5 ms·

Yes, but you can't build it into your model. In this example, you would end up with a result of putting people back into these communities who have a high level

Yes, but you can't build it into your model. In this example, you would end up with a result of putting people back into these communities who have a high level of recidivism. You are actively not avoiding an actual issue because of perceived racial injustice when the issue is not racial. This is the problem with processing our world down racial lines. You're trying to correct for a historical injustice. The fact that race factors into the circumstance of why people are where they are right now doesn't change the fact that those variables lead to recidivism. It's not racist. It's accurate. If you want to fix the problem, then you need to fix the underlying issues, which tend to be economic. Those economic issues stem from an issue that affects all races, and therefore splitting it across racial lines only serves to reduce the possibility of actual change. All you're doing when you try to account for historical injustice is slapping a band-aid on a deeper issue. (Edit: Grammar)

chongli 7y ago
I agree with you when it comes to the model: the model should be as accurate as possible. The big question is what to do with the model. The way it's being used now, the model is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. A prediction of high recidivism risk leads to a longer sentence which increases the likelihood of recidivism. This creates a feedback loop which increases real recidivism risk and the model changes to reflect that. If your goal is to reduce crime in society, then this may be a flawed approach.
- hello_marmalade 7y ago
  Yes but that's not about race, that's about how we deal with crime as a society. These things aren't being unfairly applied to minority communities and that's the point. The system would be working the same way for a non-minority community, and it does, where the economic situation is similar. That's why the racial angle is a waste of everyone's time and energy. It's not the relevant issue. The more relevant issue is how we deal with crime prevention. Currently, we go with a punishment approach rather than a truly rehabilitative one. This also has a lot to do with economics, and lobbying and private prisons and so on. It's much more complicated than 'everybody's racist'.
  - chongli 7y ago
    The purpose of the term structural racism, instead of just racism, is to distinguish the theory of historical racism and its downstream effects from the category people who hold views of racial superiority. Besides that, there are plenty of people around today who actually are racist and they are major proponents of punishment-based approaches. If you try to switch to rehabilitation and intervention, they will resist you. They hold views that some races are innately of lower intelligence and have higher criminal tendencies. You aren't going to counteract that pressure by saying "the racial angle is a waste of everyone's time."
    - hello_marmalade 7y ago
      Yes, but what relevance does structural racism have to the model? That's only true only if you believe the majority of people are racist. I don't. There's also a number of ways that you don't even have to interact with that argument. You can show that the end results. It's not like we don't already have the studies and statistics that show how to resolve these issues. You can easily say to someone who thinks that way 'ok sure, you go on believing that, but even if you do believe that, there are still better ways to resolve this.' Also most people are actually pretty receptive to new information if you are capable of packaging it well, and acknowledging their biases without judging them for it.
      - chongli 7y ago
        It doesn't take a majority of people in anything to create a problem. It only takes a concerted effort by a minority and complacency from the rest. But besides this, we have too many people fighting a tug-o-war over the term racist. Some people want to apply the word to everyone. Other people think it should only apply to literal Nazis. But again, that's a distraction. The membership in the Nazi party was around 8.5 million in 1945, yet the population of Germany was around 90 million at the time. That's right, less than 10% of the population were Nazis, yet they controlled everything.
        hello_marmalade 7y ago

chongli 7y ago

I agree with you when it comes to the model: the model should be as accurate as possible. The big question is what to do with the model. The way it's being used now, the model is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. A prediction of high recidivism risk leads to a longer sentence which increases the likelihood of recidivism. This creates a feedback loop which increases real recidivism risk and the model changes to reflect that. If your goal is to reduce crime in society, then this may be a flawed approach.

hello_marmalade 7y ago
Yes but that's not about race, that's about how we deal with crime as a society. These things aren't being unfairly applied to minority communities and that's the point. The system would be working the same way for a non-minority community, and it does, where the economic situation is similar. That's why the racial angle is a waste of everyone's time and energy. It's not the relevant issue. The more relevant issue is how we deal with crime prevention. Currently, we go with a punishment approach rather than a truly rehabilitative one. This also has a lot to do with economics, and lobbying and private prisons and so on. It's much more complicated than 'everybody's racist'.
- chongli 7y ago
  The purpose of the term structural racism, instead of just racism, is to distinguish the theory of historical racism and its downstream effects from the category people who hold views of racial superiority. Besides that, there are plenty of people around today who actually are racist and they are major proponents of punishment-based approaches. If you try to switch to rehabilitation and intervention, they will resist you. They hold views that some races are innately of lower intelligence and have higher criminal tendencies. You aren't going to counteract that pressure by saying "the racial angle is a waste of everyone's time."
  - hello_marmalade 7y ago
    Yes, but what relevance does structural racism have to the model? That's only true only if you believe the majority of people are racist. I don't. There's also a number of ways that you don't even have to interact with that argument. You can show that the end results. It's not like we don't already have the studies and statistics that show how to resolve these issues. You can easily say to someone who thinks that way 'ok sure, you go on believing that, but even if you do believe that, there are still better ways to resolve this.' Also most people are actually pretty receptive to new information if you are capable of packaging it well, and acknowledging their biases without judging them for it.
    - chongli 7y ago
      It doesn't take a majority of people in anything to create a problem. It only takes a concerted effort by a minority and complacency from the rest. But besides this, we have too many people fighting a tug-o-war over the term racist. Some people want to apply the word to everyone. Other people think it should only apply to literal Nazis. But again, that's a distraction. The membership in the Nazi party was around 8.5 million in 1945, yet the population of Germany was around 90 million at the time. That's right, less than 10% of the population were Nazis, yet they controlled everything.
      - hello_marmalade 7y ago