This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
183215 Responseshttp://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/inequality-class-question-one/Inequality+Class%3A+Question+One2010-02-20+12%3A33%3A48Sam+Richards to Inequality Class: Question One
I think that this kid brings up a great point. I did not think about this perspective when Sam was giving his lecture, but I believe that this could have a significant impact on the apples to apples argument. Now, I am sure that we are past the days of paying off cops or corrupted cops, but to a certain point I think there will always be inequality when it comes to law enforcement. If cops in urban areas grew up in those urban areas, they may have more of an inclination to be racist. Since most African- Americans live in cities, the people who grew up in these areas would have more contact with them. If a white cop had a bad experience with an African-American earlier in his life, there may be a grudge that is brought along with him in his line of work. There are obviously a boat load of variables in that statement, but at the same time I do not think it is completely out of the question that a significant number of people would experience it. I also was thinking, and this could also have flaws, that since there are more black people in cities, where there is statistically more crime, that is why they are represented higher in the crime statistics. Maybe not to the significant extent that it was, but that probably at least attributes to it. If black people truly are committing more crime than they should be arrested for it. If white people are committing more crime than they too should be arrested for it. Same with asians, native americans, aliens, or bears. Society today is all about being politically correct and making sure everyone is happy. If that is the case than fix the cops, or fix the people and be done with it. I think it is pointless to try and figure out IF there is racism in law enforcement. Figure out WHY. Why is there racism, or why does a particular group commit more crime. To me this topic is more interesting than why black people are better at basketball, or why white people make more money. This is a topic that has been portrayed in movies for decades. I do not know if we will ever squash racism and everything that it entails, not unless we all someday become of the same color. Even then I am sure that the human race would find a way to discriminate against each other. But for now I hope at least that we can resolve as many of our own issues as we can. I like reading the comments people make about racism topics because we are all kids and we aren't afraid to introduce new topics and new viewpoints.
This student hit the nail right on the head. I’m a Crime Law and Justice major, and currently taking a few classes that focuses not only on the mind of specific criminals but the different tactics being enforced in different areas. For example, it is a very fundamental idea that crime rates are higher in urban areas, not because more blacks live there, but because of the way a city is set up. There is a higher population, thus leading to a higher population density, thus leading to a higher probability of one of those residents of the city committing a crime. Secondly, with the very dense living quarters of a city, it is very easy to call on witnesses to assist apprehending a criminal. In suburban areas, some people live hundreds of feet from their neighbors and thus aren’t necessarily apprehended if a crime is committed because the lack of witnesses and the lack of police patrol. We’ve all been to a major U.S. city and all have noticed that occasionally you see nearly half a dozen of police officers stationed at a large intersection. That is 12 pairs of eyes viewing the general public and making sure no one is committing a crime. On the other hand, I know my local law enforcement agency has only about 18 officers in total. Not only not as much as those of urban areas, but also are trained to look for different things than cops in urban areas.
People are always up in arms about the racial issues when it comes to crime rates, but when you get to the bottom of it, one must recognize that is goes much deeper than racism. The fact that blacks have higher crime rates comes from the fact that nearly half of all black households are fatherless. This is turn creates children, specifically men, who had no father figure to look up to. These children then grow up with being motivated to get an education or job and are resorting to deal crack on the city corners, where they get apprehended, not because they are black, but because they are drug dealers. Another example is the fact that graduation rates in urban areas are pathetic, the lack of education and further career opportunities forces these students to become criminals to make ends meet. There is always a cry out against racism when it comes to law enforcement and crime rates. But take a step back and look at the real issues that a city faces; fatherless households, poor graduation rates, and high drug trafficking number – all of which are certainly related with the higher crime rates in urban areas.
As far as techniques go, there are certainly different techniques used in urban areas compared to suburban areas, but in my opinion to claim that 100% of crime rates upon blacks is racist is a bunch of malarkey, crime rate is merely an indicator upon the standard of living in urban areas, and since urban areas are highly populated, they are more likely to have larger crime rates, not because the majority of its residents are black.
I agree and think this kid does make a valid argument I mean of course this could have a huge impact on the results because in urban areas cops probably assume or already know what kids are up to and can catch it much easier than in rural areas. I feel like a lot of people who live in urban areas such as black people who grow up around their particular surroundings and end up being a cop, they tend to hate the scene around that particular town. They probably feel ashamed of other black people making the town look bad and think that by arresting every single one they will clean their town up so I do feel that they would be more inclined to arrest more people. In rural areas I feel like there wouldn’t really be much going on and since black people don’t tend to live in and therefore there wouldn’t be as many drug related arrests.
