New study: 50% of Black and 40% of White males arrested by age 23.

reply to post by jssaylor2007


Im glad you can confirm from experience that there must be something off about those stats. The more I think about it, the more silly it sounds..."every second boy has been arrested"...yeah, right.

There is a difference from "long ago".

My uncle told me of a story when he was young about him and another boy getting into a fight and getting arrested. The judge basically told them both to go home and that if he seen them again in the courtroom he was going to throw the book at them. I don't think judges have that same latitude these days. In current times, one or both are going to jail due to judicial guidelines. This feeds the Prison Industrial Complex that has been growing throughout the decades.

With that said, police are not the judges and if a law is violated then it is their duty to arrest and hand over the situation to the judiciary.

reply to post by gladtobehere

Reminds me of something Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged...

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

Dang is this for real? I was never even close to being arrested growing up, and none of my friends were. Of course I didn't hang out with druggies and drunks, which I am guessing makes up most of the arrests. Sad days we have. I'm guessing everyone will be blaming the system and all kinds of other factors instead of the young people taking personal ownership over themselves and doing the right thing.

reply to post by Terminal1


Well they had that same latitude when I received a minor in possession of alcohol ticket back in 07. I was given 10 hrs community service, the charges were dropped on the condition that if I showed up in there again, I'd be paying the max fine.

America hasnt changed as much as the politicians want us to think it has. This rhetoric is spouted out to get those who "remember it better" fired up.

ExNihiloRed
reply to post by onequestion

 

Are you denying you violated the law and faced the consequences of such violation?

Most laws are crimes. And most circumstances should not result in criminal conviction. Rape and Murder are important ones to pursue. Drugs are not. Speaking up or misbehaving in school is not. Truancy is not. Getting angry and occasionally retaliating is a normal human response and therefore is illegal to criminalize. Laws are supposed to be something that pertains to average and normal behavior, so a lot of laws that prohibit, say punching someone who abused your kid, or worse, are crimes themselves. Etc Etc.

jssaylor2007
reply to post by Terminal1

 

Well they had that same latitude when I received a minor in possession of alcohol ticket back in 07. I was given 10 hrs community service, the charges were dropped on the condition that if I showed up in there again, I'd be paying the max fine.

America hasnt changed as much as the politicians want us to think it has. This rhetoric is spouted out to get those who "remember it better" fired up.

Actually an anecdote from '07 is a far cry from one that is in the 1950's era. Change in judiciary guidelines between your era and one from my uncles shows the difference more readily. A frog and pot of water comes to mind.

People haven't changed much. Even cops haven't changed much. There are good and bad of both. The tools available to people and cops have changed as well as judiciary guidelines.

I don't think we live in a police state yet by a far cry BTW. I do think that there is an erosion in liberties just for the simple fact prisons and jails have become private enterprises so there is a profit motive involved and I have walked this Earth for close to 50 years so I am not so naive to believe corruption in enforcement and judiciary has gone down because of it.

ExNihiloRed
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

I think this reflects more poorly on the shape of our society, culture, and the people in it than the law enforcement and the laws of each state and the federal government. People don't have values and respect for others or the law anymore. It doesn't help much when celebrities and other role models for children in this country (regardless if they are our chosen role models, they are role models) have no respect for others or the law. Look at all of the "idols" that kids look up to and the message they send kids (e.g. Bieber's DUI, etc. today).

edit on 23-1-2014 by ExNihiloRed because: (no reason given)

I completely disagree.

I believe that a society has an obligation to dissent against unjust and (ironically) illegal laws. Mandatory minimums and the ridiculously arbitrary and complex system of "laws" in place in The United States right now veritably guarantee that ANY citizen will break the law at some point. It is only a matter of being in the wrong place at the right time, or crossing the wrong people that gets you punished for it.

I understand not making waves, but a plethora of laws does not make a just society. Historically speaking, it is rather indicative of the opposite. There is a balance between order and liberty that must be maintained in order for a society to flourish. The pendulum is swinging with accelerating speed toward too much order, which is tyranny.

There is a difference between being arrested and having a conviction. Correct me if I am wrong, but this study only asked if they had ever been arrested.

In my experience the vast majority of people that have an actual verifiable record of conviction have either committed a serious crime, or have been arrested more then once.

Most people that are arrested for misdemeanors for the first time are allowed to participate in a diversion program. If they complete that, no conviction shows up on their record. Therefore it usually doesn't affect them getting a job. If they screw up again that is their own fault.

I think the thing that I find most funny is that if you speak to most officers (myself included), they will talk about how people are never receiving just punishment. Then you talk to a person that feels we are in a police state and they say the punishments are too high.

I can only speak of my experiences but I can share numerous examples of career criminals getting off without prison time for anything from drugs to robbery.

