Such figures "reflect a failure of social and economic interventions to address crime effectively," as well as racial bias in the justice system, said Marc Mauer, the group's executive director. (emphasis added)[3]My question would be: what proof is there in the overall findings that would justify a charge of racial prejudice? Unless I completely misread the article, there is absolutely nothing to support such a conclusion. The article is spotted with ratios and other key figures; but the inclusion of these numbers does not--in and of themselves--point in any direction other than what the numbers merely state. It would be the same as me saying: for every Dogwood tree in the state of Georgia, there are 58 evergreen trees.[4]
Let me take one more blurb from this article in order to highlight my struggles with its implicit argument:
In Iowa, blacks are imprisoned at a rate more than double the national average. For every 100,000 people, Iowa incarcerates 309 whites and 4,200 blacks, the study said.Now, if the facts were: for every 4,200 blacks who were incarcerated only 10 of them actually committed crimes, then that would be proof of a serious flaw--i.e., a "racial bias in the justice system". The same would hold true for the other variable: if for every 309 whites who were incarcerated there were actually 5,000 who committed crimes worthy of jail time, and only the 309 were locked up; that would be a serious problem. But, if the facts were: if all 4,200 blacks who were jailed did in fact commit crimes that justified imprisonment, that's not prejudice or profiling--that's simple justice. The same holds true for the 309 whites who were sentenced--if they did it, they do the time.
If we as a people are going to uphold and promote social justice in this country (if not throughout the world), then we must face the facts and deal with them accordingly. We cannot simply alter our commitment to justice or cry out "racial prejudice" because the numbers are not comfortable and/or appealing to one race of people. Lady Justice, last time I checked, is still wearing a blindfold. She wears such a garb because the commitment to maintain justice is not racially determined. If for every 100,000 people, 4,509 people in the state of Iowa commit crimes, then justice requires that they are appropriately punished.
__________________________________________
[1] If the link ever goes cold, just Google "racial disparities in prison" and see if it gives you a link.
[2] See my post on the problems with statistical analysis, found here.
[3] Note that the implication of racial prejudice comes from the article writer and not Marc Mauer.
[4] I have no idea if this ratio is true. I simply made it up to illustrate the point.
5 comments:
I can see your point, but I'm going to go ahead and disagree. Absolutely, more evidence would need to be provided to actually prove racial prejudice, but that large of a disparity should certainly be seen as a potential indicator. I seriously doubt that approximately 3900 more black people committed crimes than did white people.
"Lady Justice, last time I checked, is still wearing a blindfold. She wears such a garb because the commitment to maintain justice is not racially determined." I'll be honest, Carl - this statement strikes me as frightfully naive. Absolutely you are talking about the ideal, but justice is implemented by human beings who are inevitably flawed, and racism is still alive and well, if often under the surface, in our country. To write off a statistic like the one provided in this article seems to me to be a part of the problem. I think a statistic like this one calls for more investigation - while not conclusive, it should be a red flag.
Jake,
Thank you for your comment. While I can see your point, I will have to (slightly) disagree with you as well. :-)
I will not disagree that the disparity is troubling and that more study is required. What I was commenting on was the fact that, while not having (or giving) any conclusive evidence, the writer proceeded to make his conclusions about what the statistic (apparently) suggest. He seemed to be making his conclusions as though the conclusive evidence was available. That's where I took issue.
Other way of stating this would be: ultimately, the article does nothing but offer numbers/statistics. Those figures do not prove anything other than what they say. It would be like plainly stating: 2+2=4. (This says nothing more than putting two 2's together results in the number 4). However, (again) the writer seems to be using those numbers to suggest more than what the numbers show.
The charge of naivety seems to be a bit extreme. Yes, a blind justice is the ideal; but it was the ideal sought after by the founder fathers so that justice would prevail, which is why they established what they did. Not striving for the ideal and/or calling such striving "naive" is more frightful than arguing for a need to pursue that ideal. I was simply arguing for a faithfulness in striving for what our forefathers bequeathed to us.
Hmmm . . . well, its possible the author of the article says too much, although I'm not positive he says as much as you think. The statement is that the figures "reflect" racial bias in the system - not that they prove it. Maybe that's splitting hairs though. Although I might also go so far as to say that figures with that much disparity are pretty overwhelming, and certainly point strongly towards racial prejudice. But, they don't prove it - I agree with you about that.
I don't think the charge of naivete is extreme, given what you say in your post. Again, here is the quote: "Lady Justice, last time I checked, is still wearing a blindfold. She wears such a garb because the commitment to maintain justice is not racially determined." The language you use here is not talking about the pursuit of an ideal - you seem to be saying "this is the way it is" and that simply is not true. There is disparity in the way minorities are treated in this country - examples can be found all over. I'm not calling the striving for that ideal naive - I think we should strive for the ideal. But declaring that the ideal is current reality - which is what you appear to do in your post, whether you meant to or not - is terribly naive and dangerous. But apparently that's not what you meant. I'm glad. :)
Jake,
Again, I appreciate your constructive criticism--it really does help articulate (better) what I am trying to say.
Only one point of clarification: my comment about Lady Justice (in context) is that she--and her blindfold--represent what the ideal is. In other words, what true justice is is blind to race, religion, gender, etc. Therefore, when we as a people carry out justice, it is to be done in way that reflects what she represents.
I did not mean for my statement to seem as though I was suggesting that this is how things (currently) are. What I was saying (in context) was that this is how things should be. Our execution of justice needs to be blind to race, religion, gender, etc if we are going to say that we are remaining faithful to what justice is.
I realize I am a bit behind on commenting on this, but I understood your "Lady Justice" statement the way Jake did. This is not to say that you intended it in this way, only that, as a reader, that was how I interpreted your words.
Additionally, having some experience with the criminal justice system, I can attest that proving prejudical motivation is nearly impossible absent a perpetrator's confession. This was one of the major hurtles when anti-discrimination laws were first introduced: how does one prove that he was discriminated against? How does one prove the internal mental processes of another? Based on this problem, our judicial system allows for indirect evidence to be used to create presumptions of discrimination, which force the accused to produce evidence that discrimination did not take place (e.g. that a different explanation is available, and reasonable, for the presence of the indirect evidence). These statistics seem like nothing more than indirect evidence which should prompt us to ask why: is it discrimination or is it something else?
Further, having read the article, I must disagree on your interpretation of what the author's aims were. I fail to see where the author is emphasizing one particular explanation over another. Note that the title of the article is "Study shows racial disparities in prison" as opposed to "Study shows racial discrimination in judicial system." Only one time is racial discrimination even suggested, and that appears in the author's reporting of another's statement (Note that just because that part of the statement is not in quotes does not mean that it is not an accurate reflection of the interviewee's statement, only that it might have been edited or moved so that it fit within a single sentence... which is not uncommon in any kind of quote). In fact, the article goes on to note that a different interviewee suggests that there are multiple reasons for the disparity, including education and poverty.
Post a Comment