You're saying that the US, which is also number one on incarcerated population per capita, doesn't put enough people in jail?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...

If recidivism is the issue, then the way the US treats prisons, prisoners, and especially ex-convicts is the source. The entire system is built around punishing people for the rest of their lives, after having placed them in facilities with a social structure that encourages repeated issues.

Yes.

>The entire system is built around punishing people for the rest of their lives, after having placed them in facilities with a social structure that encourages repeated issues.

The problem is, we're not doing that anymore, and crime is returning to its worst levels in history, as bad as the 70s and 80s. A man on parole for killing his mother just beat an Asian woman half to death in NYC. There's currently a manhunt for a man in Texas who raped a 16 year old, spent a little over two weeks in jail before bailing out some paltry sum, then proceeded to shoot 2-3 people. This is a daily reality.

If you believe the us has a more violent population than anywhere else in the world, have you ever bothered to interrogate as to why that is?

Or could it be the us has an issue with whay and for How long we allow police and our court systems to punish people? Could it be the us is simply over policed?

No shortage of research on this. I ask you take the time to look into this

Perhaps we’re subject to demoralization and whipped into fear and agitation by our own news media, goaded into street violence, justice warriors fighting law enforcement, our culture more or less in tatters. I doubt all that’s caused by over policing seems like cultural social problems to me. But if you believe that overpolicing is the root problem, the easiest way to reduce policing is not to call them. All it would take is a concerted effort in the high crime areas to boycott the police; fewer crimes reported leads to fewer cops.

Otherwise, politicians are always going to feel obligated to add police to areas where folks are getting robbed, raped, murdered, etc... Seems underreporting of crime, citizens boycotting 911, is the only way forward if the problem is overpolicing. Am I mistaken?

> Am I mistaken?

Yes, we can defund them.

Here in Pennsylvania, numerous rural (read: white) communities have disbanded their local police departments. Lack of tax dollars and, as I like to think, it's stupid to pay for overtime, SUVs and army gear so that police can harass people for traffic violations and drug possession.

The problem now is that these communities don't pay any extra for state police emergency coverage... so they get to have their cake and eat it, too. (That is, they get to whine about how "defund police" is a communist plot while everyone else pays for their emergency coverage... money which is supposed to be spent on road repairs.)

Places without high crime (armed robbery, murder,etc) can decrease policing because those areas don’t have high crime. Those are not the areas where police violence is an issue. So your solution effectively does nothing.

I would argue that police in inner cities are a bit like the drunken reveler looking for their keys under the street light because they can't see anything elsewhere.

Could certainly use a few more detectives poking around Wall Street...

think a bit more on why lots of police could possibly generate high crime rates

If more police _caused_ more crime to occur you would see it quite clearly in in small wealthy suburban communities where over policing is very real (think about places where the police mostly focus on truant high school kids and rich people with domestic disturbances). Rather, police violence is a problem in dangerous high crime areas like the Oakland Bart station, not in undeniably over policed areas like Beverly Hills. As long as a lot of violent crime is reported in these places, politicians will be obligated to have police there to protect the public. Bart without police won’t fly with anyone. You can defund the cops in Beverly Hills, for sure, but that seems counter productive if your concern is police violence. Private security will just move in a soak up those dollars with even less accountability to the public.

There's a very good, entertaining movie that is great rebuttal to this take. It's called Beverly Hills Cop. give it a watch and then reread what you wrote here lol

> Because an enormous swath of its population is dangerous, unfortunately.

I know! Wage thieves, environmental criminals, bankers, the Sacklers...

I'd love to lock them up too.

This always makes me think the people who scream this have never been to jail/prison.

I'm sure solutions exist, I'm sure what we have now doesn't work.

We need rehabilitation instead of the 'gladiator schools' we have now.

America has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. The historical reduction in crime started before 1994, so there's not good evidence for a causal connection (controversially, Dubner and Levitt in Freakonomics argued it was Roe v Wade that was largely responsible).

Regardless, any system by which 8 percent of adult black men are in prison clearly has bigger problems. It would be much cheaper to tackle the problem at its source: structural racism and poverty.

>Regardless, any system by which 8 percent of adult black men are in prison clearly has bigger problems

Agreed. Any chance they're committing more crimes? Or over half of all murders?

We can control for poverty, which has been found to have a much weaker correlation with criminality than race. Systemic racism is a meaningless act of circular reasoning, because it seems to be defined only by statistical disparities, which themselves are attributed to systemic racism.

American racism is clearly systemic/institutionalized...

>And according to exoneration data, innocent African American suspects are 7 times more likely to be falsely convicted of murder than innocent white suspects.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26840501

Unfortunately spreading misleading information without second thought is yet another feature of white supremacist systems, not a bug.

From your source:

"Judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people. A major cause of the high number of black murder exonerations is the high homicide rate in the black community—a tragedy that kills many African Americans and sends many others to prison. Innocent defendants who are falsely convicted and exonerated do not contribute to this high homicide rate. They— like the families of victims who are killed—are deeply harmed by murders committed by others."

7x more murders per capita, 7x higher rates of false conviction. It's simple scaling. That means the system is being perfectly equitable.

>7x more murders per capita

Source?

> Official misconduct is more common in murder convictions that lead to exonerations of African American defendants

> 87% of black exonerees that were sentenced to death were victims of official misconduct

You should read the rest of the report because they make it clear institutional foulplay is a key component of the overcriminalization.

Disagreement with the systemic racist ideology is a feature of white supremacy! How convenient!

Unfortunately, people in cults get brainwashed and don't know it either. Here we have a prime example of how Jamestown and certain 1930s youth programs came into existence. Which color kool-aid are you going with?

Fallacies of elimination are fun...

Try forming an actual argument instead of just labeling everyone you disagree with as a white supremacist. Someone who so freely throws the word racist around, clearly doesn't think it holds much meaning.

- Define 'structural racism' and why it forces blacks to be far more criminal and violent than the rest of the population.

- Can poverty explain, for example, why blacks in Wisconsin commit 2/3 of all violent crime while they are only 7% of the state's population? There are wholly White and Native American cities in Wisconsin that are dirt poor - the poorest - and yet they are not committing insanely high levels of crime.

Criminalizing an underclass isn't a new concept, its been done in many places to many races around the world with varying success.

>why it forces blacks to be far more criminal

I think the fact that UK blacks commit crimes at a far lower rate than US whites throws a wrench in this type of oversimplification of the racial landscape.

Citation badly needed.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/black-murder-victims-and-susp...

3% of the population and 13% of the murders in the UK.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41887-020-00055-y

5-6x homicide victimization rate vs whites, and 24x in males 18-24.

These multiples are fairly consistent globally.

You may have misread the original statement. I'm comparing the US white crime rate to the UK black crime rate.

It is clear US whites are far more likely to commit crimes.

Source? It doesn't seem to be true for homicide. The US white rate is consistently between 3-4 per 100k, and the UK black rate is often above 5 per 100k.

Either way, all this proves is that the UK is overall a safer country than the US. But the racial disparities within each country are remarkably similar.

It also points to the fact that a privileged (at least in regards to wealth/opportunity) race in the US commits crimes at the same or higher rate (depending on category) than an underprivileged race in the UK.

We can't remove bias and false criminalization from stats but the contrast between two sister countries is interesting nonetheless.

If the simplified overarching premise is "Blacks are uniquely criminal regardless of circumstance", why am I more likely to be a victim of criminality in a room filled with 1000 white Americans than 1000 black Brits?

You still haven't provided a source.