent statistic (if there is one) is the frequency of false reportings of rapes and whether that is higher or lower for Black on White rape than rape in general. Still, though, you’re left with the question of why you would slice and dice the data along racial lines instead of, say, socio-economic class, age, education level, previous cirminal record, or any number of other factors that might play into it.
And what if we find that Blacks often falsly accuse Whites of rape but that strippers rarely do (or vice versa)? And (as I’ve mentioned several times) why would we use national data instead of state or local data or data of geographical areas with similar demographics?
It just seems that there are so many ways to poke holes in the particular data pattern you wanted us to look at that I couldn’t see any valid reason for spending 15 pages (or whatever) on that subject in this thread. Perhaps the reason is that you and some others want to debate some abstract generalized case whereas another group is really only interested in this particular case and whether or not the fact the woman is Black and guys are White means anything in getting at the truth of the matter. The two groups in this thread seem largely to be talking past each other.
Edit for clarity.
And so I haven’t spent 15 pages on it. The great volume of posts in this thread on racial issues has been by the people attacking me. I have separately posted on multiple other factual and investigative and prosecutorial anomalies in this case having nothing to do with race (or, having to do with the very separate issue of racial/sexual pandering in politics).
Don’t join the chorous of losers attacking the Huerta-is-obsessed-with-race-and-posts-on-nothing-else** strawman.
And if an eyewitness to hooliganism said the hooligan in question was an American?