« A more detailed accounting of Jan 6 riot sentencings | Main | Kodak Black struggling on supervised release after Prez Trump commuted his federal prison term »
January 7, 2024
"Race, class, and criminal adjudication: Is the US criminal justice system as biased as is often assumed? A meta-analytic review"
The title of this piece is the title of this notable new article authored by Christopher Ferguson and Sven Smith that a helpful reader flagged for me. This article will be published in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, and here is its abstract:
It is widely reported that the US criminal justice system is systematically biased in regard to criminal adjudication based on race and class. Specifically, there is concern that Black and Latino defendants as well as poorer defendants receive harsher sentences than Whites or Asians or wealthier defendants. We tested this in a meta-analytic review of 51 studies including 120 effect sizes. Several databases in psychology, criminal justice and medicine were searched for relevant articles. Overall results suggested that neither class nor race biases for criminal adjudications for either violent or property crimes could be reliably detected.
For all crimes, effect sizes (in terms of r) for Black vs White comparisons were.054, for Latinos vs Whites, 0.057 and for Asians vs Whites −0.028. There was significant heterogeneity between studies, particularly for Asian vs White comparisons. Effect sizes were smaller than our evidentiary threshold, indicating they are indistinguishable from statistical noise. For drug crimes, evidentiary standards were met, although effect sizes were very small. Better quality studies were less likely to produce results supportive of disparities. Studies with citation bias produced higher effect sizes than did studies without citation bias suggesting that researcher expectancy effects may be driving some outcomes in this field, resulting in an overestimation of true effects. Taken together, these results do not support beliefs that the US criminal justice system is systemically biased at current. Negativity bias and the overinterpretation of statistically significant “noise” from large sample studies appear to have allowed the perception or bias to be maintained among scholars, despite a weak evidentiary base. Suggestions for improvement in this field are offered. Narratives of “systemic racism” as relates to the criminal justice system do not appear to be a constructive framework from which to understand this nuanced issue.
January 7, 2024 at 12:11 PM | Permalink
Comments
Doug --
Thanks for putting this up. Jason Riley, the very smart writer for the WSJ, and a black man if that's supposed to make a difference, agrees: https://manhattan.institute/article/no-the-criminal-justice-system-isnt-racist
When I was an AUSA, race didn't matter with me or my colleagues. Behavior mattered, as it should.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 7, 2024 9:12:14 PM
Bill,
He only put it up because he was called out. He’s the same old race baiting liberal.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 7, 2024 9:21:31 PM
TarlsQtr
I'm trying to be diplomatic for the New Year. I expect this will last until at least Tuesday.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 7, 2024 9:44:08 PM
I put this up, Master Tarls, because you pointed it out and I had not seen it, and it's relevant to the core subject matter of this blog. (It is hard, of course, for me to post what I've not seen, though I realize I get sent and tend to see a lot more stuff from folks on the left than from the right.)
Disappointingly, the heart of the analysis in this article is behind a paywall, and I usually try to post materials that are accessible to all. The list of articles reviewed, which is not behind a paywall, seems to leave out a lot of studies, including all the post-Booker work of the US Sentencing Commission. But, unlike you Master Tarls, I do not comment on a study without reviewing and seeking to understand it in full. That said, I am generally in agreement with this quote from the study that appears in the WSJ piece that Bill references: "“Overall, perceptions of bias in US criminal adjudications do not seem proportionate to the available evidence.”
And I can tell, Bill, your resolution seems to be not asking hidden commentators for their names. Perhaps Master Tarls has convinced you those who hide their ID are the real heroes.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 7, 2024 9:53:40 PM
Doug,
You can surely get it, for free, through the university law library. Any reason you haven’t?
Disagreeing with articles and noting their bias from the beginning is not the same as commenting “without reviewing and seeking to understand it in full.”
And I’m not surprised you get many more submissions from folks on the left. After all, Hamas fellow travelers infest universities, not the right. You could, you know, “look” occasionally though. Perhaps in between DEI meetings.
Not all heroes wear capes!
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 7, 2024 11:55:18 PM
Maste Tarls, I have gotten the full article via OSU; I was explaining that I generally prefer to post open articles so all readers can access all the information (and without providing any ID, so maybe that's heroic in your eyes). But I should realize you often do not bother to read or even try to understand a data analysis/report or its authors before you "disagree" and "note bias." (Perhaps you should pretend all the authors are anonymous so you can skip the pre-judgment of bias and instead think of them all as heroes.) I guess having a closed mind saves a lot of reading time --- giving you more time to watch videos of people hiding their IDs, I suppose.
