This article is pure gold! The mental gymnastics these idiots have to perform is spectacular!
Consider a judge tasked with making a decision about bail for two defendants, one black and one white. Our two defendants have behaved in exactly the same way prior to their arrest: They used drugs in the same amount, have committed the same traffic offenses, owned similar homes and took their two children to the same school every morning. But the criminal justice algorithms do not rely on all of a defendant’s prior actions to reach a bail assessment — just those actions for which he or she has been previously arrested and convicted. Because of racial biases in arrest and conviction rates, the black defendant is more likely to have a prior conviction than the white one, despite identical conduct. A risk assessment relying on racially compromised criminal-history data will unfairly rate the black defendant as riskier than the white defendant.
IF THE NIGGER HAS A PREVIOUS ARREST AND WHITEY DOES NOT, THEIR CONDUCT IS NOT IDENTICAL. Period. Quite the nice nice try, Laurel…
Laurel Eckhouse is a researcher with the Human Rights Data Analysis Group’s Policing Project, and a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of California at Berkeley.
"data will unfairly rate the black defendant as riskier than the white defendant."
Fairness is a matter of equality, not equity. It's not about if the outcomes are fair.
It therefore boils down to the question: if all other variables were the same, given the prior details, would the outcomes be the same.
And the research shows, if you remove racial data, and just look at the violence rate, blacks (even without any information to determine they are black), form their own category of individuals with higher risk of violence/crime.
This is what it means to be 'race blind.'
EQUITY on the otherhand, asks that we ignore this higher risk, because of the potential that outcomes could be unfair. Not that they are, only that they could be. Versus the known higher risk of black crime and violence.
[ - ] dalai_llama [op] 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 10, 2022 11:44:28 ago (+1/-0)
Well, their argument is that the data being fed into the algorithm is faulty data to begin with. This is a reasonable argument to make.
However, the mechanism by which the faulty data is assumed to be derived is what I have an issue with. The assumption that niggers are arrested more often because of racial bias is the issue. Anytime a nigger gets arrested, proponents of racial bias dogma claim that circumstances would be different for a White suspect. Any data that shows niggers to have a greater disposition towards criminal behavior is assumed to be biased without any actual knowledge of whether or not that is a credible assessment to make.
[ + ] Steelerfish
[ - ] Steelerfish 2 points 1.8 yearsJul 10, 2022 11:52:18 ago (+2/-0)
IF THE NIGGER HAS A PREVIOUS ARREST AND WHITEY DOES NOT, THEIR CONDUCT IS NOT IDENTICAL. Period.
Quite the nice nice try, Laurel…
She also doesn’t celebrate Christmas, guaranteed.
[ + ] outlaw
[ - ] outlaw 0 points 1.8 yearsJul 10, 2022 13:50:33 ago (+0/-0)
Fairness is a matter of equality, not equity. It's not about if the outcomes are fair.
It therefore boils down to the question: if all other variables were the same, given the prior details, would the outcomes be the same.
And the research shows, if you remove racial data, and just look at the violence rate, blacks (even without any information to determine they are black), form their own category of individuals with higher risk of violence/crime.
This is what it means to be 'race blind.'
EQUITY on the otherhand, asks that we ignore this higher risk, because of the potential that outcomes could be unfair. Not that they are, only that they could be.
Versus the known higher risk of black crime and violence.
No thank you. They should be judged accordingly.
[ + ] JustNo
[ - ] JustNo 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 10, 2022 11:36:34 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] dalai_llama
[ - ] dalai_llama [op] 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 10, 2022 11:44:28 ago (+1/-0)
However, the mechanism by which the faulty data is assumed to be derived is what I have an issue with. The assumption that niggers are arrested more often because of racial bias is the issue. Anytime a nigger gets arrested, proponents of racial bias dogma claim that circumstances would be different for a White suspect. Any data that shows niggers to have a greater disposition towards criminal behavior is assumed to be biased without any actual knowledge of whether or not that is a credible assessment to make.