Perhaps it is the fact that black people aren’t as sneaky about doing or dealing drugs? Maybe white people do it more behind closed doors. So maybe black people shouldn’t be so obvious about their dealing? Sometimes it seems like they are just so proud about it though which makes me not feel as bad for them especially since they flaunt it so much. Why do they have to flaunt it like it’s not a bad thing or the fact that they are breaking the law? I get that okay they might have to do it to survive in the streets but do they really? Or do they just like seeming all badass about it and wanting people to talk about them and what not? Why? I don’t understand why you would even want to be known as the biggest best drug dealer out there.
I feel like I see that a lot back home but I don’t really live in a city. The black kids tend to lean more towards this whole badass image and strive so hard to achieve that “respect” they claim to have. Personally, I don’t feel that if they do have the respect for it they shouldn’t because how is that a positive thing? They brag all the time about how much money they have to buy this and buy that but they fail to realize that if and when they get caught their lives are pretty much over. I guess if what they’re really looking for and they really do want to end up in jail sometime or want to rap about it then be my guest. Work the streets if that’s what you’re into- just don’t blame other people for the choices you make and say there’s something wrong in the system.
I am agreeing with what this kid has to say (in addition to these previous comments).. I was actually wondering about this myself during lecture. I would be very telling if Sam could put up a US map with statistical evidence of crime according to areas and populations. The majority of crimes are committed in cities and most of this just has to do with easier access and the culture of inner cities in general. As another student pointed out, once again, the whole issue comes down to money. The majority of people who commit crimes are from a lower socioeconomic status. As it has been hammered into our heads for several lectures now, on average, black families make less money than white families. This will make them more likely to commit crimes… but we also have to remember that there is an enormous amount of white families who are poor too. The top 3-10% of white people are just so filthy rich that it brings up the average. There is undoubtedly a lot of truth to the last lecture. It probably is much more likely that a black kid will get sentenced to time over a white kid.. but, how often is that attributed to money and not race? It is easy to make generalizations and correlations from some of this data.. but there is much more to this than just numbers and race… (I think so anyway) What actually is going on here? I'm not sure if anyone can provide a straight answer. I think it may be more important to deal with crime in general than crime according to races.. Or lets look at crime in adolescent boys versus adolescent girls. Isn't that an issue too? Our crime rate is absurdly high to begin with.. I don't know if we'll ever be able to hash it out in accordance to a race issue.. why can't we just look at it as a societal issue and begin to search for solutions? As the previous blogger mentioned, there is definitely different expectations for different populations.. maybe according to race or maybe just according to where you grew up. They mention that black kids tend to lean towards the badass image.. I would like to point out that for every black kid that is looking to act tough, there has to be at least one white kid doing the same thing. In class someone even mentioned the rap culture and how it may promote doing drugs and committing crimes.. and I would like to say, yeah it does but how many white kids are listening to that too? There are plenty of white kids following that image and looking for that "badass appeal". I am just really undecided about how much of a race issue this is. I do not deny that there are probably plenty of racist people in the judicial system.. but I would like to believe that they are few and far between.
I agree with him in the position about the rate of crime in different areas and it is quiet difficult to control for so many aspects that would definitely be an area in which should be blocked for in the future to represent better test results. A lot about what you do is dependent on where you live. Me, myself growing up in a college town had many jobs taken away from me because there were more well qualified college students looking for a job so saying how many high school students have jobs here would not be a precise test compared to a town without a large college. Would definitely improve some statistics if we blocked for certain situation and not putting it across huge demographics which change statistics.
