Thank you Bari! Some of my favorite folks in here, a delicious tapas bar of intellect, with some sharp, palate-cleansing intermezzo of counterpoint thrown in. Tasty.
I'm not woke. I work in an elite private school, so I have to disguise myself, live a double life, watch what I say, etc. I listen to woke crap all day, every day, and ha…
Thank you Bari! Some of my favorite folks in here, a delicious tapas bar of intellect, with some sharp, palate-cleansing intermezzo of counterpoint thrown in. Tasty.
I'm not woke. I work in an elite private school, so I have to disguise myself, live a double life, watch what I say, etc. I listen to woke crap all day, every day, and have ample opportunity to digest it. That rumination has revealed some points that the wokesters make that, in some sense, I actually agree with. E.g., we're all racist. Yes. Of course we are. To widely varying degrees, but yes, humans are hard-wired with deep autonomic reactions to "others". These were useful to us when we were tribal hunter-gatherers and early farmers, and frankly, some vestigial presence of that genetically-supported caution serves us even today. That applies, by the way, to people of every hue. And, as a corollary of the fact that our systems are human creations, and reflections of us, I'll concede a point here: It is likely that there is some racism in our systems. The question is: How much? And, what is to be done about it? I challenge the idea that confession, awareness, or "doing the work" (whatever that means!) are going to extract every last drop of vestigial, naturally-occurring "other-fear" from our very complex bodies. At some point, we're going to have to accept that we've done enough. But... how to measure that?
Now I'll switch hats and confess that I am an economist by training. As such, I'd like to inject the concept of "diminishing marginal returns" (DMR) into the conversation about "systemic racism." The basic notion of DMR is that you get more bang for your buck at the beginning of a project, and as time goes on, after the low-hanging fruit is all picked and competitors have entered your space, you start to find yourself working harder and getting smaller returns on your invested time, money, and effort. Think of the Emancipation Proclamation as anti-racism's "IPO"... how much moral good, do you suppose, was precipitated by the freeing of slaves in America? Could it even be measured? Ah, those were the days of HUGE ROI. Now, though, post-black-vote, post-Jim-Crow, post-Civil Rights Act, post-half-black-President, we find ourselves with a bloated race industry, crowded with players, chasing a relatively small remaining sliver of barely-visible national racism. And, naturally, when both public interest and return on investment begin to wane, one strategy is to turn up the marketing effort, to create more demand. (Demand is so low that people go out of their way to create racial incidents when there aren't enough to go around.) I believe that we are currently in that stage of the game... high effort and little return leading to frustration, panic, irrationality, and ultimately (moral) bankruptcy.
Another begrudging agreement I have with the woke is that privilege is a problem. However, I don't see it exactly their way. Privilege isn't purely a white thing. As a school administrator, I've gotten to know my coworkers over the years. They are racially diverse, and from several generations, but they are mostly women. And, regardless of race, they all have one thing in common, which is this: A middle-or-upper-middle-class upbringing that bestowed upon them life in a safe, quiet neighborhood, a college education and, in most cases, a graduate degree. Almost universally, their lives were seamless, from high school to college and straight into secure jobs in academia. This common experience, this level of privilege, that they all share, doesn't make them racists. It does quite the opposite. It renders them overly empathetic to those who appear to have less privilege due to their race. This empathy excess comes from having no experience of walking in other peoples' shoes.
The woke often assert that one cannot speak about, think about, or help with, the lived experience of intersectionally-oppressed folks because one does not share their experience. One should just shut up and listen. And again... the woke are partially right about this, but not in the way that they wield it. My coworkers are incapable of any kind of nuanced reflection about these race issues, not only because they can't relate to being another race, but because they have no experience outside of their societal class. Sure, my white colleagues have black friends, and brown friends. But those friends are all from middle- or upper-middle-class homes, they all have college degrees, and they are all woke.
I came from a different background. I have experienced poverty, neglect, and abuse. I have stolen a car, I have robbed people, and I have sold drugs on the street. I've been shot at by a police officer. I've been beaten up while in the custody of police. I grew up out in the street, and in my youth, had a warped set of values. And I am as white as Wonder Bread.
People from privilege (of any race) can be astoundingly unaware. They can look at a white cop roughing up a black suspect, and automatically read racism, and only racism, into the exchange. Those of us who have been on criminal side of that exchange know differently (as do the ones on the police side). E.g. it is generally a bad idea to resist arrest once you are caught. E.g. it is generally a bad idea to have anything in your hands when police have their guns trained on you. Yes, the situation you find yourself in may very well be partially a function of race, and racism, and even some kind of systemic racism coupled with a family history that put you in the place and time that you were born into. But there are many, many other factors at play. White people wind up in those places, too, with a cop's knee on their neck or bleeding out on a sidewalk, but they can't explain it away with the race card. To ignore that simple fact is to be blind, uninformed, miseducated, and doomed.
Interesting and well written, but the ending has me confused as to what your message is.
"White people wind up in those places, too, with a cop's knee on their neck or bleeding out on a sidewalk, but they can't explain it away with the race card. To ignore that simple fact is to be blind, uninformed, miseducated, and doomed."
