I think prison demographics have a lot more to do with inequalities in the justice system and how different communities are policed than it does who actually "commits more crimes", especially when you start looking at things like fraud and non-violent drug offenses.

"So you are saying we have systematic misanthropy in the justice system?"

I can't tell if you're arguing in bad faith or if you think you're actually being profound here with these socratic challenges.

Men commit and are caught, charged, and imprisoned for many more crimes than women are.

Black men probably commit somewhat more crimes than white men— a fact which can largely be understood in context by examining structural inequalities like not having access to the same schools, community supports, family stability, plus adding in layers of racism and generational trauma, etc etc. But their representation in the corrections system is significantly out of proportion even to this ratio due to factors like racist policing and courts, and compounded by things like the bail system, which pressures the innocent to plead guilty.

These two situations are not really comparable.

Racist policing and racist sentencing seem like they could easily make up for the proportion.

Most white people don't get charged when they are caught commiting a crime, and the ones that do get light sentences that can keep them out of the correctional system

To be honest, I haven't studied it in depth, but I think the point is that it's many factors or potential factors— it isn't a problem which is going to be solved by addressing just one aspect.

3 earnest questions:

* Why is family stability a structural inequality? Families are a unit that largely makes up it's own structure, independent from society.

* What does generational trauma mean? Is this an epigenetic thing?

* "their representation in the corrections system is... compounded by things like the bail system, which pressures the innocent to plead guilty." - Why would black men be more affected by the the pressure to plead guilty when innocent than other races?

Families aren't independent of society; family structures and society at large affect each other in many ways. It's hard to have a stable family unit when a large fraction of men are in jail. It's a feedback loop.

Bail system pressure disproportionately affects people without access to financial resources (and through them legal resources), which are not equally distributed.

> Why is family stability a structural inequality?

Perhaps "structural" is sloppy here, but it is a way that past traumas echo forward across multiple generations. Like, look at the numbers— 64% of black kids in a single parent home in 2019 vs 24% for white kids:

https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in...

Obviously many single-parent families are wonderful and may well be better than an abusive two-parent family, but at a population level, these are kids who are going to grow up to themselves have higher divorce rates and their own kids repeating the pattern.

Regarding the bail system and race, see: "The cash bail system disproportionately impacts people of color, fueling a pervasive problem of structural racism in our criminal justice system. The pretrial population is disproportionally Black and Hispanic and has more than doubled over the past 15 years.1 Black and Hispanic Americans are more likely to be stopped by the police and experience police violence at the time of arrest; they also are more likely to be poor and unable to raise bail funds. The cash bail system also compounds underlying health disparities in access to care that has led to worse outcomes for Blacks and Hispanics compared to white Americans."

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2020/how-cash-bail-sys...

> What does generational trauma mean? Is this an epigenetic thing?

While it can be epigenetic (e.g. descendents of Holocaust survivors having measurably different gene activations and responses to stress), typically it isn't referred to that way. Instead, it refers to social trauma that may be present, and social knowledge that may not be.

For the former, consider a family whose grandfather was unfairly beaten by the police. Furthermore, all of their friends and neighbors have similarly unpleasant stories about their grandparents. Even if the police had behaved absolutely saintly since then, those stories would influence whether somebody reports a theft to the police. Those stories would influence how uncomfortable somebody is when talking to the police, and whether they are viewed with suspicion as a result. And that is the best case scenario, when in reality the police have been far from saintly.

For the latter, consider a family in which not a single person has had college education in the past several generations. A high schooler looks in that family is looking at colleges, seeing how the subjects covered in college match their interests and would lead to a good long-term career. But, they also see the yearly price advertised by colleges, and decide not to go. Because nobody in their family has gone to college, they are unaware that the advertised prices are rarely ever the full price paid, that there are fellowships and scholarships set up for these cases. (Not as good of an example as this would have been 10-20 years ago due to continued increase in education costs, but the point still stands.)

In both cases, even if the original sources of inequality had been completely wiped away (which they haven't), the generational trauma is still there, by no fault of the individuals or the group.

Edit:spelling

This was a counter argument that wouldn’t even cut it in high school.

Prisons aren't disproportionately located in majority-female areas.

Prisons are, however, disproportionately located in majority-white areas. Prison gerrymandering allows majority white communities to count Black prisoners from outside their community in their census while stripping them of their ability to vote. It gives the white community more power and resources, and takes not only from the prisoner their right to vote, but from the prisoner's community a census taker. The Census is literally how representatives in the House are allocated and per-capita funding is divided.

