"It doesn't make much sense to cite the proportion of black people convicted of a crime by US law enforcement as evidence refuting the claim that the US law enforcement's interaction with people changes according to their race. "

It actually does.

The rate of violent crime among African Americans is massively disproportionate. There's no way any kind of racial bias on the part of police could account for it.

A major study done in the late 2000's actually showed that while African Americans did receive more punishment for similar crimes - once 'criminal history' was taken into consideration, the difference evaporated.

Given that there is a massive difference in 'recorded convictions' (which is arguably biased because of 'racist cops') and numerous attempts to study the prevalence of racism in the system - it's pretty safe to assume that there's no way on earth that 'racist cops' are why there is why African Americans are about 700% more likely to commit violent crimes than others.

It's a sad situation, surely, but it's important to keep the facts in check.

About 50% of violent crime in America is committed by African American men, though they are only about 7% of the population (about 13% including women). This is quite radically high and it's not even explained by poverty.

The sheer size of the discrepancy between ethnic groups is unsettling.

I wish I had answers.

Think about the impact of an arrest though. If one group is getting arrested at a higher rate and thus likely to be convicted of some type of offense, they could be more likely to later reoffend given they now have a conviction on their record and are less likely to be able to find a reasonable job. It is a vicious spiral. A while back, there was a police shooting at a traffic stop (the guy sped off) and it turned out he had been arrested 21 times. I have zero evidence, but my feeling is that the same types of infractions folks in one community are pulled over for are glossed over in others (missing front license plate, tail light out), which starts the vicious cycle.

You're right - it could be. But we don't like to make assumptions since we're having a rational scientific discussion. BTW, since the proportion of convictions is so high, it is going to require some pretty good explaining. Not some, off the cuff, hand-wavy, un-falsifiable, muh prejudice. Since our justice system is built on principles like "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", you better have a whole pile of evidence that people are getting convicted erroneously here.

Pragmatically, criminal convictions of all individuals, race notwithstanding, requires a unanimous jury verdict. In those jurisdictions with high concentration of blacks, which is where the preponderance of black crime takes place, juries would be highly likely to include black members whose assent is required for conviction of a black defendant.

On that basis, non-black bias against blacks would not account for population rates of convictions in those localities, at least insofar as post-arrest procedures are concerned.

Conceivably other factors could be implicated in conviction rates, e.g., possible higher rates of plea bargaining among black defendants. Still, if the difference in crime rates (based on convictions) is great enough, non-jury convictions wouldn't explain it.

> Pragmatically, criminal convictions of all individuals, race notwithstanding, requires a unanimous jury verdict.

No, pragmatically the vast majority of criminal convictions are the result of plea bargains, with no jury involved; the calculus that goes into agreeing to a plea bargain certainly includes the expectations regarding a jury verdict, but it also includes the cost of pre-trial confinement and other factors.

> In those jurisdictions with high concentration of blacks, which is where the preponderance of black crime takes place, juries would be highly likely to include black members whose assent is required for conviction of a black defendant.

It may be more likely that this is the case, but its not guaranteed. Particularly given that jury pools are not guaranteed to be representative (typically, they are determined by means like voter registration and drivers licenses, which may not be consistent in participation across races.)

> On that basis, bias against blacks would not account for population rates of convictions in those localities, at least insofar as post-arrest procedures are concerned.

You seem to be saying that jury pool considerations would prevent racial bias in post-arrest conviction rates; while that's wrong for post-charge rates for the reasons stated earlier in this comment, its even more wrong for post-arrest rates because it ignores prosecutorial bias, which introduces potential post-arrest bias in the rates of criminal charges being pursued for like conduct.

> Still, if the difference in crime rates (based on convictions) is great enough, non-jury convictions wouldn't explain it.

Upwards of 90% of US criminal cases (not just convictions, but all cases; the share of convictions -- since all plea bargains are convictions -- is even higher than the share of cases) are resolved by plea bargains [0]. There's virtually no level of disparity in total convictions that could be explained by disparity in the plea bargaining process, which is overwhelmingly how criminal convictions are arrived at.

[0] https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSumma...

I think that your points about biases in arrest and prosecution being more problematic than I considered are likely correct. I knew plea bargains were common, though the rate you cite is high but not implausible. If there is significant plea bargain rate disparity among racial/ethnic groups it might affect conclusions about impact of racial biases.

