Today is Martin Luther King Day. It is hard not to think about the man and the legend. MLK had to face Jim Crow laws, which de jure forced racial segregation between black and white people. MLK was arrested 29 times, including the so-called "crime" of sitting at a lunch counter with white people. Even after the Civil War, the justice system treated African-Americans unfairly in more ways than one. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a turning point for civil liberties, which included overturning the Jim Crow laws. I would not expect changes for racial attitudes to happen overnight, but it has been about six decades since the Civil Rights Act. I have to wonder if the criminal justice system has improved since then.
If you listen to the Far Left, the answer to that question is a resounding "No!" Their thesis is that systemic racism is epidemic in the criminal justice system, and as such, is rotten to its core because of how it treats racial minorities. For advocates of this theory, the fact that the overtly racist laws by and large no longer existing does not matter. Those arguing that systemic racism exists either argue that it comes in form of there being implicit bias within the system or that institutional factors result in systemic racial disparities in the judicial system. In spite of removing de jure racism, proponents argue that the system de facto remains racist and White supremacist.
Part of my issue of the "systemic racism" argument is with the framing. Racism depends too much on intent and belief, which is an issue because the vast majority of criminal justice laws being scrutinized are not de jure or explicitly racist. It assumes that any disparity is prima facie discrimination or racism, a concept that I refuted last year. The other issue with framing is that "systemic" is too vague of a term to describe anything meaningful. As African-American linguist and Columbia University professor John McWhorter points out, "this usage of 'systemic racism' is more rhetorical bludgeon than a simple term of reference."
My bigger contention is the fact that the argument violates the logical fallacy of begging the question, which is an argument in which the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion. In the context of critical race theory and the "systemic racism" argument, it means that those who question the theory are "systematically deceived" because they are not "in the know":
If someone begs the question and foreswears any counter-evidence, then the idea becomes unfalsifiable. This is irrational. Every challenge to one's viewpoint can then be dismissed a priori...When a claim is taken to be impervious to criticism, it loses rationality given its irrefutable dogmatism.
I know that people on the Far Left like to argue that logic or objective, linear thinking are part of "white culture" or "white supremacy." It means that their arguments about systemic discrimination cannot be criticized.....or so they think. I value logic, facts, and rationale over emotion grasping towards one's preconceived notions, especially when talking about public policy. That means I am going to scrutinize the theory, especially when it has major implications for criminal justice policy.
We should be asking ourselves here whether the facts line up with a story about systemic racism or not. This is exactly what two scholars from Stetson University did when they published their meta-analysis last month on the topic of race, class, and criminal adjudication (Ferguson and Smith, 2023). These scholars examined 51 studies that have been published on the topic since 2005. Their main finding was that "neither class nor race biases for criminal adjudications for either violent or property crimes could be reliably detected." The exception noted in the meta-analysis was drug crimes, which is significant because drug crimes often have strict sentencing. Even then, the effect sizes were very small (i.e., 1.6-1.8% of the variance in criminal adjudication).
I am not here to say that discrimination is nonexistent in the criminal justice system. There are other aspects to consider, such as arrest rates, innocence rates, or rates at which certain people are stopped by police officers. Conversely, sentencing is a major aspect of the criminal justice system because it determines how badly one is ultimately punished for committing a crime.
The near absence of sentencing bias in terms of class and race are surprising given what "conventional wisdom" is on the topic. Yet it makes sense why I have not seen people clamoring to laud these findings. Much like with climate change or COVID, it would not make for good news if something is not in crisis mode. For the Far Left, it means losing control over the political narrative. I talked about this concept a couple of weeks ago when covering how growing income inequality has not really been a thing in the past six decades.
If the criminal justice system is not in the disarray that the "systemic racism" crowd is purporting, it means they have less political power. This is more than having an arguably cynical view about political power, although I honestly would call it "being realistic." As the authors of the study also point out, such a view is detrimental to society because reduces public confidence, creates more social discord, and reduces community cooperation with criminal justice authorities, all of which erode the criminal justice system and have the potential to increase crime. Plus, it perpetuates our post-truth world when political narratives matter than reality.
This is not to say that reforms could be made, a topic which I have written in past pieces. On the whole, I am frankly relieved at the finding in these studies. Mitigating and ultimately eliminating racial bias should be something every free, democratic society should aspire towards. For me, it is marvelous that the United States is, in at least one aspect, becoming a more perfect union. I hope that we as a society can continue towards this trend in a more neutral, impartial criminal justice system.
No comments:
Post a Comment