The continued debate over racism in the criminal justice system
Labels: Crime, Race, racialdiscrimination
Welcome! Follow me on twitter at @johnrlottjr or at https://crimeresearch.org. Please e-mail questions to johnrlott@crimeresearch.org.
Labels: Crime, Race, racialdiscrimination
posted by John Lott at 11:08 AM
My commentary on a broad array of economics and crime related issues.
Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench
Straight Shooting: Firearms, Economics and Public Policy
Are Predatory Commitments Credible? Who Should the Courts Believe?
-Research finding a drop in violent crime rates from Right-to-carry laws
-Ranking Economists
-Interview with the Washington Post
-Debate on "Guns Reduce Crime"
-Appalachian law school attack
-Sources for Defensive Gun Uses
-The Merced Pitchfork Killings
-Fraudulent website pretending to be run by me
-Steve Levitt's Correction Letter
-Ian Ayres and John Donohue
-Other issues regarding Steve Levitt
-National Academies of Science Panel on Firearms
-Baghdad murder rate
-Arming Pilots
-General discussion of my 1997 and 2002 surveys as well as related surveys
-Problems with Wikipedia
-Errata for Gun Books
-US Supreme Court Wire
-Futures for Financial Markets
-judgepedia
Economist and Law Professor David D. Friedman's Blog
Larry Elder's The Elder Statement
Economist Robert G. Hansen's Blog
Firearmstruth.com -- a media-watchdog website
A debate that I had with George Mason University's Robert Ehrlich on guns
Lyonette Louis-Jacques's page on Firearms Regulation Worldwide
An interview concerning More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
The End of Myth: An Interview with Dr. John Lott
Art DeVany's website, one of the more innovative economists in the last few decades
St. Cloud State University Scholars
Bryan Caplan at George Mason University
Alphecca -- weekly review on the media's coverage of guns
Xrlq -- Some interesting coverage of the law.
Career Police Officer
Gun Law News
Georgia Right-to-Carry
Darnell's The Independent Conservative Blog
Robert Stacy McCain's Blog
Clayton Cramer's Blog
My hidden mathematical ability (a math professor with the same name)
geekwitha45
My Old AEI Web Page
Wrightwing's blog
Al Lowe's blog
St. Maximos' Hut
Dad29
Elizabeth Blackney's blog
Eric Rasmusen
Your "Economics" Portal to the World by Larry Low
William Sjostrom
Dr. T's EconLinks.com
Interview with National Review Online
Blog at Newsmax.com
Pieces I have written at BigGovernment.com
Updated Media Analysis of Appalachian Law School Attack
Journal of Legal Studies paper on spoiled ballots during the 2000 Presidential Election
Data set from USA Today, STATA 7.0 data set
"Do" File for some of the basic regressions from the paper
2 Comments:
I don't know if you have considered this but I think one reason we incarcerate so man citizens is that we can. It takes a truckload of money to put people away, and we just fell off a huge wealth boom that financed more prisons. Perhaps every nation would feel more comfortable pointing the finger at other people and taking them out of society, if they only could.
If there is any truth to this we're going to have an exodus of offenders back to the street in the next three years. I wouldn't bother arguing against it though - budgets won't listen, but it should be good for your effort to put a thirty-eight in the waistband of every citizen.
Prof. Glen Loury has written a very lenghty piece that subtly blames the disparities of incarceration by race, as a racial problem itself, and not one of criminal conduct.
Here's an excerpt from Prof. Loury that I find as a possible supportable theory.
"Put directly and without benefit of euphemism, the racially disparate incidence of punishment in the United States is a morally troubling residual effect of the nation’s history of enslavement, disenfranchisement, segregation, and discrimination. It is not merely the accidental accretion of neutral state action, applied to a racially divergent social flux. It is an abhorrent expression of who we Americans are as a people, even now, at the dawn of the twenty-first century."
An excellent starting point, yet Prof. Loury fails to expand upon it. It simply stands as an excuse, and not as a basis for a solution.
I myself see that when segregation and Jim Crow Laws fell by the wayside, they were replaced by Welfare Programs that provided a similar repression by means of monetary control.
At the end of Prof. Loury's blog, he mentions that Socialism as practiced by Europeans and then brought about in the United States is a good thing, yet fails to even mention the ills brought about by such socialist programs. Instead, it is a racial problem, and not one of personal achievement, or lack thereof.
Prof. Loury's blog, to I, is nothing more than a racial diatribe that complains much, yet offers no solution to the problem that is the subject(?) of his blog
Dr. Lott approaches this in a statistical fashion, whereupon actual numbers themselves are the crux of the argument that forms the basis of the refutation of Prof. Loury's blog.
No suprise here, as this is what Dr. Lott does for a living.
However, neither Dr. Lott nor Prof. Loury have engaged in any discourse as to the cause and effect of these high incareration rates. Punishment for possesion of crack cocaine laws as a response to destruction of inner cities is not cause and effect.
On to Prof. Bruce Western...
More rhetoric, and no substance I see. Buy my book in a link or two, and some references to papers posted online.
Here's another lost opportunity to discuss the cause of the problem...
"Glenn Loury’s essay on mass incarceration rightly observes that incarceration has become commonplace for young African American men, particularly those with no college education. This is new. We need only go back thirty years to find a time when prison was not a routine life event for black men with little schooling."
Prof. Westerm identifies the start point, yet fails to expand upon it? WHY?
Could it be that was when Segregation, and Jim Crows were replaced by welfare as a new form of social control?
Before Welfare, one had to work and keep the family intact so as to survive.
Thanks to enlightned liberals, we now have a system where unwed mothers are rewarded, and fathers get in the way of recieving so called aid for mothers and children. If dad is in the home, mommy gets less money. Bye bye daddy.
So much for a healthy family structure, eh?
I too look forward to feedback.
Post a Comment
<< Home