cowboypack02 said:

---

I wonder if cops would be in black communities as often if they werent high crime areas....

---

Black drivers get pulled twice as often as whites, and searched 4x as much for contraband.

Yet, contraband is found less often on black drivers (both are around 30%, whites just above 30% and blacks just below it).

Why do they get pulled twice as often, and searched 4x as often as whites?

What explanation is there for that behavior by police, nationwide, if not implicit bias?

It's not because there are more black 'criminals'; black drivers are found to be carrying illegal contraband at a rate that's less than whites.

The reason this data is important is because the data set is huge (20 million traffic stops); the difference of rates of stops and searches are profoundly different for blacks and whites; and it shows significant implicit bias in who police pull.

Implicit bias clearly impacts police behavior when pulling drivers. How could it not impact other areas of policing and criminal justice?

Man, I can't help but wonder what this thread would have been like in the days of Calstabn and tOTF. Epic, man. Just epic.

packgrad said:

---

I wonder who keeps calling the police on black people in black communities. And why is it bad that a jury of their peers convicts them for the violent crimes they commit? Do the black victims of violent crime in black communities not deserve to have their attackers charged and convicted because they are also black? Should the violent attackers not be convicted so white heroes can feel better about conviction rates of black people? Is black victim suffering worth it to satisfy white guilt?

---

Go read studies - pick any you want but tell us what they are - and report back to us on the difficulty of black defendants getting a 'jury of their peers'.

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I wonder who keeps calling the police on black people in black communities. And why is it bad that a jury of their peers convicts them for the violent crimes they commit? Do the black victims of violent crime in black communities not deserve to have their attackers charged and convicted because they are also black? Should the violent attackers not be convicted so white heroes can feel better about conviction rates of black people? Is black victim suffering worth it to satisfy white guilt?

---

Go read studies - pick any you want but tell us what they are - and report back to us on the difficulty of black defendants getting a 'jury of their peers'.

---

Do you determine peers by skin color? Very progressive of you.

Mormad said:

---

Man, I can't help but wonder what this thread would have been like in the days of Calstabn and tOTF. Epic, man. Just epic.

---

LOLOLOL. On this, we can all agree.

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I wonder who keeps calling the police on black people in black communities. And why is it bad that a jury of their peers convicts them for the violent crimes they commit? Do the black victims of violent crime in black communities not deserve to have their attackers charged and convicted because they are also black? Should the violent attackers not be convicted so white heroes can feel better about conviction rates of black people? Is black victim suffering worth it to satisfy white guilt?

---

Go read studies - pick any you want but tell us what they are - and report back to us on the difficulty of black defendants getting a 'jury of their peers'.

---

Do you determine peers by skin color? Very progressive of you.

---

Proportional ethnic representation on jury pools is critical.

"In cases with no blacks in the jury pool, black defendants are convicted at an 81% rate and white defendants at a 66% rate. When the jury pool includes at least one black potential juror, conviction rates are almost identical: 71% for black defendants and 73% for white defendants."

When black populations in counties drops below 5%, as many as 40% of juries don't have a single black member.

Note that making the jury more representative both decreases black 'criminality' and increases white 'criminality'.

Add it to the list of ways our criminal justice system doesn't administer justice equitably.

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I wonder who keeps calling the police on black people in black communities. And why is it bad that a jury of their peers convicts them for the violent crimes they commit? Do the black victims of violent crime in black communities not deserve to have their attackers charged and convicted because they are also black? Should the violent attackers not be convicted so white heroes can feel better about conviction rates of black people? Is black victim suffering worth it to satisfy white guilt?

---

Go read studies - pick any you want but tell us what they are - and report back to us on the difficulty of black defendants getting a 'jury of their peers'.

---

Do you determine peers by skin color? Very progressive of you.

---

Proportional ethnic representation on jury pools is critical.

"In cases with no blacks in the jury pool, black defendants are convicted at an 81% rate and white defendants at a 66% rate. When the jury pool includes at least one black potential juror, conviction rates are almost identical: 71% for black defendants and 73% for white defendants."

When black populations in counties drops below 5%, as many as 40% of juries don't have a single black member.

Note that making the jury more representative both decreases black 'criminality' and increases white 'criminality'.

Add it to the list of ways our criminal justice system doesn't administer justice equitably.

---

So the black victims of violent crime don't deserve justice because the jury may have too many white people for you? Add it to the list of ways liberals do not have the best interests of black people in mind.

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I wonder who keeps calling the police on black people in black communities. And why is it bad that a jury of their peers convicts them for the violent crimes they commit? Do the black victims of violent crime in black communities not deserve to have their attackers charged and convicted because they are also black? Should the violent attackers not be convicted so white heroes can feel better about conviction rates of black people? Is black victim suffering worth it to satisfy white guilt?