For the record, I would not describe people flagging stories/reports/articles as "submissions," and rarely do suggestions come from academics. Rather, links sometimes appear in comments (and you and Bill and federalist tend to provide a number of links this way), and often links are sent to me via email. Practicing lawyers and think tanks/advocates tend to send me the most links that way. I only look for academic pieces via SSRN's legal papers series, which is open access, and I platform almost everything new on sentencing topics that appears on SSRN. I do not regularly search/post that much empirical social science work in part because it is often paywalled and because it often uses empirical methods not familiar to me or most lawyers. I generally imagine practicing lawyers and judges and persons diretly involved in developing and implementing sentencing law and policy, not social science academics/empiricists, as my main audience in this forum. But I am always grateful when folks flag notable social science pieces. And since you could be a Hamas fellow traveler (or could have your fake ID stolen), my tendency not to check ID could be leading me to consider suggestions from all sorts of folks.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 8, 2024 1:55:19 AM
Doug --
"And I can tell, Bill, your resolution seems to be not asking hidden commentators for their names."
Except for the first 50 times or so that I've done that.
Of course, as the owner of this blog, you could deny the privilege of commenting to anyone who won't sign his name. Not sure I'm seeing a reason that I should be more stringent than you are on your own property!
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 8, 2024 2:14:53 AM
A lot of important ideas and/or writings --- from Common Sense to the Federalist Papers to Frankenstein to Deep Throat --- have emerged from people who felt, at least initially, that they had reasons for not signing their names. Of course, what some people choose to say here sometimes suggests why they feel they need to hide who they are.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 8, 2024 9:16:41 AM
You need to get your stories straight, Doug.
Did you fail to post the study before because you didn’t see it or because it is not free to your readers? Are more conservative academics much more likely to put their research on for pay sites?
BTW, although I don’t consider 1A auditors “heroes,” I’d say it takes far more bravery to oppose government workers who have guns and can put you in jail than regurgitate the same singular viewpoint over and over to people who overwhelmingly agree with you whether they be in a faculty lounge, classroom, or blog.
And, nah, you can tell I’m not a Hamas fellow traveler easily. Their viewpoints align with your crew.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 8, 2024 10:11:35 PM
As I said, Master Tarls, I'd not seen this article until you pointed it out. I further explained that I generally only look for academic artices through sites like SSRN that are open access, and also that empirical pieces and paywalled pieces are generally less accessible to my target audience for this blog. And, since relatively few academics are conservative, I generally assume every academic venue lacks much conservative content. I have no sense if there is a political skew in what content ends up behind paywalls.
Meanwhile, you described some auditors as "complete bellends," and the video you claimed as showing a "good one" involved a guy engaging in mostly obnoxious dialogue with various government actors seemingly with the primary goal of getting YouTube views. I suppose this is braver than posting anonymously in blog comments, and he seems to make good money making provocative videos. A press story reports he was convicted of attempted robbery in 2013 and served three years in prison, so an ex-con being provocative toward cops does show a certain kind of bravado. (I have also seen anonymous claims he is a pedophile, but one can never know if someone's making stuff up behind a screen name.)
Finally, I've seen reports of hidden online hackers supporting Hamas (known as AnonGhost and AnonymousSudan), and I think "Tarql" is a computing term. But, hide as you do, perhaps you are just someone with a problematic past like your favorite auditor who just does not realize his affinity for hiding can help underwrite all sorts of terrorist activity across the political spectrum.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 9, 2024 12:29:04 AM
Doug,
Seriously? You think it is right to post unfounded rumors about people on a supposed academic website?
Your target audience IS academia, law students, and lawyers. They should have easy access. I’m currently none of those three and still have access through my alma mater’s electronic library.
Tarql is a computing term? So? Have I ever used it? BTW, mine comes from history, not computing. And those Hamas supporters do get a “B” for bravery when it comes to being bold anti-semites. They tape themselves, sign letters, yell at Jews, all very public. Of course, they also matriculate at Ohio State and work there. I’m sure you can name some that you know from work. I’ve personally never met one. I couldn’t work in a field so chock full of slime.