A far simpler explanation for the same pattern would be that prisons take up a lot of space, and are therefore often located outside of urban centers, and rural areas also happen to be whiter than average. People generally also don't want to live near prisons, making it politically expedient to stick them somewhere out of sight in the boonies.

Those reasons seem a lot more convincing to me than a concerted effort to shave a few fractions of a percent off census data.

The benefit of the doubt can only go so far, extending it to this issue is an exercise in willful ignorance of the history of this country[1] and how it has systematically accumulated and protected white wealth at the expense of people of color. It's not just "a fraction of a percent." It's one in five. "One in five people in prison for at least 10 years is a black man incarcerated before age 25.[2]"

You have no idea the sheer magnitude of the problem we have here.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619...

2. https://apps.urban.org/features/long-prison-terms/demographi...

The prison location has nothing to do with the location of the crime. Not every town has a prison, and prisoners often get shifted around to different prisons for various reasons (security requirements etc.)

Also, pretty much all of the US is „majority female“, even if it‘s just by 1.6%.

Looking at the U.S.A., it seems obvious to me that the following four things are true:

- Males commit more crimes than females

- Males are more easily, and longer incarcerated than females on the same evidence.

- Blacks commit more crimes than whites

- Blacks are are more easily, and loner incarcerated than whites on the same evidence

“careful?”, I'll be frank that I smell the stench of U.S.A. culture war identity politics where facts that should obvious to everyone are not examined on their veracity, but on “What team might the messenger be playing for?”. — what is there to be “careful” about what seems to be the obvious?

You’re intentionally jettisoning historical context (3/5 compromise + wording of fourteenth amendment) here

Could you elaborate what you refer two with those two concepts? As you can see, I am not doing anything intentional as I don‘t know enough about the „3/5 compromise“ and the 14th admt

First, my bad! I mixed up 13 and 14 -- I meant the 13th amendment.

So first, the 3/5 compromise:

When the constitution was being drafted, there was a disagreement between the free and slave states (actually, I'm not sure if there were any free states, or if at the time the North was just not reliant on slave labor and essentially winding it down).

The north wanted slaves to not count towards your state's population for the purposes of apportioning house representatives. Since slaves could not vote, they argued, they shouldn't count towards your representation in the federal government.

The south, on the other hand, wanted slaves to count towards the state's population for apportioning house representatives. Since slaves still required the same resources to survive as non-slaves, they argued, they should be counted.

This ultimately led to the "3/5 compromise": slaves counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of apportioning house representatives.

Now, fast forward to the federal abolishment of slavery, the 13th amendment. It explicitly says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." So it is very squarely placing prisoners in the same historical context as slaves, and they were thought of and reasoned about as such.

So in the end, it seems straightforward to me that the state of slavery and prisons in America deliberately reduces the representation of black people. This is by design. While it does effectively increase the representation of women, there's far less of an argument to be made that it's an intentional feature of the system.

NOTE: In checking these sources, I discovered that the 14th amendment (actually the 14th this time) says that voters who have become ineligible to vote shouldn't be counted towards your representation. Maybe it was superceded by a later amendment?

SECOND NOTE: Here's an NPR article mentioning the prisons-count-as-population-for-representation concept: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/12/31/761932806...

Are you arguing that communities should be allowed to artificially inflate their voting population with non-voting prisoners? Do you think that's just and fair?

I do not care about details of US election laws. For what‘s worth, no, I do not believe communities should be able to inflate their voting population like that, but I have literally never heard of this topic ever being an issue anywhere else in the world. So that‘s like me asking „Do you think that it‘s fair that kids have free from school on carnival days“? You wouldn‘t care about this super-localized societal micro-issue either, assuming you‘re from the US and not Brazil.

You've picked an odd subthread to take your stand in then, since that's explicitly the topic of the post you are replying to.

OP provided two links for context, both of which were clear about being about the US prison system.

The implication of your comment is that there is something inherent in black people that makes them more likely to end up in prison. Are sure you want go down that road?

One could rephrase your comment like this:

The implication of your comment is that there is something inherent in males that makes them more likely to end up in prison. Are sure you want go down that road?

That‘s the point I‘m trying to make.

Testosterone perhaps?