Racial Bias

[Spartanmack]

I have made it clear that posts directed towards you should be read as ad hominem. I don't think that's a win. That's a confession.

And this post highlighting that you think that's a win, is actually another ad hominem.

you're playbook is obvious, you don't need to confess to it - can't argue facts, resort to ad hominem, count on your little buddy to come along and pile on to give you the affirmation you seek, rinse and repeat. It's weak, just like your argument about a supposedly racist justice system and a study that doesn't control for what you think, and therefore doesn't support the conclusion but you refuse to see that or even consider the possibility.

And I don't think it's a win, but I'm pretty sure you do even if you say you don't.

 

[Gulo Blue]

you're playbook is obvious, you don't need to confess to it - can't argue facts, resort to ad hominem, count on your little buddy to come along and pile on to give you the affirmation you seek, rinse and repeat. It's weak, just like your argument about a supposedly racist justice system and a study that doesn't control for what you think, and therefore doesn't support the conclusion but you refuse to see that or even consider the possibility.

And I don't think it's a win, but I'm pretty sure you do even if you say you don't.

It would be better to stick to facts. I'd like to stick to facts. But you don't react well to facts, which is an ad hominem point, and also a fact.

 

[Spartanmack]

It would be better to stick to facts. I'd like to stick to facts. But you don't react well to facts, which is an ad hominem point, and also a fact.

If only you could stick to facts. I base everything on facts. You ignore the ones that are inconvenient to your position and react based on your feelings and emotion, hence the ad hominem.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If only you could stick to facts. I base everything on facts. You ignore the ones that are inconvenient to your position and react based on your feelings and emotion, hence the ad hominem.

You said you had studies, plural, supporting your view. You posted think tank claims. That's according to your link. "Heather MacDonald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute" This isn't an academic or even remotely unbiased source providing -not a study - but statistics, which we know can be cherry picked and discussed lacking important context.

That's what you call facts.

I'm not ignoring what you posted, I just see it for what it is. It's entirely possible for MacDonald's testimony to be true regarding uncontrolled stats, and for there to be 20% longer sentences for black male offenders after controlling for the various factors.

How do you discount what I've posted? Why do you say it doesn't take criminal history into account when it very clearly does, and when people claimed it may be missing difference rates of violent criminal history, they looked at that too, and found that that didn't explain the discrepancy?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Where are you reading so much emotion in my posts? That's coming from you.

 

[Spartanmack]

You said you had studies, plural, supporting your view. You posted think tank claims. That's according to your link. "Heather MacDonald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute" This isn't an academic or even remotely unbiased source providing -not a study - but statistics, which we know can be cherry picked and discussed lacking important context.

That's what you call facts.

she referenced a Justice Department study in her testimony before Congress - that's not a think tank claim.

I'm not ignoring what you posted, I just see it for what it is. It's entirely possible for MacDonald's testimony to be true regarding uncontrolled stats, and for there to be 20% longer sentences for black male offenders after controlling for the various factors.

How do you discount what I've posted? Why do you say it doesn't take criminal history into account when it very clearly does, and when people claimed it may be missing difference rates of violent criminal history, they looked at that too, and found that that didn't explain the discrepancy?

I've explained what's wrong or how I "discount" what you posted several times - the study doesn't specifically account for prior criminal history nor does it completely account for sentencing guidelines. It only considers the minimum sentence of the sentence range and whether or not the court decided to issue a sentence outside the guideline range - above or below.

If the actual range for convicted black offenders is greater than for white convicted offenders because of prior criminal history, especially if the bottom of the range doesn't change and only the high end increases, then that's a problem. That to me doesn't adequately account for prior criminal history and probably explains why when you actually control for prior criminal history, you get a different result.

Also, it doesn't look at different rates of violent crimes - it breaks offenders into 2 buckets by race, those with a violent crime conviction and those without. It doesn't say anything about the rates of violent crime among races or even the severity or number of violent crimes. Someone with a single assault conviction is in the same bucket as someone with a long history of violent crimes. Someone who got in a bar fight is in the same bucket as someone with a multiple muggings or rape. That to me, also doesn't seem to adequately control for history of violent crime.

Your response to all that is ad hominem, which you've admitted to over and over again. Facts don't care about your feelings and neither do I - and don't waste your time, you can't possibly offend me.

 

[Gulo Blue]

she referenced a Justice Department study in her testimony before Congress - that's not a think tank claim.



I've explained what's wrong or how I "discount" what you posted several times - the study doesn't specifically account for prior criminal history nor does it completely account for sentencing guidelines. It only considers the minimum sentence of the sentence range and whether or not the court decided to issue a sentence outside the guideline range - above or below. That to me doesn't adequately account for prior criminal history and probably explains why when you actually control for prior criminal history, you get a different result. Your response to that is ad hominem, which you've admitted to over and over again. Facts don't care about your feelings and neither do I - and don't waste your time, you can't possibly offend me.

See, this is wrong. The minimum of the range is factually different from considering the minimum and the range. You might call it nitpicky, but it makes a difference in the meaning and all your little omissions of facts always err in the same direction. Like they're not actually errors.