Sorry, that was indeed an awkward wrap-up. It was just about that moment that I noticed our foster kitten urinating on the floor of my bedroom, so I got a bit distracted. What I meant, and this still may not be completely clear, is this: It's a mistake to jump to "that's racism!" if one can point to people of other races that have found themselves in the same boat. Poor? Yup, all races. Treated unfairly? Yup, all races. Killed by a cop? Yup. History of being oppressed/enslaved? Yup, everybody. Babies out of wedlock? Oh yeah. Shitty parents? Let me tell you stories.
I look to my own family tree. Millennia of uneducated, unskilled, unaccomplished alcoholic white serfs, laborers, warriors, and criminals. Their whiteness did me no good, their thousands of years of work/thievery/bootlegging/prostitution left me not a dime, nor a square inch of property, nor any material comforts or "ancestral wisdom". The folks that I grew up around are mostly back there continuing that tradition, believing, as my parents did, that the "system" is stacked against them. Of course, just as is true in the poor "communities" of other colors, a few of us manage to get out. I did. But if most remain behind, in both camps, it can't simply be systemic racism that is causing it.
Some of it is genes. Some of it is behavior. Some of it is spur of the moment decisions that have lasting impact, or just plain dumb luck.
Here's an illustrative anecdote that I often think about. My brother and I and a friend stole a car, and were tearing across town in it. The driver went through a red light and, wouldn't you just know it, we slammed into a police car. We scrambled from the car and ran. The flustered cop shot at us from behind, though we were unarmed and obviously just teenagers. He was a terrible shot, though, and no one got hit. But we all wound up getting arrested, and had to go to court. My brother was a belligerent a-hole to the judge, and I was deferential and respectful. Two different approaches to exactly the same situation. He went away, and I got a stern warning and my freedom. Two people, same color, same crime, different behavior, different outcome. And trust me... the outcome of that day had long-lasting, opposite impacts for the two lives involved.
Nice anecdote but today’s system is much different.
Most cases (by far) don’t go to trial. The outcome is worked out by prosecutors and public defenders. The Public defender’s office is overloaded and may not meet with their client before court. Most people will take the deal. The few that insist on trial throw the dice on longer sentences. The Judge is not going to change the plea deal because one is especially polite. I would not recommend pissing the Judge off on purpose but .... they are so performative in busy courts, IMO. Looking to the prosecutors table for the nod that means, yeah that’s what we want.
Three strikes you’re out represents the terrible penalties that come with a third felony, meaning life sentences. Many times the determination for who ends up in prison or jail depends on who can pay the fees associated with Court, court ordered services like anger management classes, etc.
So, you get in trouble, plea to get out lighter, struggle or don’t care, enjoy or don’t enjoy familial fiscal support, get in trouble again, plea to get out lighter, struggle or don’t care, enjoy or don’t enjoy familial fiscal support... then boom! Shit gets real.
Prosecutorial discretion looms large, with what the charges brought are and what kind of deal is offered. I do not think that meets “systemic” level but it is certainly an area where personal biases can influence outcomes.
I do not believe it is a partisan project to make the sentences reflect the offense.
People have less energy for trouble making as they age and life in prison for non-predatory personalities is a horror.
I don’t think the system is working well.
The suggestion has been made that if large numbers of Americans refuse plea deals and insist on trials the system would collapse under the weight of the huge number of cases brought.
Galeta, when sober (ie: untriggered) you can write very well, and have points worth pondering. Thanks for your contributions in the above; I was thinking "here's somebody to watch, they have knowledge to share". But then you trailed of into a series of remarks that do not flatter you and have zero to contribute.
It feels like "Hey, could you put Dr Jekyll back on the line, he was in the middle of a discussion I was appreciating".
If you have the financial resources to hire private counsel, you will almost always get a better plea deal. Private counsel will take the time to find the weakness in the prosecution's case (there are almost always weaknesses) and use that as a bargaining chip. If you don't have financial resources, you get an overworked PD who simply doesn't have the time to investigate your case and will encourage you to "take the deal" whatever that is. Poor people no matter what color are treated more harshly in the justice system. However, people of color on the whole, especially those who end up being prosecuted, have less financial resources. Ergo, people of color often end up with longer and harsher sentences for the simple fact that they cannot afford private counsel.
That is not necessarily the case at all. I am a career prosecutor with relevant experience. I have worked in both a rural county where 99.9% of the crimes were committed by white people, with white victims, and then for decades in a large city whose population is majority minority and 45% black. Our crime victims are also majority minority. The crimes are happening in the worst neighborhoods, the drug dealers and gangs own the streets of the worst neighborhoods.
Our public defenders are hard-working, know the system inside out and sideways, and have a lot of say-so in influencing the court system's policies. They have a staff of social workers and mental health experts---overworked, to be sure, but private attorneys often don't even have those resources. When public defenders are considering what's best for their client in terms of pleading guilty or going to trial, they know EXACTLY what their client's chances are in front of every individual judge and prosecutor and are able to advise their clients accordingly. They know how to make the best case possible before a judge when it comes time for sentencing, and they do so with dedication. I have seen appallingly poor, lazy performances made by private criminal defense attorneys who just take their client's money and then try to bluster their way through.