I think that this kid makes a pretty good point. I think that there is more crime in suburban areas than in urban areas because these areas are often less patrolled by cops, and some people these days have tendencies to join gangs because they think that it is the cool thing to do. They feel that they need to represent their neighborhoods in a gang. Its almost as if they feel that they are expected to do this by society. Cops don't often suspect that there would be more crime in a suburban area because you would naturally think that the majority of crime would take place in the urban areas. When they let their guards down people feel that they are more free to commit crimes, because they think that they can get away with it more easily. Its not really a race thing. Crimes are committed by people of every race under many circumstances. Another reason that there are more crimes in suburban areas is because there are more poor people that live in suburban areas. Many of them are struggling to make ends meet especially with the tough economy that we have in our world today, so they resort to a life of crime to fulfill their financial needs. Its actually kind of sad when you think about it that people have to resort to this just to be able to survive. Yes there are many poor people in the city as well, but its easier to get away with crime in the suburbs, so people tend to take the risk even more often there. Not to say that there isn't a lot of crimes in urban areas, its just that the suburban areas tend to have a little more of a problem with crime. Its kind of bizarre when you think about it because you would never really expect this to be the case. I used to always just assume that the urban areas were much worse than the suburban areas when it comes to crime rates. It seems that whenever you hear about gang crimes occurring in the United States they seem that they are always in the city. I think that the majority of the people would also be very surprised to hear this statistic as well. Usually you just associate crimes with cities, you don't really think of suburbs as major areas of crimes, but it is the areas that you would never suspect that usually turn out to be the worse. I agree with some of the points that Sam made in class, The stats that he showed regarding the percentage of colored individuals that were imprisoned compared to the white people who committed the same crimes really, showed on this topic. i dint really think it was to do with race, rather I was always of the belief that more to do with the social status of an individual.
Nice. Alright, let me grasp the question: was the law enforcement of different areas considered? The fact that the question is asking if the law enforcement was controlled or not comes directly from the assumption that there are different law enforcement “policies” or a certain “strictness” to each area: urban and suburban. Doesn’t that mean there is a problem to begin with? Why should the LAW differ in select areas of the state? I thought the law was the law and the same rules applied everywhere. That could easily lead to confusion. Anyway, what I took from the question was that the law enforcement is more strict and/or abundant in the urban areas compared to the suburbs. But why? Could it possibly be because there are more black people that live there? Hey, you said it. I think you answered your own question. It is a vicious cycle that seems to trap most colored people: All of these statistics are shown that imply colored people demonstrate bad behavior, break the law, get incarcerated, don’t make much money and then have a few kids that grow up in a similar neighborhood. And guess what happens? Those kids are faced with stricter police officers that have their stereotypes all mapped out, ready to trap another generation. And the story continues.
Even though I know some of the disadvantages minorities have growing up in a poor community, it still is shocking to me that so many blacks are being incarcerated. The most troubling thing about the statistics shown in class the other day is that the majority of people being incarcerated are not doing anything more illegal than my friends and me do or did at one point. For instance, I learned in my social problems class that the majority of people incarcerated are arrested for minor incidents.
The reason that the majority of prisoners are black is obviously not because of their race, but because of the community or area that they live in. Suburban kids do and deal drugs just as much as inner city kids do. The difference is that police monitor and patrol the inner city neighborhoods much more than they do than in the suburbs. The fact is that minority youths grow up in these areas and once you are in the criminal justice system it may be hard to get out. This is especially true for people in the lower classes, no matter what your color is.
Another reason we see such staggering statistics for incarceration is because disadvantages can be passed down through generations. If you grow up in a bad area than most likely you are going to have lower expectations than those in the upper classes. People, including the individual themselves, will probably have lower expectations for themselves and not have as positive role models to look up to.
The point I am trying to make is that I think that social economic status or community you grew up in has more to do with incarceration than race. But sadly because of the system that has been set in place, minorities are too often the victims. They are stuck in these poorer communities because of a vicious cycle that keeps people from moving up in the world.
Whether we want to admit it or not, I think we have a system that is inherently racist and we don’t even realize it and it doesn’t just stop with the police that patrol the areas (and most likely just doing their jobs). The reason for these prison stats is also because of the way the court system works and how judges are more likely to give the kid from suburbia a pass while punishing the black inner city kid for the same crime.
There are so many factors that lead to the current ratio of those incarcerated. In the end I think a much of it has to do with the high number of police in an area, but I also think that there has to be some hidden racism in our justice in order for such a difference in the percent of white and black prisoners.