---

Go read studies - pick any you want but tell us what they are - and report back to us on the difficulty of black defendants getting a 'jury of their peers'.

---

Do you determine peers by skin color? Very progressive of you.

---

Proportional ethnic representation on jury pools is critical.

"In cases with no blacks in the jury pool, black defendants are convicted at an 81% rate and white defendants at a 66% rate. When the jury pool includes at least one black potential juror, conviction rates are almost identical: 71% for black defendants and 73% for white defendants."

When black populations in counties drops below 5%, as many as 40% of juries don't have a single black member.

Note that making the jury more representative both decreases black 'criminality' and increases white 'criminality'.

Add it to the list of ways our criminal justice system doesn't administer justice equitably.

---

You're just automatically assuming that a jury of mostly whites is going to be unfair to a black defendant, rather than just listening to the evidence and considering it all fairly. Which is exactly what happens in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Defendants don't get convicted because of their skin color, they get convicted because they're guilty.

Our justice system isn't perfect, but it's imperfect across the board.

Pacfanweb said:

---

You're just automatically assuming that a jury of mostly whites is going to be unfair to a black defendant, rather than just listening to the evidence and considering it all fairly. Which is exactly what happens in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Defendants don't get convicted because of their skin color, they get convicted because they're guilty.

Our justice system isn't perfect, but it's imperfect across the board.

---

Show me a good study that demonstrates that jury bias doesn't exist. I'll listen to the argument.

He/she has said jury bias exists, and there is a mountain of studies that agree with it. If you are disputing that then yes it makes sense for there to be just as many studies disproving it.

statefan91 said:

---

He/she has said jury bias exists, and there is a mountain of studies that agree with it. If you are disputing that then yes it makes sense for there to be just as many studies disproving it.

---

Jury bias exists going both ways. Just look at the OJ Simpson case, for example, where a largely black jury acquitted a clearly guilty man. I suspect that you have jury bias occurring more often in the case of largely black juries.

Police, judges, and jurists are to blame. Not the black criminals assaulting and murdering other black people. Totally racist.

acslater1344 said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I wonder who keeps calling the police on black people in black communities. And why is it bad that a jury of their peers convicts them for the violent crimes they commit? Do the black victims of violent crime in black communities not deserve to have their attackers charged and convicted because they are also black? Should the violent attackers not be convicted so white heroes can feel better about conviction rates of black people? Is black victim suffering worth it to satisfy white guilt?

---

Go read studies - pick any you want but tell us what they are - and report back to us on the difficulty of black defendants getting a 'jury of their peers'.

---

Do you determine peers by skin color? Very progressive of you.

---

Proportional ethnic representation on jury pools is critical.

"In cases with no blacks in the jury pool, black defendants are convicted at an 81% rate and white defendants at a 66% rate. When the jury pool includes at least one black potential juror, conviction rates are almost identical: 71% for black defendants and 73% for white defendants."

When black populations in counties drops below 5%, as many as 40% of juries don't have a single black member.

Note that making the jury more representative both decreases black 'criminality' and increases white 'criminality'.

Add it to the list of ways our criminal justice system doesn't administer justice equitably.

---

You're just automatically assuming that a jury of mostly whites is going to be unfair to a black defendant, rather than just listening to the evidence and considering it all fairly. Which is exactly what happens in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Defendants don't get convicted because of their skin color, they get convicted because they're guilty.

Our justice system isn't perfect, but it's imperfect across the board.

---

This is where you go with feelings > facts. He presented data to support his point and you dismissed it out of hand. See how that works both ways?

---

I dismissed nothing. I merely pointed out how he was assuming that a white jury can't be objective, when the fact of the matter is that most people in jail are guilty and deserve to be there.

There aren't thousands of black people in prison because they didn't have a black jury to let them off.

There's certainly jury bias in the selection of jury...that's where most of it is, but when it comes to considering the evidence most of them get it right.

The feelings were in the collection of the data. They're agenda based studies. That's it. In the eyes of the study, the color of the juror is more important than the evidence presented at trial. Just stupid race based pandering.

Are there any valid studies out there, in your opinion?

It can be accurate that there are black criminals that deserve the punishments they get. It can also be true at the same time that blacks are overly policed, or charged with more serious crimes than others for the same offense. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

statefan91 said:

---

He/she has said jury bias exists, and there is a mountain of studies that agree with it. If you are disputing that then yes it makes sense for there to be just as many studies disproving it.

---

For jury bias to truly exist, there would have to be thousands of blacks in prison that were innocent.

That's not the case.

So I'm looking at the outcomes: If the guilty parties are being found guilty, whether it's a white jury or 50/50 or a black jury, that's the correct outcome, right?