So, public defenders are not necessarily a poor choice, and private attorneys are very often no better advocates--- or even worse. I personally am very much in favor of the public defenders being well-funded, particularly when it comes to have resources to investigate their client's cases, have social workers identify supportive resources for their clients, and mental health workers to evaluate their clients and find appropriate mental health or addiction programs.
Finally, the white people who commit crimes come from the same shitty backgrounds as the minority people who commit crimes. I would say, though, that the minorities in the big cities also have to contend with being concentrated in shitty crime-filled neighborhoods and having no option but to attend shitty schools. It seems to me that our best bet is to at least make neighborhoods safer (that's where the best possible criminal justice system comes into play) and provide a great, safe school for every child. And yet---it is a heart-breaking reality that the best school will only be able to save a certain percentage of kids who go home to terrible circumstances.
My experience was actually the opposite (though my offenses were during my time in the military, so YMMV). I thought my military defender ended up actually caring, and my lawyer we hired pretty much just cashed the check,
This is a good point. And this is a place we can start. Ask our politicians to commission data studies on judges and prosecutors and see if they send a larger percentage of black defendants to jail for long sentences than white defendants and then create an accountability system for that.
There's a lot of data on that. A lot. It's a mixed bag but IMO in the past several decades, in most jurisdictions, a careful look at the data where ALL the underlying circumstances are considered will show no race-based unfairness. It's very complicated to sort out all the relevant circumstances though---you have to weigh the person's entire background and every person is different and every crime is a little different. Most studies just look at some of the basic similarities and that's not enough to judge the judges.
Yes, my anecdote is definitely dated! 1970s, to be exact. Things have changed a lot. But some things don't change.
Your last line, "under the weight of the huge number of cases" points in the same direction that I was pointing, and it is timeless: Behavior. Stop breaking the law, and plea deals and judges and police and courtrooms will be amazingly absent from your life. No matter what color you are.
Funny, when I was breaking the law, I got arrested all the time! When I grew up, and stopped breaking the law, it was 100% the opposite! Magical! No more arrests, whatsoever!!! How many decisions in life are that definitive? Jeez, even decisions to get married turned out to have only a 33% success rate, in my case.
An obvious point. A mature viewpoint of a person who clearly understands cause and effect and feels in charge of his causes.
Now, I was speaking from the perspective of a person who knows adolescents and young adults take some time to mature. That many adolescents and young adults in the criminal justice system do not have strong family ties, support or guidance. That to many adolescents and young adults, the first two trips to court seem like they can handle it... haha! ... the effect was manageable.
Also, as a person who does not believe liberal societies should have draconian sentences for non-predatory crimes.
Galleta - What the H--- was that remark supposed to accomplish? P from D is confessing his life and what he has learned - and his wisdom is shining through. YOU are the one acting like an ass - why???
Ah, the name calling. Wow. It must come to that, eh?
I know that immature people make mistakes. As you say: Obvious. And, I also know that those that wind up facing "the system" are there for any number of reasons, including lack of any family or community support. Been there.
But when I point to behavior, I am encompassing more than the lawbreaking behavior. I'm also talking about the behavior that led to the behavior. There are a lot of things that need to be fixed, parenting and families being one of them, schools being another, courts and legislation yet another. It's a multilayered mess.
Gotta start somewhere. We might try telling kids that breaking the law is bad, and stop canonizing criminals. We might return some discipline to school systems. And yes, we might change some laws and bring punishment back to being appropriate for the offense.
And, to set an example, we might not resort to calling strangers offensive names simply because we don't precisely agree.
galleta - my god you are a jerk! He is not bragging nor is he lecturing. He is telling us what he has learned, how his brother's previous behavior got him in trouble while P of D stumbled into the right thing and benefited - it is a LESSON for others - OK I see by your further remarks you are a troll looking for a chance to use the big dirty words you just learned. No more respect, no more attention for you.
Hilarious! You are certainly bringing the color commentary to this discussion. Particularly like the use of the word "shyte"... makes you look all continental and sophisticated 'n' stuff. I celebrate our differences. It takes all kinds.
It sounds like the great equalizer always is and always will be education, perseverance and attitude. You're an eloquent writer, so I'm making an assumption that you are either well educated and innately intelligent. This doesn't get written and pondered without one or both. Thanks for the great read.
People are always looking for the one, simple explanation, and the corresponding one, simple solution. They will never find it, of course, but they do cling to the idea. For some folks in here, it's race. For some, it's the legal system. For some, it's the education system. Fixing any one of those will certainly help, but fixing all of them is necessary.
But here's the overarching problem: People aren't equal. They can be treated equally under the law, but they can't be "equalized". Unless we want to live under an equitable tyranny, life is always going to be a "sorting hat".
Even when I was a kid in a gang, it became immediately clear who was where in the natural hierarchy. There were sharper kids who were going to make the plans, and there were the middle kids who were going to execute the plans, and there were the less capable kids who were going to be assigned the really dirty stuff.
And it's the same today in my working life, no matter how hard they try to make everybody the same. All we can do, at least if any modicum of freedom is to be sustained, is to try to give everybody as fair a shot as we can without hobbling the others. But opposition to that approach is rapidly on the rise, the idea of hobbling is becoming more popular, and it's all very troubling.
