• stopthatgirl7@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    That is honestly sobering. And depressing.

    Mostly sobering, because I was happily drunk before reading this.

  • Throwaway@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    So math time. NYC has a 41% white demographic.

    If all 5% white people stopped were legit stops, my calculator says only 12.19% of the stops were legitimate.

    • melc@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      One of the issues with following a crime rate is that it perpetuates discrimination.

      Even if two groups have the exact same probability of, for example, carrying illegal substances, racist targeting will mean your crime rate will continue to reflect that one group “seems worse”.

      You don’t spot crime where you dont look for it.

      That’s why it’s important to tackle these issues and make sure there is no racial targeting.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep.

        If you’re only stopping people in cargo shorts to search them for drugs, you’re only going to find drugs on people wearing cargo shorts.

        Doesn’t mean they’re the only ones carrying drugs around. They’re just waaaaay more likely to get caught because they’re the ones getting searched

    • DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was coming here to post that certain people will use this statistic to claim 95% of crime is committed by non-whites.

      But I think you just saved me the trouble by demonstrating my point

    • yeather@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      According to the NYPD a suspect is white 16% of the time. Of that number they only get a certain amount of each race as arrestees while the rest walk free. From my quick math it seems to be about right proportionally but on the lower end, more like a “NYPD catches only ~30% of all criminals actively commiting a crime.” All of these numbers were for misdemeanors only, and change greatly with the inclusion of felonies which I can calculate later if you want.

      • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re not talking about arrests we’re talking about stops of pedestrians, so none of what you said after the first sentence is relevant.

        The NYPD has stopped tens of thousands of pedestrians since Mayor Eric Adams took office – claiming someone “fit a relevant description” or citing a vague reason like “other.” Just 5% of them were white, revealing racial disparities even starker than at the height of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” era.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes. Most studies show blacks commit a majority of the crimes but not 95%

        That logic only works under the assumption everyone that commits a crime is caught…

        Which is incredibly naive.

        You should use “convicted of crimes” not “committed crimes”. And even then, that’s ignoring how our justice system uses insane prison sentences to make people take plea deals. So innocent people are coerced into pleasing guilty to avoid jail.

        • RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are literally no valid, trustworthy crime statistics in the US. Police only stop people they want to stop, they more often than not lie in court to secure convictions, public defenders have obscene caseloads that leave them entirely unable to provide a competent, effective defense, and, as you said, defendants are all but forced into shit plea deals for crimes they usually either didn’t commit or shouldn’t be imprisoned for.

          The US justice system isn’t just broken, it’s nearly nonexistent and should be treated as entirely illegitimate.

      • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually commit, or arrested for, or convicted for? I’m on mobile and can’t dive the PDF, but “commit” sounds like it’s a denominator, not a numerator.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It breaks down to suspect and arrested.

          Don’t delve into conviction rates. You’ll discover quickly how screwed up our system is. It’s still better than anyone else but it’s bad.

          You’ll see why plea deals should be banned. They abuse the poor since they can’t afford a competent lawyers.

          I personally think plea deals should be banned for that reason. They just allow weak cases to be convicted.

          • RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s still better than anyone else but it’s bad.

            Not even close. The vast majority of wealthy nations have far better justice systems than the US.

          • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure that attacking the idea of the plea itself is right. Plea deals are useful in a well-run juridical model.

            Instead, prosecutors should be barred from overcharging as a form of coercion, which is plainly what they often do today. Some combo of state legislators, the state supreme courts, and the ABA should create guardrails for charging decisions.

            Finally, as I understand its history, the broad use of overcharging is a fairly recent development that arose because other parts of our system broke down or were overwhelmed, often because of underfunding and/or political expedience.