It is well-established (and even if you disagree, let’s just stipulate) that some crimes are unequally enforced against certain groups. Consider, for example, drug crimes. While study after study shows that white people use and posses drugs at the same rates as black people, far more black people get arrested and prosecuted for these crimes. Racist aspects of policing and prosecution probably play some role here, but I think the best explanation is that it is simply easier to catch drug-users in an urban park than in some kid’s suburban basement (and also far easier to prosecute poor people than rich people).
I’m not much interested in debating the factual specifics of this phenomenon, but rather whether people think that, if true, it represents a problem. Is it bad in itself that more young black men get criminal records for a crime committed with equal frequency by young white men? Is there some social value which suggests that policing and prosecution should correlate proportionally to rates of criminal activity within various sub-populations? Or is it OK for the police to basically always go after the low-hanging fruit?
First, you’ll have to actually establish that whites and blacks do illegal drugs at the same rate.
Then, you’ll have to establish that blacks and whites are doing the same types of drugs at an equal rate (do you really believe that posession of marijuana, for example, should be prosecuted as often as posession of crack?)
Then we can get to the meat of the argument. No, I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong that criminals who are easier to arrest and prosecute are arrested and prosecuted more often than criminals who are more difficult to arrest and prosecute.
Yeah, this is one of those groupings of factual claims myself and a lot of others are probably inclined to believe–but if we’re going to have a genuine debate about this I think we need to actually see evidence for them. Just because what you’re saying “seems like something that is probably true” doesn’t mean it is, I honestly would like to see some hard facts on this.
I have no doubt that in general the poor are easier to convict than the wealthy. I’m not going to waste time searching for a cite. I think that probably crosses racial lines. Does wealth buy more of a chance for justice or does it delay it? And does the race of the accused insure swift justice or delay/deny it?
Yes, forgive me for doing this so early, but cite? I’ll play along and pretend that some crimes are enforced unequally for certain groups (since that’s the scenario you’ve chosen to debate), but I’d like to see some numbers first.
If your first assertation is true, then it may indeed be the case that it’s easier to catch drug users out in the open than somewhere where you’d need a warrant or probable cause.
I’m gonna go with no on this one, simply because of your earlier suggestion. If you’ve got the same crime going on in the same place by a black guy and a white guy, and only the black guy gets arrested, then yeah there’s a problem. But if it’s just a simple matter of one user doing it out in the open vs. one user doing it somewhere more secluded, then I don’t see the racial implication, or the problem.
I mean, what do you want them to do, absent a search warrant? I’d say that law enforcement is doing a pretty good job with what they have to work with.
Again, I’m not interested in debating the facts. If you like, treat it as a fanciful hypothetical. I’m interested in the principles at play here. I should also make clear that I don’t have a strong position here, which is why I’m asking.
Well, one problem is that it creates racial divisions, even if the policy itself isn’t racial. It is one of many factors that make it harder for young black men to succeed than identical young white men. It also basically means that you can commit the crime if you’re rich enough to get away with it. Something about that seems problematic.
You bring up an obvious point which is that even if we don’t like it, what would we do to change it? I don’t have any good answer. I suppose if we think the disproportionate aspects of policing a certain crime result in more social ills than the commission of the crime, it would force us to reevaluate the very crime itself. Or, if we conclude that the crime outweighs the impact of unequal policing, we could also give the police more money, so they can afford to police all who violate the law and not just the poor.
Law enforcement has a much easier time identifying drug users in public. If more black kids are smoking pot in public than white kids, then I don’t care if the statistics skew that way. Similarly, if more white kids were smoking pot in public than black kids, same deal.
2 . This cite (for high schools only) show that the rate of drug use amongst Whites is higher than Blacks for every single category except current and lifetime marijuana use. Whites, as a group, use more cocaine, heroin, meth, inhalants, steroids, and Ecstasy. They use more both as a percentage of their total population, and in raw numbers.