I read one of your comments and I think you're a woman and then I read another comment of yours and I think you're a man. A few decades ago I wrote my masters thesis (Ed. Leadership) on Androgyny in Early Childhood Management. Ultimately your gender is irrelevant but what speaks to me is the perfect balance of androgyny---analytical and emotional. (Now that I've written that, I'm sure it'll offend some since we now live in a whole new world of social norms/definitions. It certainly isn't meant to offend.)
You know, it never occurred to me to play a "gender guessing game" with the writing styles in here, but I'm going to try it! It sounds like fun!
Also, never thought of myself as androgynous, but what the hell. I was very into David Bowie when I was young. Perhaps that's what happened.
Now, I'm going to risk offending... you are right, your comment IS very likely to offend somebody in the current day. In fact, everything offends somebody now... even NOT saying anything (silence is violence!). I won't try to guess your gender right now, but I'll offer this... it took some balls to write that!
Have fun with it. Many decades ago, before the public internet, when online discussions were handled by BBS software on early IBM PCs communicating with each other via acoustic modems - I accidentally got a reaction similar to yours because my then handle (and my name) are not gender specific. And I went with that for a couple of years, in the tiny online community I was part of, and people in the community appreciated it and supported my doing so - because it gave them a chance to look at their own reactions; it was a novelty back then. One person said they were very sure of my gender at a given time, but then they'd change their mind, which let them know it was about them and their stereotypes. It was an interesting experiment. (This had nothing to do with online sex or the like, by the way).
It still happens at times, but not knowing the gender of an online person is so trite today that people rarely use it as an opportunity to learn something.
In your case, I suspect that your mix of intellectual clarity with emotional intelligence may throw people off. However to me, it's exactly what I enjoy in people of all genders. I hope you stay around.
David Bowie is small balls compared to 2021! But androgyny in the case of my master's thesis was the rich combination of the traditional (now a taboo term) characteristics of female and male management styles. What a difference 30 years makes. Let the guessing games commence.
Reading your responses has been thoroughly enjoyable. And you’ve touched on a very important point here. Equal opportunity is not going to automatically equate to people achieving equal success.
Funny, we've lived for a long time with the idea that equal opportunity yields a variety of outcomes, and that was considered a good thing! Variety being the spice and all that.
And on the flipside of that, equal outcomes means that you have to somehow handicap the more capable folks to bring them down to "equity". Mediocrity for everyone. Sounds really fun.
My first experience with the concept of 'equity' was that certain people required more support than others to get a fair chance at success. That certainly rang true to me, and I embraced the thought whole-heartedly.
I teach in a high-poverty school. Part of some kids' days involve feeding them breakfast and changing them into school provided clothes so we can launder the filthy clothing they came off the bus wearing.
"Equality" would mean, "everyone gets breakfast and their clothes washed or no one does."
Most people send their kids to school in clean clothes and feed their kids breakfast before they leave the house, therefore do not need these services. Hence, "equity."
Now, as you mention, equity means, "If everyone cannot accomplish a task to its highest degree, then it must be altered until the least capable among us is successful."
I see the breakfast and change of clothes as part of a social commitment to improve equality of opportunity, which is still more in the category of supporting the concept of equality - like providing free public education; or public libraries since not everybody has books at home. I find that laudable, not problematic, and I suspect it's a relatively easy sell across a substantial political spectrum.
The problem comes as "equity" is today often seen as "equal outcomes". Given a diversity of abilities, personality traits, and interests, one cannot have both equal opportunity and equal outcomes; you can seek just one, or neither.
When folks ask the difference in usage of "equality" vs "equity" today, I say that "equity" is used for intentional discrimination and inequality which is actively promoted because it feels more subjectively "fair" to somebody.
I think the British term "positive discrimination" is more honest; in the US we like to pretend that it's not discrimination, which tends to push it into the shadow realm.
Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" becomes less of an absurdly exaggerated dystopia every year.
My desire for a better world, for helping students from disadvantaged background, at times makes me feel the downsides of the woke stuff might almost be an acceptable trade-off - IF it would really lead to that better world. But my mind and my people knowledge screams at me that it's going to lead to disaster instead, which in the end greatly harms everybody.
Wow, breakfast and a change of clothes? And laundering? Thank you! Thank you for doing what you do. It might not feel like it on a daily basis, but you are having an impact on lives.
I was one of those kids. No breakfast, no lunch, filthy from head to toe, dressed in rags. I remember multiple times when I was sent home from school for stinking.
I can't remember what grade it was, but on my report card there was a "hygiene" category, and I got an F. Seriously, who does that? Although it definitely stung at the time, I still find it kinda funny all these years later. An F in hygiene!
Thank you Bari! Some of my favorite folks in here, a delicious tapas bar of intellect, with some sharp, palate-cleansing intermezzo of counterpoint thrown in. Tasty.