To say there's "jury bias" because of race, and he's implying that it affects the verdicts.....that would mean lots of innocent people being convicted because of bias.
And conversely, it'd mean lots of guilty people (*cough*OJ*cough*) going free if they did have a black jury.

Neither of these things are happening, so whether a study shows that a white jury might be more prone to not believe a black defendant or not really doesn't matter, because the actual OUTCOMES we have of these trials shows that they are getting it right.

Now that said...there's certainly jury bias on the side of the prosecutors. No doubt. I think if you looked down into each case, you'd find some pretty good reasons for it, too. I suspect it's much harder to find a lot of black jurist candidates that don't tick some box on the objection list...again, look at their overall crime rate.
The same issues/outcomes in life that keep blacks from succeeding financially are the same ones that keep them off juries.

It's pretty simple, really. Just nobody wants to admit or, or more importantly, say it in public. But it's the damn truth.

No, there are no valid studies out there. Zzzzzzzzzzzz

packgrad said:

---

.

---

You said those studies were agenda based so I'm just asking you if there are studies out there that are valid, in your opinion. I'm not making it up things you're saying?

statefan91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

.

---

You said those studies were agenda based so I'm just asking you if there are studies out there that are valid, in your opinion. I'm not making it up things you're saying?

---

Do the research yourself and get back to me.

packgrad said:

---

The feelings were in the collection of the data. They're agenda based studies. That's it. In the eyes of the study, the color of the juror is more important than the evidence presented at trial. Just stupid race based pandering.

---

Exactly. The studies say, in a nutshell:

"whites are more inclined to believe blacks are guilty. More whites are chosen for juries, therefore blacks get a raw deal come trial time"

Essentially.

The studies fail to recognize that most criminal trials get the proper outcome because the police and DA have done their due diligence and brought the guilty person to trial.

The studies don't tell you that. They just tell you that the juries MUST be biased, since they're mostly white. They say nothing about the fact that the mostly get it right in the end, no matter who is on the jury.

packgrad said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

.

---

You said those studies were agenda based so I'm just asking you if there are studies out there that are valid, in your opinion. I'm not making it up things you're saying?

---

Do the research yourself and get back to me.

---

LOL

statefan91 said:

---

Are there any valid studies out there, in your opinion?

It can be accurate that there are black criminals that deserve the punishments they get. It can also be true at the same time that blacks are overly policed, or charged with more serious crimes than others for the same offense. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

---

It can also be accurate (and it IS accurate) that blacks do indeed commit violent crime at a far higher rate, and that the most 911 calls come from their neighborhoods, and they are in fact simply more violent than the rest of the country.
The arrest and conviction numbers aren't what they are because of bias...it's because that's how it really is.
Blacks aren't being charged for more killings than whites because the officer made it up....someone got dead, and the black person did it, and he/she got arrested. You can't make up a dead person.

In fact, we know all this to be true pretty much beyond any doubt.

So does that lead to more policing, and maybe "over policing"? Probably, sure. But it's not because the police are inherently racist or for racist reasons.
If you drive a red sports car and get pulled over more than when you drove a silver SUV, are you surprised?

As has been stated before, the BLM folks only want the police to change. They care nothing about the other side of the equation. I guess because there's no money in that.

But in a situation like this, you cannot just ask one side to make changes and the other side do nothing. Both sides are at fault. So both sides have to come to the table and change things.

That's not what's being talked about, though.

^
Some good points there, and most of them have been addressed multiple times in this thread or the other one. A lot of it by me.

Just spent all of like 15 minutes researching this, but I wanted to look into both prison populations and criminal exoneration by race. Not my area of expertise by any means, but thought it was worth sharing:

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx?View={FAF6EDDB-5A68-4F8F-8A52-2C61F5BF9EA7}&FilterClear=1 - Criminal Exoneration Database created/maintained by a few diff law schools. Filtered by race in column 4. 2,632 total exonerated cases per their database.

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp - Federal Bureau of Prisons race stats

Race / Percentage of Prison Population / Percentage of Criminal Exoneration:

Black / 38.1% of inmates / 49.3% of all exoneration
White / 58.1 % of inmates / 36.8% of all exoneration
Asian / 1.5% of inmates / 1.0% of all exoneration
Native American / 2.3% of all inmates / 0.7% of exoneration

Note these are the only 4 races tracked by the Prison Bureau (hispanic/non-hispanic ethnicity tracked separately).

I don't know enough about this to say with any certainty the driving factor is jury bias, but the statistics support the idea that the justice system is more likely to convict innocent black people than other races. I'm sure I'll get yelled at for looking into this, but I just couldn't help myself... lol.