After every case is concluded the State Attorney's Office sends me a disposition sheet. It informs me whether the person was guilty or innocent, and the punishment received (if found guilty). I really wish I could post these sheets to show you guys what kind of punishments are really dealt out. I think you'd be surprised.

Like I said in my experience most people are not doing jail time unless it is a heinous crime, or they have criminal history.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I do understand where you are coming from.

Let me ask you this though. Do you believe that the police should serve the public?

If so what are we supposed to do when a citizen, or a business owner calls and asks us to do something about the person that just peed on their business? What are we supposed to do when a bar owner calls and asks us to do something about the drunk person that is standing in front of their business bothering people?

These are quality of life issues that directly affect business owners. I will give you an example from my personal experience. For a while we eased up enforcement of our downtown area due to concentrating on something else. That is when the homeless begin overtaking the area. They were peeing on sidewalks in the middle of the day. They were defecating on the sidewalk directly in front of the entrance to businesses. At night people were getting drunk and rowdy walking down the sidewalk as they left the bars. There were numerous fights, several which ended up in stabbings. There were burglaries and also robberies. Crime attracts crime. Business owners began to lose customers. Nobody wanted to come downtown anymore. Some where on the verge of closing.

Well we cracked down and enforced the little laws and several months later our downtown area is flourishing. Business owners are making profit and are happy. It really was amazing.

You know these situations really put officers between a rock and hard place. On one hand if we don't do anything about it the business owner or citizen complains that we are not doing our job. If we enforce the law then other citizens complain that we are in a police state and we are enforcing unjust laws.

If there were no laws against public urination or disorderly intoxication (which to make a legal arrest requires more then a person just being drunk in public) what would we do to help out the tax paying citizen that calls for our assistance?

If there were no public urination or disorderly law/ordinance what would we do? In that case the only thing we could do would be offer the person a ride home. That is fine and I have done that before, but what about the next time? Another ride?

Just to add I am speaking in terms of the laws being enforced justly. I am not referring to trumped up charges.

I wonder if this, perhaps, explains the problem with the numbers, which cannot possibly be correct.

I back-traced the study to its source, which is the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97), a multi-year study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The report is conducted in "rounds", checking back in on the participants as they age. Because the study noted in the OP cites 23 year olds, we know that the data is coming from Round 12, conducted in 2010.

When I went to look at the crime data for that year, I noticed this, buried in an index page:


(Source)

Now, I have neither the time nor inclination to read through the full study in the OP (which is here, by the way,) but that page from the BLS indicates that arrest data was determined differently for round 12, being figured only from those who had previously reported having been arrested, along with a control group, as opposed to being the full survey.

That, I think, might account for the study's numbers being rather suspect.

For those interested, here is access to the full National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997.

ETA: After walking the dog and thinking this through, I am now fully convinced that this is the reason for the erroneous numbers. By dismissing all respondents who had not reported being arrested prior to Round 8, the pool of respondents is now 100% previously arrested, and mingling those respondents with a control group who may or may not have been arrested would result in the percentages reported in the study of Round 12.

reply to post by ExNihiloRed


What you asked me has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

What I said is their using this as a tool for control and your immediate response was to vindicate me to obsfucate the message.

Address the content of the message and not the messenger.

reply to post by Skyfloating


It's possible. As the economy declines crime increases. Look at how easy it is for kids to get charges these days. With articles about kids getting arrested for pointer finger handguns and for silly little fights I mean I got in school suspension for a fight and kids get felonies now.

I'm saying it could go either way I see evidence to support but it does sound silly like you've said.

They would love to be able to control this much of the population.

reply to post by TorqueyThePig


How long can someone pee on a business? 30 seconds? If you mean daily.. nothing, you tell them to deal with it. How helpless are people? I mean how much money would be spent trying to catch a guy taking a pee once, let alone daily. What are the odds that someone does that and picks the same building? If thats happening the business owner probably has bigger problems, like location.

No business owner would call on their own patrons unless the person is really acting up. Im not talking about disturbing the peace or menacing. In talking about cops scooping up people simply for being intoxicated outside. Happens all the time.

It doesn't put cops in a hard place. Not at all. A citizen cant complain about a cop and you know it, and if they try it doesn't work. Cops only get looked at when there's a big documented eff up. And its definitely not that they care. They no longer serve the public's interest.


Collect taxes and fill jails. Thats it.

I dont really buy the story about you guys cleaning up downtown and helping business owners make a buck, but it does show you cops are trained as politicians too because thats exactly the fairy tale hype story a politician tells the poor working class. Trickle down yard y adda, perfectly tailored so kudos.

So what did you do with the homeless? Lock them up indefinitely? Ship them out of town? Buy them houses?

Oh and yes cops do arrest people just for being a little drunk. They love to. Its one of those perfect vague cop laws. A "when all else fails" law so you can take control of someone. So you can strip their freedom even temporarily which cops love to do.

