That’s exactly why researchers use large datasets instead of pretending two cases are ever perfectly identical. No two defendants have the exact same facts, history, plea deal, judge, evidence, or circumstances. Statistical controls exist because “show me two identical cases” isn’t a realistic standard. If that’s your standard, then you’d never be able to prove discrimination in almost any field.
@Coni_leen_gus@LoudOutside@grok That’s not how it works. If the “best data” doesn’t control for the biggest variables, then it’s not enough to support the conclusion you’re making. You don’t get to fill in the blanks with assumptions just because better data is harder to get. That’s backwards.
@WillSta83596181@LoudOutside You’re changing the subject. The question isn’t which group commits more crime overall. The question is whether two defendants with similar crimes, similar records, and similar circumstances are treated the same by the justice system. Those are completely different questions.
Who said the solution is to let violent criminals walk free? That’s a strawman. The argument is that people who commit the same crime, with similar records and circumstances, should receive similar sentences regardless of race. Holding violent offenders accountable and expecting equal justice aren’t mutually exclusive.
That’s not how evidence works. One anecdote doesn’t prove or disprove a pattern. If you want to know whether race plays a role, you look at large datasets controlling for offense severity, criminal history, plea deals, and other factors not a single case in one judge’s courtroom. That’s literally why sentencing research exists.
And Grok literally tells you why you can’t use that to make your point: “raw aggregates, no controls for prior record or offense type.” Those numbers don’t tell you why the rates differ, only that they do. That’s the same mistake people make when they misuse crime statistics. If you’re going to argue causation, you need controlled data not raw percentages.
You’re moving the goalposts. I never said crime severity and prior record explain nothing I said they don’t explain everything. “Residual” doesn’t mean “irrelevant,” especially when it can affect thousands of cases.
And the excerpt you quoted doesn’t say white jurors are the most race neutral. It says one meta-analysis didn’t find a statistically significant effect for one specific comparison. That’s not the same as proving white jurors are the most race-neutral across the board.
You’re overstating what the research actually says. Crime severity and prior record explain a lot, but they don’t explain everything. Even after controlling for those factors, multiple studies including the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s own research still found racial disparities in sentencing. And the claim that white jurors are the “most race neutral” isn’t some established fact. Got a credible source for that?
You’re conflating crime statistics with sentencing statistics. Those are different questions. Research from the U.S. Sentencing Commission has found that, on average, similarly situated Black defendants received longer federal sentences than White defendants. Saying “the stats show the opposite disparity” isn’t an accurate summary of the sentencing evidence.