BTW, did Professor Pranav Jani’s “Day of Resistance” at the Ohio statehouse go well? The socialist red posters with the hand gliding terrorist were quite striking. I’m sure that as head of the Ohio State Faculty Union, he has quite good organizational skills. Did you vote for him?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 9, 2024 2:31:58 AM
Master Tarls, I thought you viewed anonymous efforts to hold people accountable to be a sign of bravery. Do you think the background of "auditors" are relevant to their work and their credibility? I think knowing a person's past actions and goals can help to reveal possible biases (and I stressed from the get-go my concerns about selective editing, and you never spoke to the fact these auditors do not make unedited footage generally available). I was just noting some of what I discovered online about the guy you championed for his work and "bravery." Were you aware of this guy's background and do you think it is relevant to judging his work product?
Interesting you seem to credit "Hamas supporters" with "bravery" for being "very public" in a way you aren't. (Do you now agree that those who hide may be showing a certain kind of cowardice relative to those who do not?) I mostly see Israeli flags in the law school halls and on student laptops, though I suspect there may be Hamas supporters around the law school hiding.
BTW, I am not a member Ohio State University Association of University Professors (AAUP), nor did I know who Pranav Javi was until I just googled him. I tend not to be a fan of public sector unions, and I do not follow who runs AAUP or what it does. Since you are raising these matters, I am now wondering if you have been a member of a public sector union and also if you want to be academic. What's your alma mater and why are you still accessing academic articles through its electronic library? Have you ever authored anything that's been published?
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 9, 2024 10:22:15 AM
Doug,
In my opinion, background can give insight but not always. I’d say not so much in this case. Do you know he gets asked to speak around the country by police departments? At least some don’t see him to be the menace you do. They pay him to go over deescalation and citizens’ rights in a Terry stop.
Did you know he has won several federal lawsuits and gave the money back to the communities? Everyone is about money, but it seems he has other items on the agenda as well.
I’m kind of surprised at your reaction, although I suspect it has more to do with a lack of research on your part. Not reading the entire piece or trying to fully understand the data kind of thing. If you did watch more than just a snippet of one video, I’d hope your attention would be drawn to the actions of the officers. As much as you may dislike his tactics, cops foaming at the mouth or getting physical with a citizen acting legally, but not quite playing by your standard of “manners,” is the real lede. Is it a bad thing that cops without the knowledge, temperament, or honesty to do the job are being exposed and sometimes fired? I think if you saw a few more, such as the one where Sean was physically attacked and his phone thrown and broken (the sgt involved ridiculously said he thought it was a taser or gun in the IA report), and concentrated on the conduct of the ones paid to behave like professionals and have guns, you might see things slightly differently. After all, the next person they pull over might be you, me, or a relative.
As far as those not displaying one’s name being an act of “cowardice,” perhaps so. That includes me, of course. However, I’ve seen plenty of co-workers catch hell or lose jobs over political beliefs. I currently work in government and have also worked jobs where my clients are regulated heavily by government. If it is cowardice to protect them and my family who are supported by me, so be it. I don’t have a job that is nearly impossible to get fired from.
I was a member of a public sector union in NY and hated it, but we had no choice. By statute, all public employees were members.
My alma mater is Syracuse University, and I have taught classes. I taught some online for UoP and taught in person for Eastern Kentucky University. Former students get library access for life. I have not written any academic papers, although I was asked. I did contribute to a textbook at EKU and have contributed to or completely written dozens of training manuals for the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium used by rural first responders throughout the nation and territories.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 9, 2024 5:54:41 PM
Doug,
One more thing, back on topic.
I still do not have a satisfactory answer as to the “why” of requesting ID’s in public buildings when we are already subject to searches, armed LEOs, and cameras everywhere.
The building is no safer and only makes it more difficult to conduct one’s business. I also cannot understand your acquiescence to it but you have a problem if the police were asking random people on the street.
Should they do DNA swabs at the building entrance as well? After all, there are fake IDs but you cannot fake DNA. They may even solve a murder case or two. What’s the big deal? Just go along with it!
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 9, 2024 7:02:04 PM
TarlsQtr --
You have more relevant experience than almost anyone on this blog.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 9, 2024 7:30:56 PM
Bill,
Relevant for what? 😆
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 9, 2024 10:42:15 PM
All interesting details, Master Tarls, and I'd be eager to learn more about how much money he and other auditors make from their work and some accounting of the costs and benefits to the communities he targets. (Giving money back to the community sounds great, but what's the cost to the community in time/expenses dealing with his stunts and lawsuits?) I don't know enough to call this guy a "menace," but I am still interested to know if his video feeds are available without selective editing. Do you know if they are and do you agree that he and all auditors ought to make them available?