But I'm glad to know that facts don't care about my feelings. Even if the facts don't care that I'm glad.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If the actual range for convicted black offenders is greater than for white convicted offenders because of prior criminal history, especially if the bottom of the range doesn't change and only the high end increases, then that's a problem. That to me doesn't adequately account for prior criminal history and probably explains why when you actually control for prior criminal history, you get a different result.

If that's the case? Well, is it?

 

[Gulo Blue]

In 2016 they added data that required scanning + optical character recognition.

While the Commission regularly collects information about the number
of prior convictions and the number of points assigned to those offenses under
the guidelines (see USSG, supra note 6, at Ch. 4), the Commission did not regularly
collect information about the nature of an offender?s prior offenses (e.g., assault,
robbery, larceny, drug trafficking) prior to fiscal year 2016. Beginning with
fiscal year 2016 data, the Commission developed a method to collect data about
all prior state and federal convictions, including the type of offense and date of
sentence. This information was extracted from the presentence investigation
report prepared in connection with the offender?s federal offense and submitted
Demographic Differences in Sentencing 40
to the Commission by the sentencing court. For more information on how this
data was collected, and for a list of the offense types that were determined to
involve violence, see Appendix C.

 

[Gulo Blue]

she referenced a Justice Department study in her testimony before Congress - that's not a think tank claim.

Depends on which line you're talking about. It's a think tank's picking of numbers (and omission of other numbers) and spin.

 

[Spartanmack]

Where are you reading so much emotion in my posts? That's coming from you.

I'm not reading so much emotion in your posts.

 

[Spartanmack]

See, this is wrong. The minimum of the range is factually different from considering the minimum and the range. You might call it nitpicky, but it makes a difference in the meaning and all your little omissions of facts always err in the same direction. Like they're not actually errors.

But I'm glad to know that facts don't care about my feelings. Even if the facts don't care that I'm glad.

See my edite post, maybe that will help things sink in...

It's not wrong and I'm not the one omitting facts. I've been pointing out this factual difference for pages now. It's not nitpicky, it's actually pointing out a significant flaw - using the minimum of the range IS FACTUALLY DIFFERENT from using the minimum and the range, they'd just be using THE RANGE. But they're not, they're only using

The presumptive sentence, which is the bottom of the
applicable sentencing guideline range that applies in a
case (i.e., the minimum sentence, in months, to which the
offender was subject under the sentencing guidelines,
taking into account all guideline, statutory, and mandatory
minimum provisions)

 

[Gulo Blue]

See my edite post, maybe that will help things sink in...

It's not wrong and I'm not the one omitting facts. I've been pointing out this factual difference for pages now. It's not nitpicky, it's actually pointing out a significant flaw - using the minimum of the range IS FACTUALLY DIFFERENT from using the minimum and the range, they'd just be using THE RANGE. But they're not, they're only using

http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1001811&postcount=112

Go down 3 more bullets from the one you quoted:

Whether the court determined that a sentence outside the
applicable sentencing guideline range was warranted;59

 

[Spartanmack]

If that's the case? Well, is it?

You can't be sure from this study but according to the Justice Department study referenced by Heather MacDonald in her testimony before congress, it explains the difference in sentencing.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You can't be sure from this study but according to the Justice Department study referenced by Heather MacDonald in her testimony before congress, it explains the difference in sentencing.

Sure it does. Have you looked at the study?

 

[Spartanmack]

http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1001811&postcount=112

yeah, the court determining that a sentence outside the applicable range doesn't actually account for the range. You get that right? For example criminal X & Y are both arrest for the same crime which normally has a sentencing range of 3-5yrs but criminal Y gets an extra 24 months added to the high end of his range because of prior criminal history. They both have the same minimum sentence. Now suppose they both end up getting max sentences, criminal Y's sentence is more than 2.3x the low end of the range whereas criminal X is just 1.67x the low end. Neither sentence was outside the guideline range but one was much higher than the low end of the range.

 

[Spartanmack]

Sure it does. Have you looked at the study?

yes

 

[Gulo Blue]

yeah, the court determining that a sentence outside the applicable range doesn't actually account for the range. You get that right? For example if criminal X's range is 3-5yrs and criminal Y's gets an extra 24 months added to the high end of his range because of prior criminal history and they both end up getting max sentences, criminal Y's sentence is more than 2.3x the low end of the range whereas criminal X is just 1.67x the low end. Neither sentence was outside the guideline range but one was much higher than the low end of the range.

Smooth how you just shift from saying it's not there to trying to explain (incorrectly) why it doesn't matter that it is there.

If the range was 3-5 years it would be, in large part, because of the criminal history. Criminal history is a part of that guideline. Numerically. If your history has X you get 4 points, if sentenced to more than 6 months, add an additional point, and so forth.

 

[Spartanmack]

Smooth how you just shift from saying it's not there to trying to explain (incorrectly) why it doesn't matter that it is there.

If the range was 3-5 years it would be, in large part, because of the criminal history. Criminal history is a part of that guideline. Numerically. If your history has X you get 4 points, if sentenced to more than 6 months, add an additional point, and so forth

Smooth how you completely mischaracterize my posts. That's clearly not what I'm doing.

And if the range is 3-5 for one, but 3-7 for another because of criminal history, this study, which looks at the low end of the range only, treats them the same when clearly they're not.

 

[Gulo Blue]

yes

Good. Where did she get her stat from?