Master Po and Kwai Chang Caine have been hearing a great deal on the news about discrimination in the justice system, particularly as it relates to the injustice of having a disproportionately large population of state and federal prisoners with a certain easily recognized characteristic imprisoned. Kwai Chang seems to feel that the facts are clear, and the injustice is real. We join them as the discussion begins…]
KC: So, you see, Master Po, this is evidence of de facto discrimination, is it not?
PO: Well, Grasshopper, let us think about this a bit more abstractly. We have a prison population in which the percentage of prisoners with characteristic attribute <X> is a much larger than the percentage of the general population who have that same attribute. Is it the case that you claim this to be solid, incontrovertible evidence of de facto discrimination?
KC: Well put, Master. Very concise. Yes, that is my position.
PO: And your reason for holding this position is …
KC: Why, there is no other way to explain the disproportionate representation, other than the obviously discriminatory claim that people with easily recognizable characteristic <X> commit more crimes! That’s <X>-ist! After all, <X> and non-<X> are equal, right?
PO: Hmmm… let’s consider that carefully. Are you saying that there is no evidence that the <X> people actually commit more crimes?
KC: Yes! It’s the man that’s putting them down. That’s the only reason they are imprisoned! It’s clearly discriminatory and anti-<X>-ist, because if we were all treated equally we’d not see this disproportion!
PO: And are they given harsher sentences than people who are not <X> when the crimes are the same?
KC: [excitedly] Yes, yes, Master Po. The statistics are plain and clear!
PO: And is it also your claim that <X> people do not actually commit more crimes than non-<X> people, and that they are obviously just in prison because of anti-<X>-ism?
KC: Yes, of course!
PO: I see. And is it also the case that the police look the other way when a non-<X> person commits a crime against an <X> person, such as assault?
KC: Surely! I hear about it every day on the news.
PO: And what news is that, Grasshopper?
KC: Why, CNN and MSNBC, of course.
[Master Po clutches his staff tightly, and restrains himself.]
PO: And is the logic of your position pure and unassailable? It does not depend on the particular value of <X>?
KC: Of course it does not depend on the particular value of <X>, Master. After all, aren’t <X> and non-<X> equal under the law? Shouldn’t we strive to make sure that we have equal outcomes as well? If <X> had the value “muslim” or “Democrat” or “conservative” the logic is still the same! And I don’t even like conservatives! So there! HA!
PO: Ah, are you sure, Grasshopper? Because …
KC: [interrupting excitedly] Yes, I’m sure! Logic is logic, after all — haven’t you told me that yourself?
PO: Very well, then, let’s consider this. Let us assign the value “male” to <X>. Now what happens?
KC: [his brow furrowed in concentration, he begins to sweat, then stutter, then remains silent for a long moment.] I see, I think, where you’re going with this, but please continue — this kind of deep, rigorous thinking makes my brain hurt.
PO: Very well. We undeniably have a much larger prison population of men than of women, right?
KC: Undeniably this is true.
PO: And it is clear that men are treated much more harshly in prison than women are?
KC: Uh… yeah,… come to think of it… yes, they are!
PO: So is this a result of a sexist prison system, one run largely by men? A patriarchal system that treats men more harshly than women, that imprisons men far more frequently than women and gives them harsher, longer sentences?
KC: Uh, well, hold on here …
PO: Did you not say that disproportionality itself was clear evidence of discrimination?
KC: Yes, but …
PO: And did you not say that since we are equal this is a great wrong, since the outcomes should be equal?
KC: Yes, but …
PO: And did you not say that you were using logic here, and that your position was that it didn’t matter what the particular value of <X> was? That treating people differently because they were <X> was wrong?
KC: Well, … OK, yeah, but …
PO: Do I have to smack you again to get your head out of your nether regions?
KC: No, Master Po. I see now. I guess I hadn’t thought that one all the way through.
PO: And do you see now that it is a knee-jerk reaction to claim discrimination based solely on outcome?
KC: I do, indeed, Master. It is important to think clearly about things, and not jump to conclusions which, though comforting, are unsupported by facts.
The two walk along in silence for a few moments, then sit down by a stream to meditate in the warm afternoon sun. Master Po begins to think…
“I don’t know if I’ve made myself clear to young Kwai Chang. I wonder if he thinks that I don’t believe there is any injustice or racism in the justice system. I do, of course, recognize that such things exist and always will exist. And I recognize that decent citizens should protest such things and correct them when possible.
“I also recognize that many of the crimes prisoners have been incarcerated for are no longer considered crimes, and perhaps should never have been considered crimes.
“Yet the fact remains — it is simply an error in thought to blindly assume that a disparity or disproportion is caused by racism or discrimination.
“Perhaps I’ll have him read some books by Thomas Sowell, such as Discrimination and Disparities….”