That all said, I'm glad you and he and others are concerned about bad cops, and I hope he and other auditors do more good than harm. But it seem there are plenty of "real" cases of cops doing bad things, and I surmise there are a shortage of "citizen journalists" actively helping real people who have already been harmed rather than trying to trigger harm and profit accordingly. I believe cops have such a hard job, and I worry about people making their jobs unecessarily harder; I surmise there is a huge problem with a shortage of good cops, and I doubt these auditors help with recruitment. But I sense you see great benefits, and I hope you are right.
Thanks for answering my other questions, it is nice to know more about your background and the professional reasons that lead you to hide your ID here. That explanation of your background helps me undersand your decision to hide you name here. It also helps account for why I am relatively unconcerned by ID checks to enter government buildings --- it is hard for me to see many responisble persons having comparable good reasons to want to hide their ID when entering a government building and the ID check provides a (perhaps very small) measure of accountability. On this blog, Master Tarls, providing people the chance to share their ideas without any accountability has a low cost and considerable benefits (as lots of folks who comment regularly might not if forced to give then name). But when someone is entering a government building, the costs of providing ID seem low --- are there lots of responsible people who will not go into the building due to the ID check? --- and the accountability benefits seem plausible.
Random ID check in the street have government officials initiating encounters with individuals for no reason; ID checks for people entering buildings or prisons or planes involve individuals initiating encounters with the government, and the government seeking to know who that individual is. Seems like a reasonable distinction to me, but I get that you see value in people being able to hide here --- though seeemingly only sometimes. Ok, lobby for laws that protect your (seemingly quirky) concerns. But I see many, many much, much bigger big government problems than this one.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 9, 2024 11:00:01 PM
Doug,
One more item I forgot to address. You mentioned a few times about recordings being edited.
Sean gets arrested fairly often. He has also filed civil rights lawsuits. The police also have their own cameras, supposedly not edited. The departments often make statements when the stories break, but I’ve yet to see one claim anything significant was edited out of them. Nor, have I seen local or federal courts admonish him for only providing maliciously edited video before throwing his cases out. In fact, the opposite. He wins.
The only case of maliciously edited video I’ve seen came from the Danbury, Connecticut PD, who mysteriously left a minute of video off his open records request. They had two versions and gave him the edited one. It was deemed an “accident.” What was on it? Video of officers talking about kicking Sean’s ass and how he would have “lost his teeth” or been dead 20 years ago. Yeah…accident.
Or, several other times when the the officers, against body cam policies set up by the department, turn off or mute their cameras and mics.
Again, you miss the lede. It’s the cops editing video that you should be looking for.
BTW, the one I watch regularly is “Audit the Audit.” It’s not an auditor channel per se, but he reviews these videos and walks you through all of the laws and court decisions. It would be a great teaching tool for beginner law students learning about Terry stops, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, when a police officer can frisk (a lot less often than what happens), stop and ID laws, etc.
I’ve learned a ton. For example, I did not know the police cannot detain you and make you wait for a drug sniffing dog to come and sniff your car. If it is not there in the time it takes to write the speeding ticket, you have to be released.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 9, 2024 11:08:08 PM
Doug,
The money he gives back are the court settlements, although that obviously doesn’t cover the cost of putting him on trial. I’d put that blame on the state. Ego is involved and government officials hate being told they are wrong. That’s for the voters to decide.
I agree 100% that cops have a difficult job, but I don’t find it an undue burden to ensure they can do the bare minimum, know the basic laws, be professional, don’t beat people up, and don’t arrest people for your ego. We aren’t talking about putting them in life altering situations where they have to make a split second decision whether to shoot. It’s about knowing and respecting a citizen’s rights. I’d rather have fewer good cops than more who will trample them. I mean, you do agree that our cops should know we can film in public, can film the police, and they should be able to conduct a lawful Terry stop, right?
Yeah, there are bigger issues, as you state, but so what? There is always something bigger. We don’t ignore high blood pressure because anal cancer is much worse, do we? In fact, I’d make the opposite argument. If we show that the police will be held responsible for the small things, which does NOT mean firing every guy with good intentions who makes a minor mistake, they will be less likely to target my rights on the big ones. Think of it as broken windows policing on the police.