Here are the numbers when you separate white and hispanic. Looks like blacks and whites have a similar experience in wrongful convictions. Perjury and false accusations were around 60% of the wrongful convictions for both white and black. Both races had fairly similar experiences in official misconduct- 57% vs 51%

Race / Percentage of Prison Population / Percentage of Criminal Exoneration:

Black / 38.1% of inmates / 49.3% of all exoneration
White / 27.0 % of inmates / 36.8% of all exoneration
Hispanic / 31.1% of inmates / 11.6% of exoneration
Asian / 1.5% of inmates / 1.0% of all exoneration
Native American / 2.3% of all inmates / 0.7% of exoneration

ScreamingEagle said:

---

Here are the numbers when you separate white and hispanic. Looks like blacks and whites have a similar experience in wrongful convictions. Perjury and false accusations were around 60% of the wrongful convictions for both white and black. Both races had fairly similar experiences in official misconduct- 57% vs 51%

Race / Percentage of Prison Population / Percentage of Criminal Exoneration:

Black / 38.1% of inmates / 49.3% of all exoneration
White / 27.0 % of inmates / 36.8% of all exoneration
Hispanic / 31.1% of inmates / 11.6% of exoneration
Asian / 1.5% of inmates / 1.0% of all exoneration
Native American / 2.3% of all inmates / 0.7% of exoneration

---

The math doesn't work that way. Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race.

There are black Hispanics and also white Hispanics. When being categorized by race, you're white or black, AND either of hispanic origin or not of hispanic origin. It's not black OR white OR Hispanic.

This makes for complex data-gathering.

From the very first study I found on the topic of exonerations:

"We do not discuss false convictions and exonerations of Hispanic or Latino defendants (except in passing) because to do so we would need national criminal justice statistics on reported crimes, arrests, convictions and imprisonment, and the studies that are available use inconsistent standards for tabulating that ethnic category, suffer from high rates of missing data, or fail to address the issue entirely."

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf

From the same study:

• Judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people.
• Judging from exonerations, a black prisoner serving time for sexual assault is three- and-a-half times more likely to be innocent than a white sexual assault convict. The major cause for this huge racial disparity appears to be the high danger of mistaken eyewitness identification by white victims in violent crimes with black assailants.
• The convictions that led to murder exonerations with black defendants were 22% more likely to include misconduct by police officers than those with white defendants.
• The best national evidence on drug use shows that African Americans and whites use illegal drugs at about the same rate. Nonetheless, African Americans are about five times as likely to go to prison for drug possession as whitesand judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about 12 times more likely to be convicted of drug crimes than innocent white people.

ScreamingEagle said:

---

Here are the numbers when you separate white and hispanic. Looks like blacks and whites have a similar experience in wrongful convictions. Perjury and false accusations were around 60% of the wrongful convictions for both white and black. Both races had fairly similar experiences in official misconduct- 57% vs 51%

Race / Percentage of Prison Population / Percentage of Criminal Exoneration:

Black / 38.1% of inmates / 49.3% of all exoneration
White / 27.0 % of inmates / 36.8% of all exoneration
Hispanic / 31.1% of inmates / 11.6% of exoneration
Asian / 1.5% of inmates / 1.0% of all exoneration
Native American / 2.3% of all inmates / 0.7% of exoneration

---

Yeah not following your adjustments there.

I'm sure Mexicans love hearing about their white privilege.

The exoneration list is certainly troubling.

However, you're talking 2600-ish of EVERYONE EVER, starting in 1989....and some of those convictions were from 20-30 years....late 50's.

While ANY is terrible, and certainly is significant to those convicts and their loved ones, their numbers are a proverbial drop in the bucket. Those relatively few numbers tell us that the system mostly gets it right.

Also, what that list considers an "exoneration" is a bit misleading. Just looking at some of the more recent ones, I see some that never went to trial or were never sentenced before charges were dropped.

So I'd consider the percentages a bit suspect, if we're trying for accuracy here.

Assume these cops were just bad apples and none of the people they previously arrested were targeted because they were black...

" "Piner tells Moore later in the conversation that he feels a civil war is coming and he is 'ready.' Piner advised he is going to buy a new assault rifle in the next couple of weeks. A short time later Officer Piner began to discuss society being close to 'martial law' and soon 'we are just gonna go out and start slaughtering them ****ing ni. I can't wait. God, I can't wait.' Moore responded that he would not do that."

https://portcitydaily.com/local-news/2020/06/24/fired-wilmington-cop-we-are-just-going-to-go-out-and-start-slaughtering-them-f-ni-i-cant-wait-god-i-cant-wait-free-read/?fbclid=IwAR2rQ5D5Fyq6qgTRpdU6clh8a_7iOY_AUDe76SvfMAxywUnUPZVnoGzVVgM