Hand waving away racial influences is convenient to some, but definitely not to those affected by it. If you look into the statistics, you'll see that primarily minority communities were targeted by the "tough on crime" era. And these touted "tough on crime" policies only had the effect of enslaving and crippling generations of minority communities.
The crime rates are nearly similar among all races, and it's actually been shown that whites use more drugs than minorities. The thing is though, police don't patrol white communities. They also let white people off the hook. If you're not white though, the tradition is "one strike" (see Bill Clinton's damning policy). Hence, you get in trouble for something any kid might do at 16, and you get locked into a system of control and degradation for the rest of your life.
Please, please, please, do not defend the dark parts of American history. Especially when they're still going on.
This is patently false and not all crimes are the same. The murder and assault rate, for example, is tragically - and dangerously - high for blacks.
> The thing is though, police don't patrol white communities.
The thing is though, police patrol crime-ridden communities, which sadly are often black communities. Or do you think there's a massive unknown murder wave in New Hampshire that would be uncovered if only the police presence there was increased?
I'm sorry to be blunt but this kind of obfuscation of facts is extremely unhelpful and we'll never resolve societies problems by shifting the blame to 'the man' all the time.
Actual crimes committed is what you need to look at, not who gets caught and charged. That's the part that's broken, and that's what you're using to justify the brokenness. I see this time and time again from people.
The more you patrol an area, the more crime you'll find.
All you need to do is look at the statistics. The crime rates (I don't mean arrests or charges here!) are the same or higher among whites. They simply aren't charged or harassed like minority communities are.
As long as you don't explicitly say it's about race, the Supreme Court has ruled time and again that it's okay for police to target minority communities.
This is all detailed with plenty of sources in the book I mentioned. It's truly sickening.
A Channel 4 News fact check says: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-amer... "Blacks were disproportionately likely to commit homicide and to be the victims. In 2008 the offending rate for blacks was seven times higher than for whites and the victimisation rate was six times higher."
You can look at the stats yourself: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf See Page 3 Table 2. This is the "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey" where they ask victims of violent crime demographic information about the offenders. This avoids any question of bias from the arrest rates. Doing the math, black people offend at a rate 2.4x higher than whites.
I disagree that whites are left off the hook: "The probability of arrest given the commission of a crime is higher for whites than it is for blacks for robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, whereas for rape the probability of arrest is approximately equal across offender race. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_S... https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/81/4/1381/22345...
I tried to find data about offender rate for property crime, but every discussion said that since the victims don't encounter the offenders, there is no good way to estimate offender race.
I'm not defending anything in American history. I just want to set the facts straight.
Besides, isn't this begging the question? You can't really use statistics from the same institution you're trying to evaluate. The wikipedia link you posted gives a good summary of whats misleading about the snippet you chose immediately after that snippet.
I disagreed with two false statements of fact: "The crime rates are nearly similar among all races" and "They also let white people off the hook".
I said nothing about drug policy.
Believe it or not there is a great deal of research about just these questions. You might want to actually review such research before you confidently declare these facts as false. As it is, you've been presented with several highly acclaimed books and responded with cherry picked statistics and banal pedantry. It is reminiscent of climate change deniers who love to link to the Koch-funded study of AFP data while also carefully ignoring the last 50 years of other research. If you or anybody really want to actually understand the dark years of "Tough on Crime" that define America from 1960 to now there's a lot of serious texts out there that presents mountains of data on everything from targeting to minorities to redlining.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Even if you believe someone is arguing in bad faith, the exercise of responding to their best possible interpretation forces us to sharpen our own arguments and makes us stronger. It's a worthwhile constraint.
I hope you'll find a way to accommodate yourself to the guidelines and stick around; if not, I hope you'll find a venue that suits you. Regardless: keep on keepin' on, amigo.
Both victimization and offending rates for murder were 3-4x the rate for blacks than whites in 1980 for example. Why was that? Could it be factors like systematic racism, redlining, bundling a lot of poor people into housing projects, brain drain in cities (due to redlining post-integration)?
The result of "tough on crime" has been incarceration rates exploding. They just throw anyone in jail. 5% of black adults are in jail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...
You would think that since the crime rates are down, the incarceration rate would be going down - how can incarceration rates go up as crime goes down? Technology and standard of living increases for the poorest has probably helped crime. The mass incarcerations just help for-profit prisons.
"Lock all the criminals up" when the subtext/unspoken relation for "criminals" is "black people/minorities" is a way to oppress minorities. Its also a failure to think of or implement a different path to work against poverty or criminality - something politicians love to do as a crackdown is easier for them to implement than actually improving people's lives.
Also, one thing that's worth understanding here is that a group of individuals all working under the same values system responding to the same stimuli will typically exhibit the same responses, which can often have the appearance of collusion or organization. And in a way it is, through the shared values system, but not in the overt way many think. That doesn't make the results any more palatable.
I read one article that described how because of the increase in police presence in schools students were more often being handled by the criminal justice system like the common school fight, that would’ve otherwise not been included in assault statistics in the past.
During the crack epidemic many small offenses, such as petty theft were being punished harshly and used as an excuse to put more resources towards the war on drugs rather than diversion and treatment.
A lazy Wiki snip:
Violent crime nearly quadrupled between 1960 and its peak in 1991. Property crime more than doubled over the same period. Since the 1990s, however, crime in the United States has declined steeply.
I'm sure there was probably always some racial influences, e.g. perhaps people were more willing to hand out harsh sentences because the defendants were mostly black. But to say that "Tough On Crime" was really just a cover to marginalize african americans & nothing more... it just seems like a stretch when you suggest everyone was in on it.