Last year, in reference to the Trayvon Martin case, Matt Yglesias wrote a great short explanation of how racism is a kind of ignorance of Bayesian updating. In short, racists justify their racism by neglecting base rates. It’s a fallacious form of the availability heuristic.
Bayesian reasoning can be difficult to understand when it’s presented formally with equations and formulas, so let’s illustrate the concept with Venn diagrams.
Consider two populations, white and black. The white population is larger than the black population.
Assume that the amount of crime that occurs in the two populations is roughly proportional to the size of each, represented by the red circle below.
Assume that police attention, due to institutional racism, is disproportionately focused toward black criminals, as represented by the blue ellipse below.
The population of convicted criminals would be represented by the purple shading below.
A racist observing racial discrepancies between the inmate population and the general population is myopically only seeing the purple shading. The racist sees that blacks make up a disproportionately large fraction of the purple shading while falsely assuming the inmate population is an unbiased sample. The racist neglects what the true parameter is.
Disproportionately punishing criminals in minority communities would be horrible in and of itself, but the War on Drugs has subverted the criminal justice system in an even worse way, and exacerbated institutional racism. How?
Conducting the War on Drugs requires the violation of civil liberties. Why? Whereas victims of crimes cooperate with police and offer evidence to bring criminals to justice, victimless crimes produce no such cooperative victims. Without victims pointing toward any kind of offender, the primary method to catch violators of victimless crimes is to preemptively assume some fraction of a population is criminal and use sweeping powers to arbitrarily detain and search.
Without any victims, from where would probable cause originate? Terry v. Ohio paved the path for Arizona v. Johnson, and now the police act on “reasonable suspicion,” which in practice has turned into arbitrary officer discretion, far beyond the original scope of the standard to ensure officer safety. “Reasonable suspicion” is a lesser degree of certainty than probable cause, and as such, was always obviously unconstitutional.
If a police department were already predisposed to target a black community, instructing them go after victimless crimes would intensify their biased policing, giving them cover to target whomever they already were going to target.
Not only does the War on Drugs erode the potency of the Constitution, it erodes the trust between the public and law enforcement. Whereas the public might, in ideal theory, primarily rely on law enforcement for protection from criminals, the War on Drugs has subverted the relationship, and given the public a reason to fear the police. The War on Drugs distracts the police with incentives to maximize drug arrests, drawing their focus drawn away from putting away the harmful elements of society.
The War on Drugs produces a more disturbing Venn diagram.
Assume a majority white population and a minority black population.
Assume that victimless crimes in the two populations are occurring proportionally to their populations, because the drive to alter consciousness is a human universal.
Assume that a smaller amount of crimes with victims are occurring in the two populations proportionally.
The encouragement of police attention to victimless crimes gives the police cover to disproportionately target the black community.
Racists incorrectly infer biased police attention as a proxy for societal harm, failing to distinguish between malum in se and malum prohibitum. The purple shading below represents an entire group of people who are being oppressed by a criminal justice system that is consistently and repeatedly violating Mill’s harm principle.
Some subjects, to counter in-group loyalty, overcompensate by demonstrating out-group loyalty. Uhlmann, E.L., Pizarro, D.A., & Bloom, P. (2008):
Additional suggestive evidence for awareness of automatic attitudes comes from work showing that implicit and explicit measures interact to predict judgments and behaviors. These interactions suggest that people not only compensate, but
in some cases even overcompensate for their automatic attitudes. For example, individuals who are automatically prejudiced but who are consciously motivated to respond without prejudice respond even more favorably towards Black targets in terms of their trait judgments (Olson & Fazio, 2004) and willingness to interact with the person (Towles-Schwen & Fazio, 2003) than individuals who are not automatically prejudiced (see also Dasgupta, 2004). As noted earlier, increased awareness of an automatic process can lead to correction effects (Newman & Uleman, 1990; Moskowitz & Roman, 1992).
In terms of Haidt’s dimensions, this phenomenon probably arises from the fairness dimension, from considerations about historical injustices to minorities. It’s probably not a direct inversion of the in-group loyalty dimension.
Is vengeance a premise of social justice? If it actually is, it would be incendiary to say so directly. Though I’m not certain social justice is even a coherent concept, restitution as a justification seems way more palatable than retribution.
The conflation of restitution and retribution seems to plague discussions of privilege and social justice. Is the language in discussions of social justice deliberately ambiguous to conceal the retribution premise?
I have no answers. I have only questions.