As to your final paragraph, I suppose it is natural for a big government guy to trust that government more than someone like I would. If I had my way, it would stick to its enumerated powers and do them well.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 9, 2024 11:41:31 PM
Doug,
This is why you tell government workers to pound sand when they say stop recording in public. Today it’s “safety” in a public building. Tomorrow it’s to hide moving illegal immigrants into schools and kicking your children out.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1744882065269788819?s=61&t=-62yXFJZjNxEhPeL_NhIFw
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 10, 2024 1:35:17 AM
TarlsQtr --
"Relevant for what? 😆"
I respectfully invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminate you.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 10, 2024 2:51:48 AM
Master Tarls, even though policing practices are not the subject of this blog, you certainly are free to use these comment to assail cops, highlight the rights individuals have to seek to protect themselves from cops, and praise people who make a career out of filming cops. Everyone has their issues of particular focus, and if you want to use this space to assail cops and ID checks, be my guest.
Still, I do find it fascinating that your sentiments about police and vidoes are FAR more similar to what I hear from police-reform folks on the left, especially those in the BLM/abolish crowd. Here are just a few recent resources from just a few lefty groups/voices that seem like your fellow travelers here (and witness.org also seems Hamas friendly):
https://www.witness.org/
https://lab.witness.org/projects/blm-video-police-accountability/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Zero
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/bearing-witness-while-black-9780190935535
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/10/1002913/how-to-end-police-brutality-filming-witnessing-legislation/
I could provide dozens of more links/resources, but I suspect you realize that your "let's have fewer, better cops" is really the first important talking point for police abolition. (Just one quote from the infamous abolish NYT piece by Mariame Kaba: "Regardless of your view on police power — whether you want to get rid of the police or simply to make them less violent — here’s an immediate demand we can all make: Cut the number of police in half and cut their budget in half.")
I also now wonder if you would be eager to extend all these video-right sentiments to prosecutors and judges -- eg, that criminal defendants (and their lawyers) should have a right to film all their encounters with prosecutors and with judges. I’d certainly rather have fewer good prosecutors and judges than more who will mistreat the individuals who they encounter. Once I get an sense if you will extend your interest in video accountability to the persons with the most government powers to deprive rights, we might then discuss whether citizen journalists should be in the "audit" business for prosecutors and judges. (Gosh knows that ProPublica has been working overtime to do its version of auditing Justice Thomas, but I see thousands of lower level prosecutors and judges as much bigger threats to us all.)
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 10, 2024 10:15:51 AM
Doug,
What a sickening display of dishonesty.
1. I did not “assail” cops. A blatant lie on your part. I assailed bad cops, who are more attached to their egos than doing their jobs properly. I assailed cops who get physical without it being necessary. I assailed cops who try to impose their wills on citizens doing nothing wrong.
Are you against those positions?
2. “…but I suspect you realize that your "let's have fewer, better cops" is really the first important talking point for police abolition.”
Again, a blatant and disgusting lie. I never said, “Let’s have fewer, better cops,” yet you attribute it to me with quotation marks AND the word “your.”
What a load of bullshit.
I don’t want fewer cops. In fact, I want more of them, especially since departments are significantly understaffed.
Wanting cops with the correct temperament is not a controversial, or at least shouldn’t be, position. You are putting up a false dichotomy of the choice between not enough good cops or enough, but they are tyrants. We can have more police and have them be good ones.
If you are accusing me of wanting fewer cops, then you are logically guilty of wanting more cops to trample the rights of citizens. If those are the choices, I’ll take my position.
And you probably wonder why the public see academia and lawyers as scum. Read your last comment and you should figure out why.
PS I have no problem with transparency whenever possible, including conferences with judges and prosecutors. When my dad was a Sgt in the NYSDOCS and I was a teacher, I asked him about they putting cameras in some facilities. He said, “The cameras would protect all of us, inmates and staff.” He had no problem with it and I ran with his wisdom. He was right. Transparency is great. Hell, maybe I’ll even put an open records request in for your 2023 OSU emails and state cell phone contents…
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 10, 2024 3:44:18 PM
Master Tarls:
1. You say you did not "assail" cops, and then in the next three sentences explain which cops you assailed. I do not see a "blatant lie" here when you yourself explain in detail the types of cops you assailed. (Plus, I did not even say you assailed cops, I said you are free to use this space to assail cops, though I phased it that way because, as I read your prior comments, it seemed you assailed the Danbury, Connecticut PD for video edits/claims and other cops for their treatment of the Long Island Audit guy.)
2. You said you'd "rather have fewer good cops than more who will trample them." I am sincerely sorry if my shorthand did not fairly capture you position, and I sincerely apologize for misrepresenting your meaning. But I am not "accusing" you of anything, nor am I "guilty" of anything. Rather, I misread you to be saying that you would "rather have fewer good cops" in order to get rid of those abusive in the use of their powers. Folks in the abolish movement say we should have fewer cops because they consider so many abusive in the use of their powers. That's why I said I was fascinated your "sentiments about police and vidoes are FAR more similar to what I hear from police-reform folks on the left, especially those in the BLM/abolish crowd."