I'm not woke. I work in an elite private school, so I have to disguise myself, live a double life, watch what I say, etc. I listen to woke crap all day, every day, and have ample opportunity to digest it. That rumination has revealed some points that the wokesters make that, in some sense, I actually agree with. E.g., we're all racist. Yes. Of course we are. To widely varying degrees, but yes, humans are hard-wired with deep autonomic reactions to "others". These were useful to us when we were tribal hunter-gatherers and early farmers, and frankly, some vestigial presence of that genetically-supported caution serves us even today. That applies, by the way, to people of every hue. And, as a corollary of the fact that our systems are human creations, and reflections of us, I'll concede a point here: It is likely that there is some racism in our systems. The question is: How much? And, what is to be done about it? I challenge the idea that confession, awareness, or "doing the work" (whatever that means!) are going to extract every last drop of vestigial, naturally-occurring "other-fear" from our very complex bodies. At some point, we're going to have to accept that we've done enough. But... how to measure that?
Now I'll switch hats and confess that I am an economist by training. As such, I'd like to inject the concept of "diminishing marginal returns" (DMR) into the conversation about "systemic racism." The basic notion of DMR is that you get more bang for your buck at the beginning of a project, and as time goes on, after the low-hanging fruit is all picked and competitors have entered your space, you start to find yourself working harder and getting smaller returns on your invested time, money, and effort. Think of the Emancipation Proclamation as anti-racism's "IPO"... how much moral good, do you suppose, was precipitated by the freeing of slaves in America? Could it even be measured? Ah, those were the days of HUGE ROI. Now, though, post-black-vote, post-Jim-Crow, post-Civil Rights Act, post-half-black-President, we find ourselves with a bloated race industry, crowded with players, chasing a relatively small remaining sliver of barely-visible national racism. And, naturally, when both public interest and return on investment begin to wane, one strategy is to turn up the marketing effort, to create more demand. (Demand is so low that people go out of their way to create racial incidents when there aren't enough to go around.) I believe that we are currently in that stage of the game... high effort and little return leading to frustration, panic, irrationality, and ultimately (moral) bankruptcy.
Another begrudging agreement I have with the woke is that privilege is a problem. However, I don't see it exactly their way. Privilege isn't purely a white thing. As a school administrator, I've gotten to know my coworkers over the years. They are racially diverse, and from several generations, but they are mostly women. And, regardless of race, they all have one thing in common, which is this: A middle-or-upper-middle-class upbringing that bestowed upon them life in a safe, quiet neighborhood, a college education and, in most cases, a graduate degree. Almost universally, their lives were seamless, from high school to college and straight into secure jobs in academia. This common experience, this level of privilege, that they all share, doesn't make them racists. It does quite the opposite. It renders them overly empathetic to those who appear to have less privilege due to their race. This empathy excess comes from having no experience of walking in other peoples' shoes.
The woke often assert that one cannot speak about, think about, or help with, the lived experience of intersectionally-oppressed folks because one does not share their experience. One should just shut up and listen. And again... the woke are partially right about this, but not in the way that they wield it. My coworkers are incapable of any kind of nuanced reflection about these race issues, not only because they can't relate to being another race, but because they have no experience outside of their societal class. Sure, my white colleagues have black friends, and brown friends. But those friends are all from middle- or upper-middle-class homes, they all have college degrees, and they are all woke.
I came from a different background. I have experienced poverty, neglect, and abuse. I have stolen a car, I have robbed people, and I have sold drugs on the street. I've been shot at by a police officer. I've been beaten up while in the custody of police. I grew up out in the street, and in my youth, had a warped set of values. And I am as white as Wonder Bread.
People from privilege (of any race) can be astoundingly unaware. They can look at a white cop roughing up a black suspect, and automatically read racism, and only racism, into the exchange. Those of us who have been on criminal side of that exchange know differently (as do the ones on the police side). E.g. it is generally a bad idea to resist arrest once you are caught. E.g. it is generally a bad idea to have anything in your hands when police have their guns trained on you. Yes, the situation you find yourself in may very well be partially a function of race, and racism, and even some kind of systemic racism coupled with a family history that put you in the place and time that you were born into. But there are many, many other factors at play. White people wind up in those places, too, with a cop's knee on their neck or bleeding out on a sidewalk, but they can't explain it away with the race card. To ignore that simple fact is to be blind, uninformed, miseducated, and doomed.
One of the best comments on this topic. Though as a fellow economist I might be biased, lol
This is what we need, thoughtful and nuanced. Whoever you are, thank you!!
I love the connection to DMR. Very astute.
Interesting and well written, but the ending has me confused as to what your message is.
"White people wind up in those places, too, with a cop's knee on their neck or bleeding out on a sidewalk, but they can't explain it away with the race card. To ignore that simple fact is to be blind, uninformed, miseducated, and doomed."
Could you clarify?
Sorry, that was indeed an awkward wrap-up. It was just about that moment that I noticed our foster kitten urinating on the floor of my bedroom, so I got a bit distracted. What I meant, and this still may not be completely clear, is this: It's a mistake to jump to "that's racism!" if one can point to people of other races that have found themselves in the same boat. Poor? Yup, all races. Treated unfairly? Yup, all races. Killed by a cop? Yup. History of being oppressed/enslaved? Yup, everybody. Babies out of wedlock? Oh yeah. Shitty parents? Let me tell you stories.
I look to my own family tree. Millennia of uneducated, unskilled, unaccomplished alcoholic white serfs, laborers, warriors, and criminals. Their whiteness did me no good, their thousands of years of work/thievery/bootlegging/prostitution left me not a dime, nor a square inch of property, nor any material comforts or "ancestral wisdom". The folks that I grew up around are mostly back there continuing that tradition, believing, as my parents did, that the "system" is stacked against them. Of course, just as is true in the poor "communities" of other colors, a few of us manage to get out. I did. But if most remain behind, in both camps, it can't simply be systemic racism that is causing it.
