I'm sorry if this sounds racist but. . .

[teo123]

because of the chance that innocents will be executed

Are you then also against jails? Because innocent people end up in jail all the time. My mother was sentenced to 1 year in jail a few years ago, and I am quite sure she was innocent.

it doesn't make a significant difference in crime rates

Well, it's hard to tell. Some studies find a small effect, some find no effect. It's a very-soft-science issue, and I agree we shouldn't be basing our policies on that. The same goes for gun control.

I'd say non-vegan

But if you do support jails, ask yourself, if we abolish death penalty, what would those prisoners who will be executed be fed with? Do you realize how hard it is to be a vegetarian, yet alone a vegan, if you are in jail?

[Cloppy]

because of the chance that innocents will be executed

Are you then also against jails? Because innocent people end up in jail all the time. My mother was sentenced to 1 year in jail a few years ago, and I am quite sure she was innocent.

Yeah I am against jails. I think instead we should have rehabilitation centers where people remain, get checked and can then get back to society if they represent no danger to the public anymore or never represented any dangers to begin with. Though I believe that they should be at least followed by someone to make sure they're not doing anything wrong. That until they are rehabilitated.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't think sentencing and general police persecution is in proportion to crime rate.

All other things being equal, the jury is still mostly white so there's likely to be a racial bias there just because many of the jurors are racist and it's very hard to avoid. We need something better than the jury system. It also biases in favor of being more attractive and charismatic, better spoken, wealthier, etc. The trouble is that jurors are hardly impartial metrics of guilt and innocence. It's also something that's hard to remedy, so it's not necessarily beneficial to focus on unless or until we have real solutions.

Likewise, all other things being equal police are also going to stereotype, including black officers against blacks. Even if that stereotype has some truth, a slightly increased probability of somebody posing a danger doesn't equate to the same slightly increased relative probability of the police officer shooting -- in stressful situations those differences are likely to become more binary, and a shoot/no-shoot situation could be determined almost exclusively by whether the person is black or not. Also something unavoidable in human psychology.
We could put officers through the ringer with stressful implicit association tests and retire them as soon as they start shooting black civilians in the tests (which could be very quickly and would likely retire black officers too) or we can take their guns and actually remove (almost) completely one of the necessary ingredients in these shootings.

[Jebus]

we can't take for granted there is racism in death penalty.

I agree we can't, so why do you throw around suggestions that whites are the victims when you can't even provide a source for that.

56 percent white; 35 percent black; 7 percent Hispanic; 2 percent other.

If that source is to be trusted (which is again a complicated empirical problem, and I hate dealing with such problems), most of those who were executed were whites. And since most of those convicted of murder are whites, this is exactly what we would expect if there were no racism. If there were racism, we would expect most of the executed to be of some other race, right?

Do you know what is the percentage of blacks in the U.S.? If so, why do you suggest that most (i.e. above 50%) would have to be black before the idea of racism should be considered?

[Jebus]

the jury is still mostly white so there's likely to be a racial bias there just because many of the jurors are racist and it's very hard to avoid.

And sometimes there are too many blacks on the jury. Do you remember the O.J debacle? I don't think that verdict ever could have been made if the jury had more accurately represented the racial demography of the state of California.

We need something better than the jury system.

I couldn't agree more.

[teo123]

Do you know what is the percentage of blacks in the U.S.?

A lot better question is what percentage of murderers is black. As far as I know, virtually all studies show it's around 50%. So, if there is a racial bias in death penalty, it's against the white murderers, rather than against the black murderers.

[Jebus]

Do you know what is the percentage of blacks in the U.S.?

A lot better question is what percentage of murderers is black. As far as I know, virtually all studies show it's around 50%. So, if there is a racial bias in death penalty, it's against the white murderers, rather than against the black murderers.

Are you even making an effort to make any sense?

Before you can determine any statistical tilt you obviously need a baseline to refer to.

Have you even read the other posts in this thread. We already know the total percentage of black Americans. We already know the percentage of crimes and convictions per racial group.

As far as I know, virtually all studies show it's around 50%.

As far as you know, huh? What about the link I posted earlier?

[brimstoneSalad]

And sometimes there are too many blacks on the jury. Do you remember the O.J debacle? I don't think that verdict ever could have been made if the jury had more accurately represented the racial demography of the state of California.

Sometimes as in like once... and you know O.J. bought and paid for that jury (by proxy, slanted/sympathetic jury selection by a very well paid legal team). The unfairness of jury selection itself favoring people with more legal pull/money is also a problem.

[teo123]

As far as you know, huh? What about the link I posted earlier?

So, it's a controversial topic and, therefore, we can't know much about it.

I think instead we should have rehabilitation centers where people remain, get checked and can then get back to society if they represent no danger to the public anymore or never represented any dangers to begin with.

I think the hidden premise in that rehabilitation for criminals is that psychiatry today is better than useless. I don't see any reason to think that's the case. Up until the mid 19th century, most of the medicine was worse than useless. It's quite possible psychiatry still is.
I think it's better to do nothing with the criminals until it's proven beyond a shade of doubt that some policies indeed help.
People have this idea that there is some objective justice. While there probably is objective morality, it hardly follows there is objective justice. The world is not just, actions don't have predictable consequences, and attempts to make it more just (communism...) have a terrible track record.
Furthermore, I think that, if there is some objective justice, it's not just to punish smaller criminals if the biggest criminals out there remain unpunished. Nobody got punished, for example, for killing tens or hundreds of innocent civilians in the Varivode Massacre (and for more than a decade, the Croatian government denied it even happened). Given that fact, how is it justice that somebody who murders one person, or merely steals something, gets punished?

[Lay Vegan]

This:

The ratio is skewed by socioeconomics AND location, no easy way to control for that. Urban poor are primarily minorities, while rural poor are more white. It's Urban poor due to the poverty and the population density where you create ideal conditions for gang and criminal activity. Hillbillies cooking meth are barely on the radar since they're so far away from anybody who cares or law enforcement.

I don't think sentencing and general police persecution is in proportion to crime rate.

I agree, and there is some evidence to support this.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.05376.pdf

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pbtss11.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3202470

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law- ... -stops-are

http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/docume ... ncisco.pdf

Not only are many police practices/policies designed to target non-white groups, the criminal justice system is also designed to favor the wealthy. A wealthy individual can buy their pre-trial freedom, keep their job, and prepare a solid defense, whereas a poor individual who can’t afford bail must sit in jail for an extended period of time until he either 1; goes to trial or 2; decides to waive his rights and plead guilty in order to go free.

The data would inevitably be skewed by both race and socioeconomics (with poor people having higher conviction rates). https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/ ... rial_race/

It’s really not surprising that such practices would produce racially disparate outcomes.

And sometimes there are too many blacks on the jury. Do you remember the O.J debacle? I don't think that verdict ever could have been made if the jury had more accurately represented the racial demography of the state of California.

Sometimes as in like once…

Lol

We could put officers through the ringer with stressful implicit association tests and retire them as soon as they start shooting black civilians in the tests (which could be very quickly and would likely retire black officers too) or we can take their guns and actually remove (almost) completely one of the necessary ingredients in these shootings.

In this case the victim (George Floyd) was likely axphixiated, but that’s an interesting proposition. Body cams would definitely provide much better evidence than eye witness testimonials or memory. Police officers could also be given rubber bullets or tasers instead of guns.