I understand now that you are advocating for more and better cops, though that takes us back to my first concern about whether the "auditor" approach helps get us there. I sense that you believe that it does, and I'd be grateful for any more information/data/studies about whether and how the "auditor" movement helps to that end.
To review, Master Tarls: since you repeated here that you "assailed cops," I do not see any dishonesty there; I am sorry I was mistaken, but not lying, when I misread your statement ("I'd rather have fewer good cops than more who will trample them") to misrepresent it as "let's have fewer, better cops." Calling people "scum" for such a misrespresention seems a bit much, but I still hope you will accept my apology (or at least tell me the secret password for a "state cell phone," as my private one costs a lot and I could use an upgrade).
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 10, 2024 4:13:43 PM
Doug,
1. Lawyer word games.
I was speaking of a specific subset of the police, while your comment discusses all police. You are an attorney and too careful with your words for it not to be on purpose. Stop being cute and try being honest. Perhaps your profession will catch up with anal cancer in popularity.
2. Same thing. My words were clearly discussing a specific subset. You had no reasonable argument, so you turned it into an absurd sideshow about abolishing the police. It was not a mistake. You even made up a fake quote from me. Not to mention, I’ve been here for years. If we were to use the “reasonable person” standard so common in the law, no reasonable person who frequents this blog could believe I’m part of the “BLM/abolish crowd.”
Maybe you have to beat Michigan more often to get a cell phone.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 10, 2024 10:32:29 PM
Master Tarls:
1. You assailed various cops in prior comments, then I said you are free continue to do so here, and then you further detailed the various cops you assailed. I try to be careful with words, and I did not say nor mean to suggest that you were assailing all cops. You misread and misunderstood what I said, and I honestly was reacting to the fact that you assailed the Danbury PD and other cops in your earlier comments. I was just seeking to clarify that, even though this blog is not about police practices, you were free to continue to make similar comments as desired.
2. You said "I’d rather have fewer good cops than more who will trample [rights]." I have alrady apologized for reading this as general advocacy for a better smaller police force. And my main point was that I see/hear a whole lot more advocacy about videoing cops, and about holding cops accountable via lawsuits, and about cops trampling rights from advocates who are left of center (including many in the BLM/abolish crowd). I did not state, nor do I believe, you are part of the “BLM/abolish crowd.” I was just noting that the kind of concerns/arguments you have expressed here are often made by lefty advocates. (Interestingly, I saw the Lond Island Audit guy is a partner in a new company, Attorney Shield https://attorney-shield.com/pages/about-us, which works with a criminal defense lawfirm to help people get quick access to defense lawyers when having police encounters. I think this is a fascinating "access to justice" effort, and one that I suspect many on the left would robustly support. Also, I noticed the Attorney Shield site had a post, titled "Policing Disparities: Challenges Faced by Young Black & Hispanic Individuals"
https://attorney-shield.com/blogs/news/policing-disparities-challenges-faced-by-young-black-hispanic-individuals. I flag these points not to assert you are some kind of closet "lefty," but to note on this front there is a diverse array of voices calling for the kind of action and reform that you seem to be passionate about.)
3. I sincerely have no interest in picking fights and I am actually quite grateful that you raised the "audit" issue and cued me into the Long Island Audit guy. I will be quick to note that the academic community does not seem to be giving these topics much attention (though, since policiing is not my core subject, perhaps there are academics working here). I find quite encouraging that the LIA guy is now working to help give other people more, and more immediate access, to defense lawyers; I hope he might donate some of his earnings/awards to help fund public defense lawyers, who are in short supply and are always relatively underpaid and are unusually driven to hold police accountable for trampling rights. I sincerely think we agree on a lot more in this space than we disagree, and I'd welcome learning more about the impact of auditors and I'm now thinking more about whether/how the "audit"/citizen journalist approach could be used to uncover and make more transparent the work or prosecutors and defense lawyers and judges and prisons and other oft-hidden parts of our criminal justice system.
4. I officially got tenure at OSU in 2001, and over the next 20 years we were 17-2 against Michigan and also won two national championships. But I never got a state cell phone. Hmm. But maybe OSU's failure to give out state cell phones explains the three staight losses to Michigan, and even the transfer of a pretty decent QB to your alma mater.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 11, 2024 12:17:52 AM
