Drug use v prosecution

[cajar]

it was an obviously ridiculous example to illustrate that drawing a conclusion about a group based on an observation of one example is fundamentally flawed and unfair.

my point isn't about whether they are violent, just what other factors play in the arrest, ie did the stop n search also turn up stole not goods, did they give a false name, did they have a warrant out already etc. I would suggest if it was as clear cut as black and white the report would include this information, so it's very conspicuous by its absence.

So are you suggesting that during stop and search of black people, there are other outstanding matters or influences that affect the eventual outcome? Whereas, with stop and search of white people, there are no other outstanding matters?

How do you make that deduction?
Are you looking for some reason to not accept the validity of the report?
Why?

none of the above. I'm looking critically at the data presented because information is missing that could offer a different explanation to just blacks being treated more harshly due to racism. So I'm just holding back until the full picture is here, and I gave you a few examples of how missing information could change the story on its head.

are you, on the other hand perfectly happy to conclude racism on the information this report shows you?

 

[cajar]

Ok, turns out something they left out was that on the matter of cocaine possession, in 2009/10 in met police area, black offenders were almost twice as likely to have previously been charged or warned before for it than white offenders. (24% for whites, 40% for blacks). I would think that would affect the police's decision to charge and thus go some way to explaining the 78% / 44% charge disparity.

Always read critically, what's omitted can be more important that what's included, whether it's right or left wing.

 

[Micilin]

Ok, turns out something they left out was that on the matter of cocaine possession, in 2009/10 in met police area, black offenders were almost twice as likely to have previously been charged or warned before for it than white offenders. (24% for whites, 40% for blacks). I would think that would affect the police's decision to charge and thus go some way to explaining the 78% / 44% charge disparity.

Always read critically, what's omitted can be more important that what's included, whether it's right or left wing.

I don't think that figure materially affects the conclusions of the report.
However, the stat you give, when considered in the light of the whole report suggests that:

-the higher rate of stop and search/ charge itself leads to the disproportionate 'previously charted or warned ' figure ie positive feedback into the loop. Ie th cocaine stat further confirms the report's conclusions.

- wrt the proportion of those with previous (as above )who were charged rather than warned (any figure for %), how should these figures have been separated out so not double entered?

-as in previous point, if X% of those charged has been previously charged , this means that there are fewer individuals involved rather than more.

For me, it is nice to see actual figures rather than presumptions based on nothing more than lazy stereotypes and prejudice.

However, I would not use the figures to prejudge the next young white person I meet as being likely to be a drug user.

Anecdotally, the only heroin dealer I personally know was a 'tape and jointer'. I didn't know he was until his story was in the paper for having £500k's worth in his transit.

I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that to make me think that most jointers were dealers! (In terms of ethnicity, he was White English )

 

[cajar]

The report presented the impression that blacks were being charged more of the time for similar offences of possessing cocaine. The fact that more blacks were being caught a second or third time changes things as it's not exactly comparing apples with apples and you have to wonder why that was omitted.

I'm not ignoring the rest of the information contained in the report, importantly the experiences from people who have been stopped and searched a lot just because of their colour and the affect it has on their attitude to the police in general. I do however, refuse to buy into the emotion of these types of reports without looking at more reasonable explanations.

 

[JBR]

The fact that more blacks were being caught a second or third time changes things as it's not exactly comparing apples with apples and you have to wonder why that was omitted.

I wonder whether this is the case bacause blacks feel safer in ignoring their earlier warnings (I was going to say punishments, but like as not our courts don't seem to do that any more!) on the grounds that they believe the police may be afraid of accusations of racism and so are less likely to arrest them.

Fortunately, I don't think that's the case, but that doesn't mean that they might be sufficiently cocky to believe otherwise.

 

[RogueHanger]

Ok, turns out something they left out was that on the matter of cocaine possession, in 2009/10 in met police area, black offenders were almost twice as likely to have previously been charged or warned before for it than white offenders. (24% for whites, 40% for blacks). I would think that would affect the police's decision to charge and thus go some way to explaining the 78% / 44% charge disparity.

Poppycock.
Your figures refer to the Met area, and to the posession of cocaine, the report clearly indicates that it covers England and Wales, and all drugs..

The Numbers in Black And White: Ethnic Disparities In The Policing And Prosecution Of Drug Offences In England And Wales

Additionally, you've omitted a crucial part of the quote. I reproduce the whole quote for you below, with the bit that you omitted highlighted:

•Black people are more likely to receive a harsher police response for possession of drugs . In 2009/10 78% of black people caught in possession of cocaine by the Metropolitan Police were charged for this offence and only 22% received cautions. In comparison 44% of white people were charged for the same offence and 56% received cautions.

Always read critically, what's omitted can be more important that what's included, whether it's right or left wing.

That is an excellent sentiment. It's a pity you don't apply it more often.
You appear to read "prejudicially" and seem to insert some ideological ideas and fantasy into your reading.

 

[RogueHanger]

The report presented the impression that blacks were being charged more of the time for similar offences of possessing cocaine. The fact that more blacks were being caught a second or third time changes things as it's not exactly comparing apples with apples and you have to wonder why that was omitted.

Judging by your sentiment you have read a skewed opinion into the facts.

I'm not ignoring the rest of the information contained in the report, importantly the experiences from people who have been stopped and searched a lot just because of their colour and the affect it has on their attitude to the police in general. I do however, refuse to buy into the emotion of these types of reports without looking at more reasonable explanations.

So what is a more reasonable explanation, that you think might apply, to the conclusion of the report?