As most people who have already commented here I am inclined to agree with the speaker in the way he views the situation. People are so quick to blame race (and I am not saying that race does not have something to do with those statistics) that they often miss other potential factors. Recently for a CAS class I was required give a report on our nation’s drug war. For obvious reasons, I researched racism within the drug war extensively, and found the same statistics that Sam showed in class. However, I also found that area’s law enforcement size was based on the populations of the area. That being said, it is a also a true statement, as the person in the comment said, that many minorities reside within high population urbanized areas. So the logical conclusion is that since a heavy amount of minorities reside in an area’s with heavy amounts of law enforcement, the statistics could be drastically skewed.
Yet, even considering those things, racism cannot be counted out as part of the issue. For example, go back in time, and let’s consider why the cities are so heavily populated by minorities, specifically African Americans. After the abolishment of slavery, those who were not content or able to participate in sharecropping flocked to the cities. Many former African American slaves came north in a large scale migration in search of ANYTHING better for themselves and their families (although conditions here could barely be considered an improvement). Ever since these events, the populations of cities have remained locked in this demographic trend; and this can certainly be construed as racism. In other words, it was racism that brought them to the cities, so in effect is it not racism that has put them in harm’s way (referring to the heavy law enforcement)?
Truly I think all that this discussion shows is that issues are not completely black and white. Obviously racism still exists, and I would never intend on downplaying the role it still plays in our society, but I think people need to start looking at the bigger picture if it means solutions are going to be found. When an issue has become so complicated that in truth, it is a variety of problems combined, we cannot simply zero in on one part of the problem and try to fix it that way. What I’m attempting to say is that racism has integrated itself into our society. It is not just a social issue anymore; it has become a part of us. So I wonder what this means for us? Are we doomed to always have racism as a part of our society? This morbid view seems to become truer every day.
While I do think it is wise to take those factors into account, the numbers still speak volumes. There will always be outside factors in any experiment or statistical analysis that sway the results but it’s important to take a good look at the deeper underlying realities. And after Sam’s last class when he gave examples of how an employer in some cases was more likely to take a white man with a criminal record than a black man with no criminal record, it just shows that racism in the judicial field is still an issue.
I think you have brought up a great point, in fact it is a great flow in Sam’s theory of comparing apples to apples, because that is impossible, you cannot compare people to people, no matter how similar they are , they won’t be the same exact person, everyone goes through different experiences in life and meet different people that influence them in different ways, so no you cannot compare apples to apples in a anyway, and if you did it will ineffective , I don’t know how anyone could compare two living things.
It is unlikely that the results would be accurate in any way.
p.s. I find it very funny that you used the word colored people when you were referring to black people, don’t know why but it is funny.
The vast majority of violent crime is concentrated in the worst neighborhoods with consistent poverty. Therefore, I think it is an oversimplication if you say that crimes are more easily apprehended with higher population density. It is true. But it doesn't even paint half of the picture. The worst neighborhoods with drug dealing and crime are often crawling with cops. Compare poor black or Latino areas of North Philly with white areas like Port Richmond or University City for example, and you will see the population density is the same, but there are much more cops in the minority, drug infested areas. (Some of the poorer areas are actually LESS dense. They have been hit hard by depopulation and abandonment.) When you go to the more well-off city neighborhoods with the same (or even denser) populations, you don't have the cops and sirens. And since there is more poverty in latino and black communities, cops spend their time patrolling these areas.
I agree with this person’s point. Crime rates can vary as a result of many different circumstances and area is a good example of one of those circumstances. The fact that urban areas tend to have high populations than rural areas could make the rate of crime look higher. Also, the more people there are in one area the more opportunities there would be for crimes to be committed. On the other hand, one could say that since there are more opportunities and more people to commit crimes in urban areas, crime prevention may be more utilized in that area and not used as much in suburban areas because crime tends to be naturally low.
While I’m not aware of the specific steps taken by the researchers Sam cited, I do know that when you are creating an experiment like these you are very carefully in accounting for those kinds of discrepancies. Apples to Apples really mean the situations are exactly the same. The store, the people involved (employers and applicants), law enforcement precincts. I think you brought up a good point that there may be a difference between urban and rural areas. But the statistics are still significant.
Another interesting study that I have seen, involves urban areas and employment. In urban areas, where there is neighborhoods known to be very poor, employers are discriminating against applicant based on address. When they get an application if the applicants address is in one of these poor (usually black) neighborhoods they will not get a call back. When confronted many of the employers cited poor education in these areas (applicants can’t speak proper English) and that the area is known for gang participation. When conducting that experiment it was very important to compare Apples to Apples.