While juries are not uniformly populated, in predominantly black communities I'd expect at least some jurors will be black. When there is a jury trial, a requirement for unanimous decision gives any juror "veto" power over a guilty verdict, which in principle mitigates racial bias against a black defendant.

Many years ago when I lived in Washington, DC, blacks were by far the majority. In that environment, racial bias against black residents should logically be minimal in all phases of the criminal justice process. It's not the sort of question I've researched, but someone experienced in that domain should tackle it if the question is still unanswered. In any case, if bias is detected in such a community seems there's a serious problem of a different kind.

I don't think the convictions rates indicate anything contrary to the alleged systemic racism here. The claim that was made in my undergrad criminal justice classes (so taken with appropriate grain of salt with that context) was "white people who commit petty crimes are less likely to end up in court at all, and for larger crimes you are more likely to be convicted if you've been previously convicted for petty crimes, leading to higher rates of conviction for both petty and major crimes" not at all "large scale cases of black people in court for crimes who are actually innocent".

hm, but it isn't built on those principles and not practiced in any consistency throughout the myriad of jurisdictions in the united states

the district attorneys and prosecutors have discretion on what facts [of the case] are relevant, have discretion on what crime to levy which influences the burden of proof, have discretion on what recommended sentence to pursue, and the judges have discretion on pursuing that sentence or not

That's all interesting, except you have to realize that DA are motivated by convictions. Convictions are hard because it requires a unanimous vote from a jury of your peers. So, yes, they exercise their discretion on what facts are relevant and which cases to pursue. But they do not drop cases because its a white guy and keep them because its a black guy as you are insinuating. At most, race is going to be a minor factor when compared with the gravity of the crime and the likelihood of conviction.

> But they do not drop cases because its a white guy and keep them because its a black guy as you are insinuating.

Actual studies of plea bargaining have shown that there are racial biases in what prosecutors offer in deals between black and white defendants [0]. It seems unlikely that the same bias would not also be reflected in decisions to charge in the first place.

[0] https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSumma...: "Studies that assess the effects of race find that blacks are less likely to receive a reduced charge compared with whites (Farnworth and Teske, 1995; Johnson, 2003; Kellough and Wortley, 2002; Ulmer and Bradley, 2006). Additionally, one study found that blacks are also less likely to receive the benefits of shorter or reduced sentences as a result of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion during plea bargaining (Johnson, 2003)."

The fact that there are racial biases in what prosecutors offer between black and white is misleading at best. It simply follows from the facts that we already have: blacks are convicted more often. If blacks are convicted more often, they have longer rap sheets on average. You are unlikely to get a better plea deal if you have a history of committing crime.

Now, if they had gone and showed that first time offenders, for example, had shown a racial bias between blacks and whites, you'd have me impressed.

In effect, you are going back to the original argument, that it's just systemic racism. Unfortunately, you have not provided any falsifiable evidence that this is true.

I was not insinuating anything.

My statements are purposely written to be read independent of the context in this thread to avoid your exact rebuttal. Maybe you were expecting someone else to reply to you.

Continuing, there is a saying that "prosecutors can get a jury to convict a ham sandwich", although more applicable in civil asset forfeiture proceedings that happen to involve a jury. They can give incorrect instructions, they can give arbitrary instructions, they can create any number of constraints for the jury to consider, and they also screen jury members out for various reasons such as a potential juror's affinity for jury nullification.

This allows for greater success in their conviction rate, especially in the idea of the complacent juror.

> there is a saying that "prosecutors can get a jury to convict a ham sandwich

The quote is that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The meaning is entirely different from your interpretation.

Good point

Having read enough appeals cases I will maintain what I mentioned about what prosecutors have discretion over.

What about using the proportion of black assailants as reported by the victims? Would that be relatively free of bias?

> What about using the proportion of black assailants as reported by the victims? Would that be relatively free of bias?

No. There is considerable history of victims not only misidentifying the perpetrator, but even inventing the offense to smear someone because of racial bias, personal animus, or other reasons. To the extent that there is a systematic racial bias throughout society, you'd expect it to be reflected in such reports.

A "considerable history"? You've got nothing here. And you're gonna have to deal with it. Victim of crime survey data is an actual thing we have. You're trying to make it untrue because of your own bias.