It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DJW001
That money belongs to the people, not Mike Pence, not Donald Trump.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: DJW001
That money belongs to the people, not Mike Pence, not Donald Trump.
originally posted by: libertytoall
Yep I'm not watching any sports anymore they can all GTFO
Yah Rahm Emanuel .......
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: luthier
No I mean the president and in fact all politicians are bound by law not to interfere in commerce or influence employers relationship with employees. Of course that may not be the case in reality but politicans opinions on employer employee relationships is not supposed to happen. Sure it does none the less.
Correct... not to interfere...Opinions is their right too and that is all I have seen so far. Can you link the Executive Order banning their right to protest by sitting to prove me wrong?
At this point it's pointless. And like many of the NFL protestors have its time to find another way to get the message out in my opinion.
Agree, there are better ways they can protest and actually do good. How about Chicago pro teams protest the Mass killings they see in their city that out weights the NV event every month?
You mean the most corrupt police depth in the country with the most corrupt political system?
Chicago is a bad example bud..
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth
Your right when people are arrested and jailed at different proportions for the same crime it is meaningless.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: libertytoall
Yep I'm not watching any sports anymore they can all GTFO
See I went the opposite.
I stopped listening to partisan political hacks and decided to watch art and sports. I can just turn the game in 3 minutes after its start, that isn't true for CNN or fox.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth
You just not real capable of interpreting the data.
NYPD countered Spitzer’s concerns of possible bias by noting that comparing persons stopped to residents by race/ethnicity was inappropriate (Flynn, 1999; NYPD, 1999). The NYPD argued that the 85% representation of blacks and Hispanics was consistent with the 89% rate at which victims of violent crimes described their perpetrators as black or Hispanic. In other words, they suggested that blacks and Hispanics were more highly represented within the criminal justice system because they were disproportionately involved in criminal behavior.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth
You just not real capable of interpreting the data.
Is that right
You might like to review your own links. Perhaps you will learn to understand that comparing population mix to arrest rates/punishments is completely spurious in the absence of crime rates/statistics.
That should be obvious, but alas, I keep seeing the same tired comparisons instead of any compelling data.
In fact, when looking at FBI stats, it shows there is no bias at all - or actually a slight bias against whites (though can be explained by variance/chance).
I had a look at your second attempt. Alas, it suffers the same problem.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth
You just not real capable of interpreting the data.
Is that right
You might like to review your own links. Perhaps you will learn to understand that comparing population mix to arrest rates/punishments is completely spurious in the absence of crime rates/statistics.
That should be obvious, but alas, I keep seeing the same tired comparisons instead of any compelling data.
In fact, when looking at FBI stats, it shows there is no bias at all - or actually a slight bias against whites (though can be explained by variance/chance).
I had a look at your second attempt. Alas, it suffers the same problem.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth
You just not real capable of interpreting the data.
Is that right
You might like to review your own links. Perhaps you will learn to understand that comparing population mix to arrest rates/punishments is completely spurious in the absence of crime rates/statistics.
That should be obvious, but alas, I keep seeing the same tired comparisons instead of any compelling data.
In fact, when looking at FBI stats, it shows there is no bias at all - or actually a slight bias against whites (though can be explained by variance/chance).
I had a look at your second attempt. Alas, it suffers the same problem.
Yep that's right.
Data needs to be interpreted. Not sure if you have studied science but that's how it works.
Stop and frisk targeted blacks.
If a black guy and a white guy both possessed the same amount of Marijuana the black guy is 5 times more likely to get sentenced.
The prison population absolutely boomed for the war on drugs.
Apparently black people were not a menace and then they became wild in the streets in the 90's because they were black.
It had nothing to do with the Jim crow hangiver, war on drugs, and war on poverty that targeted minorities.
She found that the differential harshness experienced by blacks and Hispanics varied significantly with crime type, procedural factors, and extralegal factors. Regarding crime type, blacks and Hispanics were particularly likely to be treated more harshly if they were charged with a drug offense (this finding is based on the result of seven studies) or a less serious crime (three studies). Accordingly, MPV should be a prime candidate for race/ethnicity disparities. Regarding procedural factors, blacks and Hispanics were treated more harshly than similarly situated whites if they were detained before trial (two studies), if they were represented by a public defender as opposed to a private attorney (one study), if they were convicted at trial rather than pleaded guilty (four studies), and if they had a more serious prior criminal record (nine studies). These procedural disadvantages are often experienced by poor minorities. Regarding extralegal factors, blacks and Hispanics were treated more harshly than their white counterparts if they were young (four studies), male (four studies), or unemployed (three studies).
The issue of racial and ethnic disparity in criminal sentencing has been one of the longest standing research topics in all of criminology. At least 70 years of empirical research has focused on this issue without a clear consensus emerging. Over that period, a tremendous body of research has accumulated on this topic. Some studies have found that racial/ethnic minorities are sentenced more harshly than whites even after legally relevant factors, such as offense seriousness and prior criminal history, are taken into consideration. Conversely, a few studies have reached the opposite conclusion–racial minorities are treated more leniently than whites, while still other research has found no differences in sentencing outcomes by race/ethnicity of the defendant.
Smaller estimates of unwarranted sentencing disparity were found in analyses that employed more controls variables, especially those that controlled for defendant SES, and those that utilized precise measures of key variables (prior criminal record and current offense seriousness). However, even when consideration was confined to those analyses employing key controls and precise measures of key variables, statistically significant but statistically small differences in sentencing outcomes persisted.