DiscussMormonism.com

Despite constituting only 13% of the population, Black folks makes up 47% of those convicted of crimes and later exonerated. In other words, Black folks are far more likely to be wrongfully convicted of crimes (they're also more likely to be stopped by police, more likely to be searched by police, given longer sentences, etc.). Read this report to learn more.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exone ... 49QuX7cxag

Your "report" is false...There is no "institutionalized racism in America".

You commit a crime, you're arrested and convicted. Period. How do I know this? First, Because the crimes that occur match 100% with the convictions. The only way your claim would be true, is if the # of reported crimes didn't match prosecutions and convictions, but guess what, they do. Further, since most crimes by blacks are against blacks, are you then saying blacks are racist against their own, thus falsely reporting them?

Second, because I spent the first 24 or so years of my life (well about 18, because I started at the age of 6 or 7), preparing intentionally for a career in Law Enforcement. I intentionally put myself around different classes, groups, races of people, observed people, involved myself with Law Enforcement and the Criminal Justice System in various ways, read various books, took 2 years of Criminal Justice at a Community College which had a Police Academy in it (which I was supposed to take, but one week before starting it had a setback) etc. etc. to be the best "Cop" ever.

So, you don't know squat about the Criminal Justice System. You simply spew Leftist lying propaganda about it, that cherry-picks and ignores key information in the conclusions.

ldsfaqs wrote:Your "report" is false...There is no "institutionalized racism in America".

You commit a crime, you're arrested and convicted. Period. How do I know this? First, Because the crimes that occur match 100% with the convictions.

Let's say we have n number of crimes and c number of convictions.

One way to attempt to make sense of this statement is to assume it means n = c. The number of crimes that occur result in the same number of convictions.

That isn't reflected in reality. For example, murder is likely the apex crime in most people's hierarchy of what constitutes criminal behavior and as such probably gets more law enforcement attention than someone having their iPhone stolen but not the same attention as MJ possession gets (I kid, kinda). Yet in 2018, around 40% of all murder cases in the US went unsolved. https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/a-shockin ... last-year/

Now, it's possible that there were convictions that occurred that were not associated with a crime that occurred but that is SO MUCH WORSE as it means innocent people would be getting dragged in off the street and convicted for no crime at all but just to make sure the accounting balanced out. Like if prosecutors had quotas or something and treated convictions like LDS monthly home teaching visits. Tough luck being one of those unfortunate people that get caught up in the net and convicted so it looks like n and c balance out, I guess.

Oh wait, that actually does happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ted_States and https://newkirkcenter.uci.edu/national- ... nerations/

And that brings us to the other way faqs' comment could be read but simply doesn't match up. That being, maybe in faqs' world every c is flawlessly matched to the crime for which a person is accused. But it's almost impossible to imagine a grown adult in the US today believing that is actually true. It's so unbelievable I'm almost perfectly convinced faqs's thinking must be either completely detached from reality or faqs is a sock that has overextended itself with this one.

So, assuming "(t)he only way (Kevin Graham's) claim would be true, is if the # of reported crimes didn't match prosecutions and convictions" and the number of reported crimes don't match prosecutions or convictions, then...is the logical conclusion KG's claim is true?

The shorter response would be that blacks are significantly overrepreseented among people who are falsely convicted of crimes. They are even more overrepesented than their general conviction rate. Saying in response to this that all criminals get convicted of reported crimes is a non-sequitur. We're talking about innocent people here. The criminal justice system got the wrong person. And, for what it is worth, that number almost certainly understates the extent of the gap because people who are convicted have a very hard time meeting the standards necessary to get them exonerated and minorities disproportionately lack the resources to make an effective exoneration case. There are innocent people in prison who just don't have access to a case that will clear them.

Since ldsfaqs wants to offer an unhinged reply detached from reality, might I suggest:

The system is reverse racist! Blacks get favorable treatment in prison, which is why they have an easier time getting exonerated while innocent whites languish!

Blacks were likely "overrepresented" in false convictions of the past when yes there WAS "institutional racism"...

But that's been gone for at least 40-50 years.
Like I said... Today, people commit crimes, and they are charged, and then convicted for them.

Nobody is going around rounding up innocent blacks. There is ZERO evidence of this occurring today, other than the rare corrupt cop/person which happens to all races.

Blacks may be overrepresented in that yes in one way, that is because they are much more likely and encountering of law enforcement than other races because they actually ARE generally criminals, and the little false convictions occur, it's almost always now due to them being actual criminals, not people actually innocent (save like I said, normal rare instances and corruptions that occur to everyone).

ldsfaqs wrote:Blacks were likely "overrepresented" in false convictions of the past when yes there WAS "institutional racism"...

But that's been gone for at least 40-50 years.

CFR. Regarding the existence of institutional racism simply disappearing at some point 40-50 years ago: How did this change? By what measure is that change analyzed?

ldsfaqs wrote:[...]
But that's been gone for at least 40-50 years.
Like I said... Today, people commit crimes, and they are charged, and then convicted for them.
[...]

Kevin Baily -- wrongfully convicted in 1991.
Joseph Lamont Abbitt -- wrongfully convicted in 1995.
Jonathan Barr... 1997, Richard Alexander... 1998, David Ayers... 2000, William D. Avery... 2005, etc.

These are just the A's and very beginning of B's from a single non-profit that helps exonerate innocent people.

I'm sure there's a YouTube video out there that covers this.

As is often the case, ldsfaqs has proven once again that he simply doesn't know what he is talking about. Despite what he claims, racism, institutionalized and not, seems to be on the rise again, thanks in significant part to our "beloved President." Whether he is the main cause of that rise or merely exploiting it for his own selfish ends, it is certainly happening.

African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated. They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in “group exonerations.” We see this racial disparity for all major crime categories, but we examine it in this report in the context of the three types of crime that produce the largest numbers of exonerations in the Registry: murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes.

Gross, Samuel R., Maurice Possley, and Klara Stephens. "Race and wrongful convictions in the United States." (2017).

Why do you think on average that blacks actually commit more crimes than whites? Is it due to poverty and income inequality? Do you think if blacks committed fewer crimes than whites that people would still be biased and have suspicions just because of the higher pigmentation level in their skin?

Do you think any of the problems blacks have with law enforcement has to do with the way they behave when they're stopped? Even if it's unfair that they're stopped more frequently, could they possibly make things better for themselves by not fighting the police in that moment and waiting to take their issue to court? Or is it really just racist cops including black cops saying, "Look at that dark skin, let's get him." Is it possible that other black criminals have made things difficult for law abiding black people by creating the reputation that they have?