I think that this kid brings up a great point. I did not think about this perspective when Sam was giving his lecture, but I believe that this could have a significant impact on the apples to apples argument. Now, I am sure that we are past the days of paying off cops or corrupted cops, but to a certain point I think there will always be inequality when it comes to law enforcement. If cops in urban areas grew up in those urban areas, they may have more of an inclination to be racist. Since most African- Americans live in cities, the people who grew up in these areas would have more contact with them. If a white cop had a bad experience with an African-American earlier in his life, there may be a grudge that is brought along with him in his line of work. There are obviously a boat load of variables in that statement, but at the same time I do not think it is completely out of the question that a significant number of people would experience it. I also was thinking, and this could also have flaws, that since there are more black people in cities, where there is statistically more crime, that is why they are represented higher in the crime statistics. Maybe not to the significant extent that it was, but that probably at least attributes to it. If black people truly are committing more crime than they should be arrested for it. If white people are committing more crime than they too should be arrested for it. Same with asians, native americans, aliens, or bears. Society today is all about being politically correct and making sure everyone is happy. If that is the case than fix the cops, or fix the people and be done with it. I think it is pointless to try and figure out IF there is racism in law enforcement. Figure out WHY. Why is there racism, or why does a particular group commit more crime. To me this topic is more interesting than why black people are better at basketball, or why white people make more money. This is a topic that has been portrayed in movies for decades. I do not know if we will ever squash racism and everything that it entails, not unless we all someday become of the same color. Even then I am sure that the human race would find a way to discriminate against each other. But for now I hope at least that we can resolve as many of our own issues as we can. I like reading the comments people make about racism topics because we are all kids and we aren't afraid to introduce new topics and new viewpoints.
[Reply]
This student hit the nail right on the head. I’m a Crime Law and Justice major, and currently taking a few classes that focuses not only on the mind of specific criminals but the different tactics being enforced in different areas. For example, it is a very fundamental idea that crime rates are higher in urban areas, not because more blacks live there, but because of the way a city is set up. There is a higher population, thus leading to a higher population density, thus leading to a higher probability of one of those residents of the city committing a crime. Secondly, with the very dense living quarters of a city, it is very easy to call on witnesses to assist apprehending a criminal. In suburban areas, some people live hundreds of feet from their neighbors and thus aren’t necessarily apprehended if a crime is committed because the lack of witnesses and the lack of police patrol. We’ve all been to a major U.S. city and all have noticed that occasionally you see nearly half a dozen of police officers stationed at a large intersection. That is 12 pairs of eyes viewing the general public and making sure no one is committing a crime. On the other hand, I know my local law enforcement agency has only about 18 officers in total. Not only not as much as those of urban areas, but also are trained to look for different things than cops in urban areas.
People are always up in arms about the racial issues when it comes to crime rates, but when you get to the bottom of it, one must recognize that is goes much deeper than racism. The fact that blacks have higher crime rates comes from the fact that nearly half of all black households are fatherless. This is turn creates children, specifically men, who had no father figure to look up to. These children then grow up with being motivated to get an education or job and are resorting to deal crack on the city corners, where they get apprehended, not because they are black, but because they are drug dealers. Another example is the fact that graduation rates in urban areas are pathetic, the lack of education and further career opportunities forces these students to become criminals to make ends meet. There is always a cry out against racism when it comes to law enforcement and crime rates. But take a step back and look at the real issues that a city faces; fatherless households, poor graduation rates, and high drug trafficking number – all of which are certainly related with the higher crime rates in urban areas.
As far as techniques go, there are certainly different techniques used in urban areas compared to suburban areas, but in my opinion to claim that 100% of crime rates upon blacks is racist is a bunch of malarkey, crime rate is merely an indicator upon the standard of living in urban areas, and since urban areas are highly populated, they are more likely to have larger crime rates, not because the majority of its residents are black.
[Reply]
I agree and think this kid does make a valid argument I mean of course this could have a huge impact on the results because in urban areas cops probably assume or already know what kids are up to and can catch it much easier than in rural areas. I feel like a lot of people who live in urban areas such as black people who grow up around their particular surroundings and end up being a cop, they tend to hate the scene around that particular town. They probably feel ashamed of other black people making the town look bad and think that by arresting every single one they will clean their town up so I do feel that they would be more inclined to arrest more people. In rural areas I feel like there wouldn’t really be much going on and since black people don’t tend to live in and therefore there wouldn’t be as many drug related arrests.
