Intro

It's time for a reality check ...

Maybe we’ve reached the point of diminishing astonishment.

But I suspect that much of what we’re hammered with every day really doesn’t make much of an impact on most of us anymore. We’ve heard the same stories too often. We’ve been exposed to the same issues for so long without any meaningful resolution. We recognize that reality is rapidly becoming malleable, primarily in the hands of whoever has the biggest microphone. How else can we explain a society where myth asserts itself as reality, based entirely how many hits it gets online?

We know that many of the “issues” as defined are pure crapola, hyped by politicians on both sides pandering to “the will of the people,” which is still more crapola. Inevitably, it’s not the will of all the people they reflect, but the will of relatively small groups of people with disproportionate political influence.

Nobody wants to face up to the realities of the issues. Nobody wants to say what’s right or wrong – even when it’s obvious and there are numbers to back it up. Most of us are afraid to bring up the realities for fear of being accused of being insensitive or downright mean.

So we say nothing. Until now.

It’s time for a reality check on the fundamentals – much of which is common knowledge to many of us, already. But it might be comforting to know you are not alone …

Thursday, October 12, 2017

The myth of the “honest conversation …”

That’s usually followed by “about (fill in the blank) in this country.”

The topic can be any number of things: racial injustice, income inequality, immigration, gun violence, or whatever.

The implication is that we’ve never actually discussed any of these things. At least not had an “honest” discussion. But we need to. Right now.

Anytime someone says this I already know they aren’t interested at all in an “honest” conversation. They don’t want a “conversation.” They want something quite different. They want yet another opportunity to “discuss” something they’ve been yammering about for years.

Nine times out of ten whatever that is has no realistic solution because it’s not intended to ever be “solved.”  Often it’s a purely manufactured “problem,” invented simply to be a wedge issue. Their proposed “honest conversation” will just rehash the same pointless crap once again. 

Let’s take “racial injustice” for a moment.  It seems to be the issue of the day that’s brought pro athletes to their knees during the national anthem. 

What exactly is racial injustice? Seriously, what is it?

It implies that people aren’t getting impartial treatment under the law solely because of their race.  The only “evidence” anyone can present for “racial injustice” is based entirely on outcomes, where blacks are disproportionately more likely to end up in prison than whites. And black offenders are disproportionately more likely to be shot by police than whites.

Here’s my problem with that “proof” of racial injustice – those claims typically and conveniently ignore prior arrests and convictions, and the specific circumstances of the incident. That usually explains any difference in outcomes.

Let’s take perp A and perp B, for example, who are both arrested for selling the same amount of the same drugs. If A has no prior arrests or convictions and B has a record stretching back to when he was 15 with multiple arrests and convictions for selling drugs, the one with more priors is most likely to get a harsher sentence. Race has nothing to do with that outcome; prior bad behavior does. 

Step it up a notch.  Perp C is accused of shooting someone in commission of a robbery, so is perp D.  Both serious crimes. But C has done this several times before, and has also served time in prison for attempted murder. D has one prior conviction for robbery when he was 16, served time in juvenile hall, and hasn’t been arrested again until now.  

Guess who gets a stiffer sentence.  

Okay, it’s time to take on police shootings.  Perp E is found in a stolen car with unregistered guns and a large amount of cocaine during a routine traffic stop. So is perp F. When officers try to arrest E, he races off leading police on a high-speed chase through a residential area before he is finally stopped and gives up.  F does exactly the same thing, but when he’s stopped he refuses to remain in the car as instructed and instead walks toward the officers while reaching into his waistband for something as he screams profanities at the arresting officers. 

Who is more likely to be shot? 

Race has little if anything to do with these outcomes. Except for one thing: black males are significantly more likely to have prior arrest records than white or Hispanic males.   

At any time up to 25% of all adult black males are in the justice system – they’ve either done time, are on parole, or are awaiting trial. Blacks are only 13% of the U.S. population, yet they account for 40% of our prison population. That’s way too high to blame solely on racial injustice.

Consider this: one report speculates that if this trend continues one in three black males will go to prison in their lifetimes. The number for white males is one in 17, and one in six for Hispanics. That’s not about racial injustice; that’s about paying the price for committing crimes.  And that’s also why blacks are far more likely to have prior arrest and convictions than whites or Hispanics charged with the same crimes, and consequently, why they often get harsher sentences.

Proponents of the claim of widespread racial injustice against blacks think that shouldn’t matter. Just because someone commits the same type of crime, or worse, repeatedly, that shouldn’t matter in how they are treated by the justice system. 

Of course it matters.  If a reasonable person on a jury discovers that a defendant has a history of violent crime and is now being charged with yet another violent crime, it’s certain to affect their opinion. Nobody sane wants a repeat offender like that back on the streets. If someone has a history of convictions for armed robbery, and is convicted of yet another armed robbery, you can bet they are going to get more than a slap on the wrist this time, regardless of skin color.  

That’s an “honest conversation” about “racial injustice.” I doubt many on the other side care to have that one, ever.     

As if to prove my point, last night I saw an interview with a Chicago alderman. He was asked about the possible link between so many kids in the black community without fathers and the murder rate in Chicago, especially among black males. He conceded that there was likely a link.

However he blamed the lack of black fathers on the incarceration rate of black males. His solution was to stop incarcerating so many black males for so long. 

Not stop the crimes. Not stop so many black kids being born to single mothers. Not stop a culture that equates manhood with how many different baby mamas some male can impregnate. 

Nope. Just give black males lighter sentences, regardless of any crimes they’ve committed or their prior criminal history.    

In effect, he was asking for a break solely based on the race of the criminal.   

Yeah, that's fair. That's textbook racial injustice if you don't happen to be black.   

So much for an “honest conversation.”    

No comments:

Post a Comment