Legalized judicial racism…

Yes

Not sure how you can make your argument when it is obvious and direct contradiction to the factual understanding about bias. I suspect it stems in part because you're confusing bias with crime.

Yes

Replicability and Reproducability That feature is not just a positive aspect of science, it is central to the entire endeavor. Occurs in multiple situations using same data and methods to produce the same results. Or in studying the same phenomenon under varied circumstances/time/location etc. to check for same, similar or dissimilar outcomes.

Part and parcel to the research endeavor.

One example from criminal justice: Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (Sherman & Berk 1984).

Sherman & Berk found that arrest reduced the likelihood of reoffending. These findings subsequently helped support the movement toward mandatory arrest for DV. Problem was, several other replication studies were done in subsequent years (more now) finding mixed or contradictory results. This is how science testing works.

Point is, unique crime data, just as unique data in other disciplines is generally a positive thing and central to science.

 

Interestingly, it wasn’t in Aldean’s video, but they should try it in a small town

 

If we consider "instinct" to be all the thoughts that we have that are not intentional, what would be the reason for not including "instinct" in the scope of "bias?" It's these unintentional thoughts that are perhaps harder to measure and correct (where corrections are objectively warranted).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Again, you're trying to conflate bias with intent. Bias does not require intent or even awareness of them, i.e. intent is not a precondition for bias as it is for a behavior to be a crime.

Honest question, have you read any studies on bias in cj in which you can make this broad claim?

 

If we differ on the term bias, then one of us is wrong...and that one of us isn't me.

For instance, if a judge consistently sentences men to longer prison sentences vs women, all else equal, for the same crime that would be a form of bias. The judge need not be aware of or intend the bias for this tendency to be biased.

 

Are you aware that your bias has taken you to 20 plus years of passion and effort to show an outcome that you already believe.

 

Well you're suggesting that I am trying to find bias where it doesn't exist, as opposed to not being able to ignore bias that is unignorable.

It's strange to me how you take issue with calling out biases when you clearly believe that they exist. If that's the case, then how am I wrong other than, perhaps, because it triggers discomfort in having the status quo challenged?

 

How do you know I find discomfort in your bias? Interesting that you say so.
Every single human possesses parts of themselves that they’re unaware of.
Also…How many of your GAs ever leaned right? Does your wife lean right or left?
My guess is you are living in a world, created by you and your biases, that mostly tilts to the left.
It’s no surprise therefore that you’ve chosen industry that proves your notions and worldview correct.
People like you will always exist and that doesn’t bother me. It fascinates me.

 

"Bias doesn't become bias just because you detect a pattern" is not an argument that I made. The hypothetical example was to show how bias can occur--and how it doesn't require a judge to be aware of it.

Though I'd agree "bias is why there is a pattern." With data and controlled measurement, we can and have detected those patterns and it's why we can say there is systemic bias in the criminal justice system.

Also, let's accurately remember that you've tried in multiple posts to argue that bias requires intent, something akin to intent, and now choice. But the fact is, none of them are true.

Leaving aside the first two since I already addressed why they're mistaken, wrt choice, this too is wrong because while bias is a choice per se, it need not be a conscious or deliberate...though it can be.

 

What if the studio picked the location, drummed up the controversy, and made this song the most discussed song of the year, simply to sell albums?

Sounds vaguely familiar.

Create a problem, create the solution, create wealth from the dumb sheep.

 

I know what mens rea is & I understand the subtle differences, including as translated from latin guilty mind. But again, mens rea is only applicable in a legal context as one of the two elements establishing a crime.

Bias is a social-psychological and behavioral phenomenon and needs to be understood through this context. It has never been the case that bias requires intent or guilty mind or even a conscious choice.

Same time, bias can be intentional--it just doesn't need to be.

 

Sure, but mens rea is not a term that is used in the social sciences to define bias.

Good question. There is in a sense choice, but bias can happen without us realizing it, so it's not a conscious or deliberate choice. This is part of what I was alluding to with the earlier sentencing bias example, i.e. judges can be biased across cases but not realize it.