Some of it is genes. Some of it is behavior. Some of it is spur of the moment decisions that have lasting impact, or just plain dumb luck.
Here's an illustrative anecdote that I often think about. My brother and I and a friend stole a car, and were tearing across town in it. The driver went through a red light and, wouldn't you just know it, we slammed into a police car. We scrambled from the car and ran. The flustered cop shot at us from behind, though we were unarmed and obviously just teenagers. He was a terrible shot, though, and no one got hit. But we all wound up getting arrested, and had to go to court. My brother was a belligerent a-hole to the judge, and I was deferential and respectful. Two different approaches to exactly the same situation. He went away, and I got a stern warning and my freedom. Two people, same color, same crime, different behavior, different outcome. And trust me... the outcome of that day had long-lasting, opposite impacts for the two lives involved.
Nice anecdote but today’s system is much different.
Most cases (by far) don’t go to trial. The outcome is worked out by prosecutors and public defenders. The Public defender’s office is overloaded and may not meet with their client before court. Most people will take the deal. The few that insist on trial throw the dice on longer sentences. The Judge is not going to change the plea deal because one is especially polite. I would not recommend pissing the Judge off on purpose but .... they are so performative in busy courts, IMO. Looking to the prosecutors table for the nod that means, yeah that’s what we want.
Three strikes you’re out represents the terrible penalties that come with a third felony, meaning life sentences. Many times the determination for who ends up in prison or jail depends on who can pay the fees associated with Court, court ordered services like anger management classes, etc.
So, you get in trouble, plea to get out lighter, struggle or don’t care, enjoy or don’t enjoy familial fiscal support, get in trouble again, plea to get out lighter, struggle or don’t care, enjoy or don’t enjoy familial fiscal support... then boom! Shit gets real.
Prosecutorial discretion looms large, with what the charges brought are and what kind of deal is offered. I do not think that meets “systemic” level but it is certainly an area where personal biases can influence outcomes.
I do not believe it is a partisan project to make the sentences reflect the offense.
People have less energy for trouble making as they age and life in prison for non-predatory personalities is a horror.
I don’t think the system is working well.
The suggestion has been made that if large numbers of Americans refuse plea deals and insist on trials the system would collapse under the weight of the huge number of cases brought.
Galeta, when sober (ie: untriggered) you can write very well, and have points worth pondering. Thanks for your contributions in the above; I was thinking "here's somebody to watch, they have knowledge to share". But then you trailed of into a series of remarks that do not flatter you and have zero to contribute.
It feels like "Hey, could you put Dr Jekyll back on the line, he was in the middle of a discussion I was appreciating".
Your thoughtful side is welcome back any time.
Are you Bari Weiss or just presume you have the right to decide when I am welcome or not?
Eat shit.
If you have the financial resources to hire private counsel, you will almost always get a better plea deal. Private counsel will take the time to find the weakness in the prosecution's case (there are almost always weaknesses) and use that as a bargaining chip. If you don't have financial resources, you get an overworked PD who simply doesn't have the time to investigate your case and will encourage you to "take the deal" whatever that is. Poor people no matter what color are treated more harshly in the justice system. However, people of color on the whole, especially those who end up being prosecuted, have less financial resources. Ergo, people of color often end up with longer and harsher sentences for the simple fact that they cannot afford private counsel.
That is not necessarily the case at all. I am a career prosecutor with relevant experience. I have worked in both a rural county where 99.9% of the crimes were committed by white people, with white victims, and then for decades in a large city whose population is majority minority and 45% black. Our crime victims are also majority minority. The crimes are happening in the worst neighborhoods, the drug dealers and gangs own the streets of the worst neighborhoods.
Our public defenders are hard-working, know the system inside out and sideways, and have a lot of say-so in influencing the court system's policies. They have a staff of social workers and mental health experts---overworked, to be sure, but private attorneys often don't even have those resources. When public defenders are considering what's best for their client in terms of pleading guilty or going to trial, they know EXACTLY what their client's chances are in front of every individual judge and prosecutor and are able to advise their clients accordingly. They know how to make the best case possible before a judge when it comes time for sentencing, and they do so with dedication. I have seen appallingly poor, lazy performances made by private criminal defense attorneys who just take their client's money and then try to bluster their way through.
So, public defenders are not necessarily a poor choice, and private attorneys are very often no better advocates--- or even worse. I personally am very much in favor of the public defenders being well-funded, particularly when it comes to have resources to investigate their client's cases, have social workers identify supportive resources for their clients, and mental health workers to evaluate their clients and find appropriate mental health or addiction programs.
Finally, the white people who commit crimes come from the same shitty backgrounds as the minority people who commit crimes. I would say, though, that the minorities in the big cities also have to contend with being concentrated in shitty crime-filled neighborhoods and having no option but to attend shitty schools. It seems to me that our best bet is to at least make neighborhoods safer (that's where the best possible criminal justice system comes into play) and provide a great, safe school for every child. And yet---it is a heart-breaking reality that the best school will only be able to save a certain percentage of kids who go home to terrible circumstances.