Believe it or not I've never been arrested either, but I've been threatened by a cop and harassed by one for weeks. Also had an ex gf h arrassed to the point she was scared. And another friend pulled over and asked out on a date and then further h arrassed. When she said no he started the real harassment. All true, we can make up stuff with these names of course but I keep it as honest as I can. I know cops better than they know themselves.

If you didnt enforce those petty laws - nothing would be different except the state would lose a bunch of money.

Points:
This needs to be broken down and then analyzed.
Drugs…what percentage of those arrests are due to drugs?
There’s the private prison industry that has an interest in filling their prisons for a profit.
Then there is the economic issue. Since the Reagan revolution we have lost an enormous amount of jobs, and economic prosperity, as well he destroyed the free college industry, (now young people out of college have an average of 27, 000 they have to pay back) as well the protectionist trade policies he and others destroyed.

All this equals a destruction of the middle class

Young people in this country have little opportunity.

reply to post by onequestion


It was a response to the content of your message. Perhaps you misunderstood. My point was that you seemed confused that your actions (i.e., breaking the law) would have consequences.

You said no job, no guns, no anything, unless they say so. I'm sorry but that just makes no sense.

I'm completely in support of convicted criminals not being allowed to have guns.

If I owned a business, I would want to know if someone was a convicted criminal before I hired them.

If I was paying for services, I would want to know if the person providing those services was a convicted criminal.

I did not intend to insult you. My point is that you may have a bias point of view based on your less than cordial interactions with the criminal justice system in this country.

It is simple. There are laws. Break them, face the consequences. Don't like the laws? Call your representative or move to another country. No one is forcing you to live here.

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by ExNihiloRed

 

Yes. I am telling you that.
Of course there were always instances of police corruption.
But this militarization is new and hiring practices have changed (they prefer to hire lower iq, yes it's true, with the excuse that higher iq police will grow bored of the job), and also a huge influx of vets.

We are talking about hundreds of entirely innocent people murdered a year, and thousands of people murdered for small crimes or questionable circumstances.

And because you tried to imply things were the same in the 70's etc.

“Knock and announce” police raids are on the rise. They are estimated to occur as many as 40 – 50,000 per year. Back in the 1970s, military-style police raids used to be a rare event, occurring only a few hundred times per year.

link

and if you want to say not credible I can go dig up so more "official" stats for you.

Curious as to where you got the information that police departments look to hire people with lower iq's. I have worked in law enforcement for 14 years and have never heard nor seen that practice implemented.

reply to post by XxCanexX


here you go
Its a well known fact. It was okd by the courts. Many people who were turned down due to their IQs have blown the whistle. The excuse is that the high IQ cops will experience burn out and boredom.

Its just a fact. Most cops have average or below average IS. Ive wondered if they know that. Usually in the 90 -110 range. Id say they aren't told when they are hired. In my opinion this is why cops get so angry and discriminate against anyone that shows signs of higher intelligence then they. They obviously hire this way because less intelligent people are more likely to follow rather than lead. Cops are meant to be malleable tools to fill prisons and collect taxes as I've said before.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


So they aren't looking for people with "lower" iq's, they are looking for people in the "average" range. You made it sound like they were lokking for people in the "lower" ranges of the iq scale. Is there anything wrong with wanting to hire people from the average iq range? I work for a very large county sheriff's department and you can't even fill the application out here without having at least a 4 year degree from an accredited university and we don't even give an iq test to new recruits so I don't think every department is all that concerned with iq score. I understand the reasoning behind the link you provided though. Some people in the higher iq ranges may need a different stimulus to avoid boredom.

Well I actually just read the edit you put on your post at the end there and I must say it's just clear that you have a cop hatred. That's fine, we get that all the time, but totally hate to bust your bubble as to how you think we are all in the low iq range and are just "tools" but I personally have a Masters degree in Education, and routinely test in the 140-148 range on the iq scale, but go ahead with your cop hating agenda. We will still be there to save your life if you need us too, and we will still take a bullet for you or your family in order to keep the public safe. No need to thank us, it's just what we do.

reply to post by XxCanexX


They are! I wasnt implying below average and I dont know why you assumed I meant low iqs, but they are refusing jobs to high iqs and giving them to lower iqs.

They will gladly hire people with average or below average, but not above average!
Its funny that you are shrugging this off.

They are looking for people with lower IQs. I didnt say lower than what.
When you consider that the average american IQ Is lower than the worlds average and legal mental retardation is an iq of below 75 then 90 - 110 isn't good. Its a big part of the problem with police in the US.

People with higher iqs are looking for jobs and being discriminated against by police dept for a reason. Its because people with average or below will not think for themselves. Unfortunately its leading to an us against them mentality. An army of lower iq followers with an inferiority complex killing citizens with no justification at an ever increasing race.

If you reply again please answer: why do you think they skip over high iqs for average and below average when everyone is desperate for work and not likely to quit?

Please dont try to downplay this. Its a huge problem.