Perhaps it is the fact that black people aren’t as sneaky about doing or dealing drugs? Maybe white people do it more behind closed doors. So maybe black people shouldn’t be so obvious about their dealing? Sometimes it seems like they are just so proud about it though which makes me not feel as bad for them especially since they flaunt it so much. Why do they have to flaunt it like it’s not a bad thing or the fact that they are breaking the law? I get that okay they might have to do it to survive in the streets but do they really? Or do they just like seeming all badass about it and wanting people to talk about them and what not? Why? I don’t understand why you would even want to be known as the biggest best drug dealer out there.
I feel like I see that a lot back home but I don’t really live in a city. The black kids tend to lean more towards this whole badass image and strive so hard to achieve that “respect” they claim to have. Personally, I don’t feel that if they do have the respect for it they shouldn’t because how is that a positive thing? They brag all the time about how much money they have to buy this and buy that but they fail to realize that if and when they get caught their lives are pretty much over. I guess if what they’re really looking for and they really do want to end up in jail sometime or want to rap about it then be my guest. Work the streets if that’s what you’re into- just don’t blame other people for the choices you make and say there’s something wrong in the system.
[Reply]
I am agreeing with what this kid has to say (in addition to these previous comments).. I was actually wondering about this myself during lecture. I would be very telling if Sam could put up a US map with statistical evidence of crime according to areas and populations. The majority of crimes are committed in cities and most of this just has to do with easier access and the culture of inner cities in general. As another student pointed out, once again, the whole issue comes down to money. The majority of people who commit crimes are from a lower socioeconomic status. As it has been hammered into our heads for several lectures now, on average, black families make less money than white families. This will make them more likely to commit crimes… but we also have to remember that there is an enormous amount of white families who are poor too. The top 3-10% of white people are just so filthy rich that it brings up the average. There is undoubtedly a lot of truth to the last lecture. It probably is much more likely that a black kid will get sentenced to time over a white kid.. but, how often is that attributed to money and not race? It is easy to make generalizations and correlations from some of this data.. but there is much more to this than just numbers and race… (I think so anyway) What actually is going on here? I'm not sure if anyone can provide a straight answer. I think it may be more important to deal with crime in general than crime according to races.. Or lets look at crime in adolescent boys versus adolescent girls. Isn't that an issue too? Our crime rate is absurdly high to begin with.. I don't know if we'll ever be able to hash it out in accordance to a race issue.. why can't we just look at it as a societal issue and begin to search for solutions? As the previous blogger mentioned, there is definitely different expectations for different populations.. maybe according to race or maybe just according to where you grew up. They mention that black kids tend to lean towards the badass image.. I would like to point out that for every black kid that is looking to act tough, there has to be at least one white kid doing the same thing. In class someone even mentioned the rap culture and how it may promote doing drugs and committing crimes.. and I would like to say, yeah it does but how many white kids are listening to that too? There are plenty of white kids following that image and looking for that "badass appeal". I am just really undecided about how much of a race issue this is. I do not deny that there are probably plenty of racist people in the judicial system.. but I would like to believe that they are few and far between.
[Reply]
I agree with him in the position about the rate of crime in different areas and it is quiet difficult to control for so many aspects that would definitely be an area in which should be blocked for in the future to represent better test results. A lot about what you do is dependent on where you live. Me, myself growing up in a college town had many jobs taken away from me because there were more well qualified college students looking for a job so saying how many high school students have jobs here would not be a precise test compared to a town without a large college. Would definitely improve some statistics if we blocked for certain situation and not putting it across huge demographics which change statistics.