My experience was actually the opposite (though my offenses were during my time in the military, so YMMV). I thought my military defender ended up actually caring, and my lawyer we hired pretty much just cashed the check,
This is a good point. And this is a place we can start. Ask our politicians to commission data studies on judges and prosecutors and see if they send a larger percentage of black defendants to jail for long sentences than white defendants and then create an accountability system for that.
There's a lot of data on that. A lot. It's a mixed bag but IMO in the past several decades, in most jurisdictions, a careful look at the data where ALL the underlying circumstances are considered will show no race-based unfairness. It's very complicated to sort out all the relevant circumstances though---you have to weigh the person's entire background and every person is different and every crime is a little different. Most studies just look at some of the basic similarities and that's not enough to judge the judges.
Yes, my anecdote is definitely dated! 1970s, to be exact. Things have changed a lot. But some things don't change.
Your last line, "under the weight of the huge number of cases" points in the same direction that I was pointing, and it is timeless: Behavior. Stop breaking the law, and plea deals and judges and police and courtrooms will be amazingly absent from your life. No matter what color you are.
Funny, when I was breaking the law, I got arrested all the time! When I grew up, and stopped breaking the law, it was 100% the opposite! Magical! No more arrests, whatsoever!!! How many decisions in life are that definitive? Jeez, even decisions to get married turned out to have only a 33% success rate, in my case.
An obvious point. A mature viewpoint of a person who clearly understands cause and effect and feels in charge of his causes.
Now, I was speaking from the perspective of a person who knows adolescents and young adults take some time to mature. That many adolescents and young adults in the criminal justice system do not have strong family ties, support or guidance. That to many adolescents and young adults, the first two trips to court seem like they can handle it... haha! ... the effect was manageable.
Also, as a person who does not believe liberal societies should have draconian sentences for non-predatory crimes.
If it’s any consolation, you’re still an ass.
Galleta - What the H--- was that remark supposed to accomplish? P from D is confessing his life and what he has learned - and his wisdom is shining through. YOU are the one acting like an ass - why???
Ah, the name calling. Wow. It must come to that, eh?
I know that immature people make mistakes. As you say: Obvious. And, I also know that those that wind up facing "the system" are there for any number of reasons, including lack of any family or community support. Been there.
But when I point to behavior, I am encompassing more than the lawbreaking behavior. I'm also talking about the behavior that led to the behavior. There are a lot of things that need to be fixed, parenting and families being one of them, schools being another, courts and legislation yet another. It's a multilayered mess.
Gotta start somewhere. We might try telling kids that breaking the law is bad, and stop canonizing criminals. We might return some discipline to school systems. And yes, we might change some laws and bring punishment back to being appropriate for the offense.
And, to set an example, we might not resort to calling strangers offensive names simply because we don't precisely agree.
I am talking about the kind of dumb ass that brags he had a bunch of chances to turn it around while lecturing those who don’t.
You ain’t better or smarter or even a great decision maker dumb phuck .... the country let you mature without throwing away the key.
Phuck off Shyte stain.
galleta - my god you are a jerk! He is not bragging nor is he lecturing. He is telling us what he has learned, how his brother's previous behavior got him in trouble while P of D stumbled into the right thing and benefited - it is a LESSON for others - OK I see by your further remarks you are a troll looking for a chance to use the big dirty words you just learned. No more respect, no more attention for you.
P of D is yanking yer chain.
Hilarious! You are certainly bringing the color commentary to this discussion. Particularly like the use of the word "shyte"... makes you look all continental and sophisticated 'n' stuff. I celebrate our differences. It takes all kinds.
Oh good, then you’ll appreciate me advising you to eat it out your butthole ya condescending cuck
Well. Now, you're just getting me hot.
What are you wearing?
It’s not about chances, it about having the will and developing the discipline to make a better life happen.
You can crawl out of shit hole of circumstances beyond your control when you really want it.
Sure. Yeah. You’re a genius. Wonder why that hasn’t been thought of before.
Thank you for your multiple, well expressed and rational posts.
I understand. I am into day 5 with a new puppy myself.
Thanks for the clarifications. Makes a lot of sense. Sounds like stuff out of J.D. Vance's Hillbilly Elegy".
And I thought I had stories.
You should consider writing a book.
Ha ha ha, where I come from, we read Vance's book, which was great, and said, "What the hell is he complaining about? They lived in a HOUSE."
It sounds like the great equalizer always is and always will be education, perseverance and attitude. You're an eloquent writer, so I'm making an assumption that you are either well educated and innately intelligent. This doesn't get written and pondered without one or both. Thanks for the great read.
You are too kind. Thanks.
People are always looking for the one, simple explanation, and the corresponding one, simple solution. They will never find it, of course, but they do cling to the idea. For some folks in here, it's race. For some, it's the legal system. For some, it's the education system. Fixing any one of those will certainly help, but fixing all of them is necessary.
But here's the overarching problem: People aren't equal. They can be treated equally under the law, but they can't be "equalized". Unless we want to live under an equitable tyranny, life is always going to be a "sorting hat".