So Whites tend to use most types of drugs more than Black people both as a percentage of their total pop. and in raw numbers. However, their arrest and convictions rates are far lower. They also, according to the first cite (based on some safe assumptions) sell drugs more frequently, and are “under arrested”. Based on those numbers, the population of people in jail should roughly similar to the national population if enforcement was equal.
Because the main task of a jury (and a judge, in a non-jury trial) is deciding who is telling the truth. Especially as regarding the guilt or not of the defendant. People base a whole lot of their decisions on truthfulness on how they see a witness testifying. To blindfold them would make their decisions about who is telling the truth a lot less reliable.
If racial profiling is actually socio-economic class driven, (same with racially unequal “rates” of imprisonment for crime) then there’s no legal system problem whatsoever- it’s mechanistically reflecting an existing unequal racial wealth distribution. Hence, no legal problem- law enforcement is blind to race but not socio-economic status.
Of course it’s a problem. Aside from destroying plenty of people’s lives, it undermines the law, and moves us further from equality. The most troubling issue is that it plays into the racial narrative we have in this country. The one that makes people fear, despise, underestimate, demonize, pity, fetishize, or cater to Black people instead of just treating us like everyone else. It’s a problem because Black people become the face of crime when that is not the case. Same thing happens with welfare or affirmative action, two things that more White people utilize than Black people. So long as our policies strengthen this narrative while subverting justice, it will be a huge problem.
Generally, I think this should be the case. Obviously, certain outside forces may effect that, but I think it should be roughly equal based on equal enforcement.
They generally do, and that is understandable. The problem is that many of the worst bad guys (Black or White) are not low-hanging fruit. The guys bringing drugs into the country for street dealers to sell are the real problem. It’s the equivalent of continually putting a bucket under a leaking pipe rather than fixing it. Yeah, it prevents the floor from getting wet, but it doesn’t fix the problem.
One concept I’ve seen argued is that the reason certain drugs become targets of enforcement in the U.S. in the first place is their association with ‘undesirable’ minority groups (opium with Asian immigrants, crack with poor urban blacks, etc.). Now, though, the major enforcement focus seems to be moving toward meth (or maybe it just seems that way to me here in Missouri), a drug primarily associated with whites. Could this be a signal that we’re moving past the era where the ‘worst’ drugs were determined by which race used them?
I agree, but that happens everywhere. A few examples off of the top of my head: Speeding tickets. $300 hits my wallet and makes it ache. Bill Gates could pay his fine and wipe his nose with an extra $100.
DUI license suspensions: When I was young and stupid, I almost lost my job because I couldn’t drive for three months. A rich person could hire a full time driver, or wouldn’t need to work for three months.
A rich person doesn’t need to rob convenience stores to feed a drug addiction and doesn’t have to go to jail for decades, etc.
So, while I can understand the sympathy you are feeling for these youth smoking marijuana in the park vs. the others at home, I don’t see a solution. Let people use drugs in urban parks? Surely not.
And the rich people smoking weed at home spent a disproportionate amount of tax money to pay for that urban park that’s now not safe to use, etc.
Well, the White House says that the white rate is 8.5%, the black rate is 9.8% and the mixed race (not identified by which races are mixed) rate is 8.9%. From my perspective, a 1.3% spread is close enough to “the same rate” for government work.
The favored drugs of each group are, indeed, different. However, there is no legitimate reason for crack to be treated as 100 times worse than powder cocaine and the fact that crack is favored in the black community while whites tend to use powder strongly suggests a racial bias in keeping those disparate penalties for 22 years–21 years after the initial hysteria over crack was debunked.
Also, it depends upon where cops cruise. How often do you see a patrol car just cruising in Los Feliz? So many busts are contingent on traffic stops, and if they aren’t in your neighborhood, you’re not going to get stopped, and they aren’t going to find that marijuana in your car. In a well-to-do neighborhood, people rarely complain about drug use. It’s a domestic issue, that doesn’t involve law enforcement. The police respond to complaints and public relations, so if there’s a neighborhood with a crack house, and the neighbors complain, they’ll be cruising by a lot.
But if a hobo goes for a walk in Los Feliz, and someone calls, there will be five cop cars surrounding him in two minutes.