[Reply]
test
[Reply]
I think that this kid makes a pretty good point. I think that there is more crime in suburban areas than in urban areas because these areas are often less patrolled by cops, and some people these days have tendencies to join gangs because they think that it is the cool thing to do. They feel that they need to represent their neighborhoods in a gang. Its almost as if they feel that they are expected to do this by society. Cops don't often suspect that there would be more crime in a suburban area because you would naturally think that the majority of crime would take place in the urban areas. When they let their guards down people feel that they are more free to commit crimes, because they think that they can get away with it more easily. Its not really a race thing. Crimes are committed by people of every race under many circumstances. Another reason that there are more crimes in suburban areas is because there are more poor people that live in suburban areas. Many of them are struggling to make ends meet especially with the tough economy that we have in our world today, so they resort to a life of crime to fulfill their financial needs. Its actually kind of sad when you think about it that people have to resort to this just to be able to survive. Yes there are many poor people in the city as well, but its easier to get away with crime in the suburbs, so people tend to take the risk even more often there. Not to say that there isn't a lot of crimes in urban areas, its just that the suburban areas tend to have a little more of a problem with crime. Its kind of bizarre when you think about it because you would never really expect this to be the case. I used to always just assume that the urban areas were much worse than the suburban areas when it comes to crime rates. It seems that whenever you hear about gang crimes occurring in the United States they seem that they are always in the city. I think that the majority of the people would also be very surprised to hear this statistic as well. Usually you just associate crimes with cities, you don't really think of suburbs as major areas of crimes, but it is the areas that you would never suspect that usually turn out to be the worse. I agree with some of the points that Sam made in class, The stats that he showed regarding the percentage of colored individuals that were imprisoned compared to the white people who committed the same crimes really, showed on this topic. i dint really think it was to do with race, rather I was always of the belief that more to do with the social status of an individual.
[Reply]
Nice. Alright, let me grasp the question: was the law enforcement of different areas considered? The fact that the question is asking if the law enforcement was controlled or not comes directly from the assumption that there are different law enforcement “policies” or a certain “strictness” to each area: urban and suburban. Doesn’t that mean there is a problem to begin with? Why should the LAW differ in select areas of the state? I thought the law was the law and the same rules applied everywhere. That could easily lead to confusion. Anyway, what I took from the question was that the law enforcement is more strict and/or abundant in the urban areas compared to the suburbs. But why? Could it possibly be because there are more black people that live there? Hey, you said it. I think you answered your own question. It is a vicious cycle that seems to trap most colored people: All of these statistics are shown that imply colored people demonstrate bad behavior, break the law, get incarcerated, don’t make much money and then have a few kids that grow up in a similar neighborhood. And guess what happens? Those kids are faced with stricter police officers that have their stereotypes all mapped out, ready to trap another generation. And the story continues.
[Reply]
Even though I know some of the disadvantages minorities have growing up in a poor community, it still is shocking to me that so many blacks are being incarcerated. The most troubling thing about the statistics shown in class the other day is that the majority of people being incarcerated are not doing anything more illegal than my friends and me do or did at one point. For instance, I learned in my social problems class that the majority of people incarcerated are arrested for minor incidents.
The reason that the majority of prisoners are black is obviously not because of their race, but because of the community or area that they live in. Suburban kids do and deal drugs just as much as inner city kids do. The difference is that police monitor and patrol the inner city neighborhoods much more than they do than in the suburbs. The fact is that minority youths grow up in these areas and once you are in the criminal justice system it may be hard to get out. This is especially true for people in the lower classes, no matter what your color is.
Another reason we see such staggering statistics for incarceration is because disadvantages can be passed down through generations. If you grow up in a bad area than most likely you are going to have lower expectations than those in the upper classes. People, including the individual themselves, will probably have lower expectations for themselves and not have as positive role models to look up to.
The point I am trying to make is that I think that social economic status or community you grew up in has more to do with incarceration than race. But sadly because of the system that has been set in place, minorities are too often the victims. They are stuck in these poorer communities because of a vicious cycle that keeps people from moving up in the world.
Whether we want to admit it or not, I think we have a system that is inherently racist and we don’t even realize it and it doesn’t just stop with the police that patrol the areas (and most likely just doing their jobs). The reason for these prison stats is also because of the way the court system works and how judges are more likely to give the kid from suburbia a pass while punishing the black inner city kid for the same crime.
There are so many factors that lead to the current ratio of those incarcerated. In the end I think a much of it has to do with the high number of police in an area, but I also think that there has to be some hidden racism in our justice in order for such a difference in the percent of white and black prisoners.
[Reply]
As most people who have already commented here I am inclined to agree with the speaker in the way he views the situation. People are so quick to blame race (and I am not saying that race does not have something to do with those statistics) that they often miss other potential factors. Recently for a CAS class I was required give a report on our nation’s drug war. For obvious reasons, I researched racism within the drug war extensively, and found the same statistics that Sam showed in class. However, I also found that area’s law enforcement size was based on the populations of the area. That being said, it is a also a true statement, as the person in the comment said, that many minorities reside within high population urbanized areas. So the logical conclusion is that since a heavy amount of minorities reside in an area’s with heavy amounts of law enforcement, the statistics could be drastically skewed.
