Let’s say you’re a judge, and you know that the county’s Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DIE) officer is going to be monitoring all your decisions for a racial bias. If, for example — once everything is averaged together — you set bail higher for one group than for another, you’re going to have some explaining to do.
You know that every case is different — that you take lots of factors into account, and that race has nothing to do with your decisions. But you also know that the brain-dead DIE officer is going to assess all your decisions through that one lens.
You do everything you can to be fair, but it just so happens that in your jurisdiction, the people who come before you from Group A are more trouble than the people from Group B. They’re more likely to get arrested. They’re more likely to skip bail. They usually have priors. They’re often in gangs. They often don’t have jobs, and most of them are drug addicts. Consequently, the average bail you set for people in Group A is always higher than the average bail you set for people in Group B. It has nothing to do with the group they’re in. It has to do with their individual cases.
This is a looming crisis for you, and you know it.
Then somebody from Group B comes before you. The evidence against him is questionable. He has a job. He has no priors. He should get a very minimal bail.
But if you stick it to him — if you give him an unreasonably high bail — that makes your numbers look better.
I have no doubt this kind of thinking is in the back of every judge’s mind, and this is one of many reasons that “diversity” is BS.
QUOTE: I have no doubt this kind of thinking is in the back of every judge’s mind, and this is one of many reasons that “diversity” is BS.
That’s quite a bit of hypotheticals in your post. Do you have any data that substantiates such a conclusion?
It doesn’t matter. The racism card is going to get played. It’s trump after all.
If you commit a crime in Texas it might be different than in Colorado. If you’re smoking marijuana it definitely is because it’s like in Colorado. Last night Twitter was whining because the Russian skater got to skate and the American runner last summer didn’t. Yeah, it’s not fair. Everyone jumped to the race of the participants. But, they were all governed by different authorities. The US Olympic Committee banned the runner after she admitted to purposefully smoking dope–which is banned. The official Olympics committee allowed the Russian skater to skate after an appeal. Although what happens if she medals will be interesting… But, the skater was a 15 year old whose coach said “drink this” not knowing (allegedly, allegedly) that it was anything other than a sports drink or something like that. There were different authorities involved, and different culpability involved. We know for a fact the runner was an adult and knew she was breaking the rules. We know for a fact the skater is a minor, and we think she has lowered culpability on the case that 1) she’s a minor, 2) she was ignorant of her coach doping her (we think).
But now it’s a black and white issue.
Since this post is about speculations relative to diversity dynamics in law enforcement, it made me curious about the recent real-life situation featured in the following video.
VIDEO:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqWMHmahTQ
CONTEXT: A public physical altercation occurred between two youths in a mall (see video link). Youth 1-dressed in black top. Youth 2- dressed in white top. Allegedly, the fight started because Youth 1 was bullying another person and Youth 2 stepped in to defend them (that is not captured in the video). The video starts with Youth 1 and 2 in an intense argument. Youth 1 begins to point his finger in Youth 2’s face. Youth 2 pushes Youth 1’s finger away from his face. Youth 1 shoves Youth 2 and a physical altercation ensues. As they are tussling on the ground, two police officers rush to the scene and attempt to stop the fight. At the point they intervene, both youth are on the ground but Youth 1 is on top of Youth 2. Both officers yank Youth 1 off of Youth 2. Immediately, one officer attempts to subdue and handcuff Youth 2. The other officer quickly moves Youth 1 to a nearby bench and lets him be seated (seeming to give him some type of instruction). Then that officer leaves Youth 1 and joins the other officer in subduing and handcuffing Youth 2. Meanwhile, Youth 1 was free to get up and move about freely. The entire incident lasted about 1 minute.
QUESTIONS: This situation has raised questions and concerns about police conduct from the community.
*Why did the police only subdue and handcuff Youth 2 (given Youth 1 was on top of Youth 2 when they intervened)?
*Why not cuff both? Was it necessary to cuff either?
*Why was Youth 1 allowed to get up and move without restriction?
*Why was it necessary to have two officers subdue and cuff Youth 2 and leave Youth 1 unattended (given Youth 2 didn’t a weapon nor seemed to put up much resistance)?
* What caused the difference in treatment of Youth 1 and Youth 2 by the police?
Given potential racial implications, an investigation is to be initiated relative to the officer’s conduct. It will be interesting to see how they address the difference in response to Youth 1 and Youth 2.