18 thoughts on “A Response to Vaush’s Ultimate Research Document: Racism in the Criminal Justice System”

  3. Also, you forgot to add another critique on the USSC Booker report. The USSC did not control for criminal record, but “violence in the criminal’s past.” What about white-collar crimes? What about property thefts? Therefore, you can play a word game, and mention another legitimate factor not controlled for, which is non-violent offenses in criminal history. Indeed, according to FBI Table 43 2019, black people, despite being 13% of the population, commit 29% of property crimes.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  4. LMAO Ramchand, Pacula, and Iguchi (2006) actual calculated the effect of behaviours on arrest rates. You don’t read the studies.

    “What these numbers show is that risky purchasing
    patterns among African Americans and their more frequent participation in transactions can account for only a relatively small
    amount of the observed differential in arrest rates. According
    to these calculations, Whites should still be arrested at a rate at
    least twice that of African Americans if the only thing driving
    these arrests were differential purchasing patterns. Instead, we
    observe in the real world that it is African Americans who are
    arrested at a rate that is twice that of Whites.”

    Like

    Reply

      • Ah yes citing a study analyzing differences in behaviour among race for drug sales then directly stating that accounts for the disparity. Despite the fact the research itself analyzed whether those behaviours had any influence on arrest rates. They completely handwave that point without addressing it. Unless you have a study that analyzes that same data set and comes to a different conclusion than the people who actually conducted the study.

        Like

      • Ah yes, you can use a data from one study and properly come up with a different conclusion based on evidence. I don’t he hand waved it at all, that’s just being uncharitable. No need insecure about this, you don’t need to take the same data and get a different conclusion. You can get similar data, cross referenced what has been collected, and come to a different conclusion if it’s warranted. I am not dedicated to it, but I tend to think that it’s correct.

        Like

      • And yet there was no actual methodology listed, nor addressing of the calculations within the study itself. You do not get to cherry-pick parts of studies without strictly addressing the conclusions of the specific study itself.

        Like

      • And yet, the whole focus of the essay was to address the V-Doc itself, not to focus on single studies’ methodology. Sure, I think that addressing the methodology of any study is good, but again, you can use data even if the conclusions of that very study are presumed/believed to be wrong. It just takes validation, really. I am all for that.

        Like

      • Again you can’t cite the abstract of a study to supposedly explain something then handwave away the study’s own analysis of its data because the conclusion disagrees with yours. No actual attempt is made to address this with relevant data or studies. And there are many many more cases in this essay where a study is cited but actually disagrees with the conclusion that gets drawn from it. Just a way to try and prime an explanation without actually reading the study.

        Viewing ramchand et als findings in conjunction with findings on lying would be fine if the studies and findings on lying were as clear cut as he made it out to be

        Like

      • One can cite an abstract, and then go on to explain what specific thesis you believe in. I am trying to get you to understand that just because someone cites an abstract doesn’t mean that is a problem if the conclusion is different. At the end of the day, this is about whether or not there is racism against blacks in policing, and there is literally many more studies that this guy uses in his other essays about this topic.

        Like

      • You can’t go around citing an abstract then loosely draw a correlation between other random studies. There are many other issues with the studies cited to try and bolster their narrative that fall into the same case of Ramchad, where it gives off a certain impression by a mined quote but only to be rebuked in the analysis. Mitchell and Caudy 2015 have a good paper with respect to drug arrests that use Ramchand and comes to the same conclusion. Literally none of the other studies manage to justify Ramchand’s conclusion that risky behaviour does not explain the disparity.

        Like

      • For the last time, yes you can cite an abstract to prove one point but go on to a different conclusion so as long as it is justified. And in his other recent he has written more about this issue in question. Francis

        Like

      • There is zero effort spent to actually state why the abstract is correct but their conclusions wrong. I’ve been critiquing this post exactly to force and actual explanation .

        Like

  5. Again you can’t cite the abstract of a study to supposedly explain something then handwave away the study’s own analysis of its data because the conclusion disagrees with yours. No actual attempt is made to address this with relevant data or studies. And there are many many more cases in this essay where a study is cited but actually disagrees with the conclusion that gets drawn from it. Just a way to try and prime an explanation without actually reading the study.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment