"Grow up" is not an argument. Neither is linking a 2015 blog post with a scatterplot with atrocities against data visualization and declaring the case closed.
More egregiously you're treating a correlation as a causal mechanism. Race in America is a near-perfect proxy for concentrated poverty, spatial isolation, and institutional disinvestment all of which have independent, well-documented effects on violent crime. A scatterplot cannot tell you which of those mechanisms is the cause of the outcomes. That's not using “redlining as excuse,” that's basic confounding.
Patrick Sharkey's Stuck in Place (2013) actually does this analysis. Neighborhood disadvantage accounts for most of the outcomes once you account for it properly. You might engage with that rather than strawmanning the literature as “epigenetic trauma from Emmet Hill’s death,” which nobody serious is arguing.
On Stuntz: his argument was that American criminal justice catastrophically failed Black urban communities through under-enforcement against Black victims and the substitution of mass incarceration for functioning neighborhood institutions. Which is another structural critique. You've cited him in support of a position he didn’t hold.
There is literally no amount of evidence that would ever convince you otherwise on the topic of race and crime, which in fairness to you is the case for most in the current intelligentsia.
The REVIEW of Stuntz's book is the point. Stutnz tries his level best and fails, which the review points out, for obvious reasons. It's worth a read, but it's long so I suspect you won't cuz why waste time on some crank comment amirite?
But debate on this point is useless because there is literally no amount of evidence that will ever convince blank statists of the possibility that population groups might be on avg diff on some key traits. Cue nonsense from Lewontin, Turkheimer, Gould and the like.
It's tiresome. Like arguing with flat earthers, or people who think vaccines don't work, or 9/11 truthers, or 'we didn't land on moon' crowd and so on. You will keep drawing epicycles to deny the obvious, and nothing will change, and of course resorting to blocking or banning from public space those who disagree with you.
Sorry no. Any serious tackling of US crime issues has to tackle the elephant in the room: https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/06/23/a-county-level-analysis-of-homicide-rates/
and no, it's not 'redlining' or 'white flight' or epigenetic trauma from Emmet Till's death. Grow up.
A more serious analysis can be had here in a review of Stuntz's "Collapse of American Criminal Justice" https://web.archive.org/web/20140304073439/https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/review-of-the-collapse-of-american-criminal-justice-by-william-j-stuntz/
"Grow up" is not an argument. Neither is linking a 2015 blog post with a scatterplot with atrocities against data visualization and declaring the case closed.
More egregiously you're treating a correlation as a causal mechanism. Race in America is a near-perfect proxy for concentrated poverty, spatial isolation, and institutional disinvestment all of which have independent, well-documented effects on violent crime. A scatterplot cannot tell you which of those mechanisms is the cause of the outcomes. That's not using “redlining as excuse,” that's basic confounding.
Patrick Sharkey's Stuck in Place (2013) actually does this analysis. Neighborhood disadvantage accounts for most of the outcomes once you account for it properly. You might engage with that rather than strawmanning the literature as “epigenetic trauma from Emmet Hill’s death,” which nobody serious is arguing.
On Stuntz: his argument was that American criminal justice catastrophically failed Black urban communities through under-enforcement against Black victims and the substitution of mass incarceration for functioning neighborhood institutions. Which is another structural critique. You've cited him in support of a position he didn’t hold.
There is literally no amount of evidence that would ever convince you otherwise on the topic of race and crime, which in fairness to you is the case for most in the current intelligentsia.
The REVIEW of Stuntz's book is the point. Stutnz tries his level best and fails, which the review points out, for obvious reasons. It's worth a read, but it's long so I suspect you won't cuz why waste time on some crank comment amirite?
But debate on this point is useless because there is literally no amount of evidence that will ever convince blank statists of the possibility that population groups might be on avg diff on some key traits. Cue nonsense from Lewontin, Turkheimer, Gould and the like.
It's tiresome. Like arguing with flat earthers, or people who think vaccines don't work, or 9/11 truthers, or 'we didn't land on moon' crowd and so on. You will keep drawing epicycles to deny the obvious, and nothing will change, and of course resorting to blocking or banning from public space those who disagree with you.
Eppur si muove.