Even when I was a kid in a gang, it became immediately clear who was where in the natural hierarchy. There were sharper kids who were going to make the plans, and there were the middle kids who were going to execute the plans, and there were the less capable kids who were going to be assigned the really dirty stuff.
And it's the same today in my working life, no matter how hard they try to make everybody the same. All we can do, at least if any modicum of freedom is to be sustained, is to try to give everybody as fair a shot as we can without hobbling the others. But opposition to that approach is rapidly on the rise, the idea of hobbling is becoming more popular, and it's all very troubling.
I read one of your comments and I think you're a woman and then I read another comment of yours and I think you're a man. A few decades ago I wrote my masters thesis (Ed. Leadership) on Androgyny in Early Childhood Management. Ultimately your gender is irrelevant but what speaks to me is the perfect balance of androgyny---analytical and emotional. (Now that I've written that, I'm sure it'll offend some since we now live in a whole new world of social norms/definitions. It certainly isn't meant to offend.)
You know, it never occurred to me to play a "gender guessing game" with the writing styles in here, but I'm going to try it! It sounds like fun!
Also, never thought of myself as androgynous, but what the hell. I was very into David Bowie when I was young. Perhaps that's what happened.
Now, I'm going to risk offending... you are right, your comment IS very likely to offend somebody in the current day. In fact, everything offends somebody now... even NOT saying anything (silence is violence!). I won't try to guess your gender right now, but I'll offer this... it took some balls to write that!
Have fun with it. Many decades ago, before the public internet, when online discussions were handled by BBS software on early IBM PCs communicating with each other via acoustic modems - I accidentally got a reaction similar to yours because my then handle (and my name) are not gender specific. And I went with that for a couple of years, in the tiny online community I was part of, and people in the community appreciated it and supported my doing so - because it gave them a chance to look at their own reactions; it was a novelty back then. One person said they were very sure of my gender at a given time, but then they'd change their mind, which let them know it was about them and their stereotypes. It was an interesting experiment. (This had nothing to do with online sex or the like, by the way).
It still happens at times, but not knowing the gender of an online person is so trite today that people rarely use it as an opportunity to learn something.
In your case, I suspect that your mix of intellectual clarity with emotional intelligence may throw people off. However to me, it's exactly what I enjoy in people of all genders. I hope you stay around.
David Bowie is small balls compared to 2021! But androgyny in the case of my master's thesis was the rich combination of the traditional (now a taboo term) characteristics of female and male management styles. What a difference 30 years makes. Let the guessing games commence.
Reading your responses has been thoroughly enjoyable. And you’ve touched on a very important point here. Equal opportunity is not going to automatically equate to people achieving equal success.
I agree with Christina. You are a valuable voice, P from D. Please do come back.
Thanks Christina.
Funny, we've lived for a long time with the idea that equal opportunity yields a variety of outcomes, and that was considered a good thing! Variety being the spice and all that.
And on the flipside of that, equal outcomes means that you have to somehow handicap the more capable folks to bring them down to "equity". Mediocrity for everyone. Sounds really fun.
Talk about a term that has been bastardized.
My first experience with the concept of 'equity' was that certain people required more support than others to get a fair chance at success. That certainly rang true to me, and I embraced the thought whole-heartedly.
I teach in a high-poverty school. Part of some kids' days involve feeding them breakfast and changing them into school provided clothes so we can launder the filthy clothing they came off the bus wearing.
"Equality" would mean, "everyone gets breakfast and their clothes washed or no one does."
Most people send their kids to school in clean clothes and feed their kids breakfast before they leave the house, therefore do not need these services. Hence, "equity."
Now, as you mention, equity means, "If everyone cannot accomplish a task to its highest degree, then it must be altered until the least capable among us is successful."
I see the breakfast and change of clothes as part of a social commitment to improve equality of opportunity, which is still more in the category of supporting the concept of equality - like providing free public education; or public libraries since not everybody has books at home. I find that laudable, not problematic, and I suspect it's a relatively easy sell across a substantial political spectrum.
The problem comes as "equity" is today often seen as "equal outcomes". Given a diversity of abilities, personality traits, and interests, one cannot have both equal opportunity and equal outcomes; you can seek just one, or neither.
When folks ask the difference in usage of "equality" vs "equity" today, I say that "equity" is used for intentional discrimination and inequality which is actively promoted because it feels more subjectively "fair" to somebody.
I think the British term "positive discrimination" is more honest; in the US we like to pretend that it's not discrimination, which tends to push it into the shadow realm.
Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" becomes less of an absurdly exaggerated dystopia every year.
My desire for a better world, for helping students from disadvantaged background, at times makes me feel the downsides of the woke stuff might almost be an acceptable trade-off - IF it would really lead to that better world. But my mind and my people knowledge screams at me that it's going to lead to disaster instead, which in the end greatly harms everybody.
Wow, breakfast and a change of clothes? And laundering? Thank you! Thank you for doing what you do. It might not feel like it on a daily basis, but you are having an impact on lives.
I was one of those kids. No breakfast, no lunch, filthy from head to toe, dressed in rags. I remember multiple times when I was sent home from school for stinking.
I can't remember what grade it was, but on my report card there was a "hygiene" category, and I got an F. Seriously, who does that? Although it definitely stung at the time, I still find it kinda funny all these years later. An F in hygiene!