Yet, even considering those things, racism cannot be counted out as part of the issue. For example, go back in time, and let’s consider why the cities are so heavily populated by minorities, specifically African Americans. After the abolishment of slavery, those who were not content or able to participate in sharecropping flocked to the cities. Many former African American slaves came north in a large scale migration in search of ANYTHING better for themselves and their families (although conditions here could barely be considered an improvement). Ever since these events, the populations of cities have remained locked in this demographic trend; and this can certainly be construed as racism. In other words, it was racism that brought them to the cities, so in effect is it not racism that has put them in harm’s way (referring to the heavy law enforcement)?
Truly I think all that this discussion shows is that issues are not completely black and white. Obviously racism still exists, and I would never intend on downplaying the role it still plays in our society, but I think people need to start looking at the bigger picture if it means solutions are going to be found. When an issue has become so complicated that in truth, it is a variety of problems combined, we cannot simply zero in on one part of the problem and try to fix it that way. What I’m attempting to say is that racism has integrated itself into our society. It is not just a social issue anymore; it has become a part of us. So I wonder what this means for us? Are we doomed to always have racism as a part of our society? This morbid view seems to become truer every day.
[Reply]
While I do think it is wise to take those factors into account, the numbers still speak volumes. There will always be outside factors in any experiment or statistical analysis that sway the results but it’s important to take a good look at the deeper underlying realities. And after Sam’s last class when he gave examples of how an employer in some cases was more likely to take a white man with a criminal record than a black man with no criminal record, it just shows that racism in the judicial field is still an issue.
[Reply]
I think you have brought up a great point, in fact it is a great flow in Sam’s theory of comparing apples to apples, because that is impossible, you cannot compare people to people, no matter how similar they are , they won’t be the same exact person, everyone goes through different experiences in life and meet different people that influence them in different ways, so no you cannot compare apples to apples in a anyway, and if you did it will ineffective , I don’t know how anyone could compare two living things.
It is unlikely that the results would be accurate in any way.
p.s. I find it very funny that you used the word colored people when you were referring to black people, don’t know why but it is funny.
[Reply]
The vast majority of violent crime is concentrated in the worst neighborhoods with consistent poverty. Therefore, I think it is an oversimplication if you say that crimes are more easily apprehended with higher population density. It is true. But it doesn't even paint half of the picture. The worst neighborhoods with drug dealing and crime are often crawling with cops. Compare poor black or Latino areas of North Philly with white areas like Port Richmond or University City for example, and you will see the population density is the same, but there are much more cops in the minority, drug infested areas. (Some of the poorer areas are actually LESS dense. They have been hit hard by depopulation and abandonment.) When you go to the more well-off city neighborhoods with the same (or even denser) populations, you don't have the cops and sirens. And since there is more poverty in latino and black communities, cops spend their time patrolling these areas.
[Reply]
I agree with this person’s point. Crime rates can vary as a result of many different circumstances and area is a good example of one of those circumstances. The fact that urban areas tend to have high populations than rural areas could make the rate of crime look higher. Also, the more people there are in one area the more opportunities there would be for crimes to be committed. On the other hand, one could say that since there are more opportunities and more people to commit crimes in urban areas, crime prevention may be more utilized in that area and not used as much in suburban areas because crime tends to be naturally low.
[Reply]
While I’m not aware of the specific steps taken by the researchers Sam cited, I do know that when you are creating an experiment like these you are very carefully in accounting for those kinds of discrepancies. Apples to Apples really mean the situations are exactly the same. The store, the people involved (employers and applicants), law enforcement precincts. I think you brought up a good point that there may be a difference between urban and rural areas. But the statistics are still significant.
Another interesting study that I have seen, involves urban areas and employment. In urban areas, where there is neighborhoods known to be very poor, employers are discriminating against applicant based on address. When they get an application if the applicants address is in one of these poor (usually black) neighborhoods they will not get a call back. When confronted many of the employers cited poor education in these areas (applicants can’t speak proper English) and that the area is known for gang participation. When conducting that experiment it was very important to compare Apples to Apples.
[Reply]