 

[RogueHanger]

The fact that more blacks were being caught a second or third time changes things as it's not exactly comparing apples with apples and you have to wonder why that was omitted.

I wonder whether this is the case bacause blacks feel safer in ignoring their earlier warnings (I was going to say punishments, but like as not our courts don't seem to do that any more!) on the grounds that they believe the police may be afraid of accusations of racism and so are less likely to arrest them.

Fortunately, I don't think that's the case, but that doesn't mean that they might be sufficiently cocky to believe otherwise.

Amazing analytical mind you have JBR, read a report, (if, indeed you have read it), then read some mis-quoted figures from another poster and arrive at a fantastical conclusion, influenced by your prejudice.

 

[Micilin]

[
I wonder whether this is the case bacause blacks feel safer in ignoring their earlier warnings (I was going to say punishments, but like as not our courts don't seem to do that any more!) on the grounds that they believe the police may be afraid of accusations of racism and so are less likely to arrest them.

Fortunately, I don't think that's the case, but that doesn't mean that they might be sufficiently cocky to believe otherwise.

So on that analysis, the 'chip on the shoulder' would be a myth ie they would assume they would be treated more leniently than the norm. Interesting.

Anecdotal evidence, as well as statistics, would suggest that black people, especially young males, are under no illusions about the disproportionate likelihood of their being arrested and convicted.

 

[Micilin]

I worry that people will use these figures to assume that white people in general are being treated too leniently by the police and legal system.

I also worry that some people might stereotype white people as drug users and criminals.

Remember, just because most drug users are white people, it doesn't mean that most white people are drug users.

Please don't pre - judge the next person you see because of crime statistics, treat them as an individual.

 

[JBR]

[
I wonder whether this is the case bacause blacks feel safer in ignoring their earlier warnings (I was going to say punishments, but like as not our courts don't seem to do that any more!) on the grounds that they believe the police may be afraid of accusations of racism and so are less likely to arrest them.

Fortunately, I don't think that's the case, but that doesn't mean that they might be sufficiently cocky to believe otherwise.

So on that analysis, the 'chip on the shoulder' would be a myth ie they would assume they would be treated more leniently than the norm. Interesting.

Not at all.

I'm sure that, on the one hand, they bleat about how they are treated unfairly 'cos I is black', yet at the same time are well aware that they have a race card* in their back pocket to be played at every opportunity.

As I think I may have said before, shouting 'racist' is the immediate response by some whenever they don't get everything their own way.

I generalise, of course. I know black people (and other ethnic groups) who are the finest and most honest of men (and women) and are equally disparaging of the 'chip on the shoulder brigade'.

(*I sometimes feel unfairly treated because I don't have one of those.)

 

[Micilin]

Not at all.

I'm sure that, on the one hand, they bleat about how they are treated unfairly 'cos I is black', yet at the same time are well aware that they have a race card* in their back pocket to be played at every opportunity.

As I think I may have said before, shouting 'racist' is the immediate response by some whenever they don't get everything their own way.

I generalise, of course. I know black people (and other ethnic groups) who are the finest and most honest of men (and women) and are equally disparaging of the 'chip on the shoulder brigade'.

(*I sometimes feel unfairly treated because I don't have one of those.)

Okay.

Let me see if I can get this right.
Teh first question - Is it possible to feel that one is are more likely to be persecuted and yet less likely to be persecuted at the same time? That appears to be what you are saying.

I understand that you are using 'they' to generalise but you make it seem that the honest among them are the exeption. What is racism/prejudice after all, but a prejudiced generalisation based on negative individual examples whether real or imagined?

(eg most muggers are black therefore most blacks are muggers
most paedophiles are white therefore most whites are paedophiles )

I appreciate that you may not prejudge anyone as you have a broad personal experience of people different backgrounds, so let's not go *

But is there anything in the OP that supports your hypothesis (ie chip on shoulder and race card). The 'race card ' would appear to be a very unsuccessful ploy based on the figures, or is it purely based on your own generalisations?

The figures in the report seem quite clear that there is a disadvantage to being black in terms of being stopped by the police.


edit - Accidentally somehow posted before I finished typing from *

let's not go down the name calling route, but I am genuinly interested in how your conclusions( or theories) link in with my OP with anything as a reference.

As for playing the race card, the flippant answer is you don't need to play it when you are the one holding the pack ! (English, lottery of life etc)

 

[JBR]

Sorry Mic. I thought I had made my opinions quite clear.

 

[Micilin]

Sorry Mic. I thought I had made my opinions quite clear.

Okay - park it there.

 

[cajar]

Ok, turns out something they left out was that on the matter of cocaine possession, in 2009/10 in met police area, black offenders were almost twice as likely to have previously been charged or warned before for it than white offenders. (24% for whites, 40% for blacks). I would think that would affect the police's decision to charge and thus go some way to explaining the 78% / 44% charge disparity.

Poppycock.
Your figures refer to the Met area, and to the posession of cocaine, the report clearly indicates that it covers England and Wales, and all drugs..

The Numbers in Black And White: Ethnic Disparities In The Policing And Prosecution Of Drug Offences In England And Wales

Additionally, you've omitted a crucial part of the quote. I reproduce the whole quote for you below, with the bit that you omitted highlighted:

•Black people are more likely to receive a harsher police response for possession of drugs . In 2009/10 78% of black people caught in possession of cocaine by the Metropolitan Police were charged for this offence and only 22% received cautions. In comparison 44% of white people were charged for the same offence and 56% received cautions.

The Met police area is part of england and wales so it makes up part of the data. It shows it's not as 'black and white' as the report makes out.

Did you have a contribution to make?