PC Victim William Bennett

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
He's being bashed unfairly, but I don't feel very sorry for him, since he must've been realized he was going to be bashed for those statements, and made them anyway.

Exactly. Someone like Bill Bennett is more than well aware of what words like that will inspire. It smacks of a calculated stunt. Ain't no such thing as bad publicity, after all, and it will get the wingnut Renfields flocking to him in a froth in defense.

[Gibsie]

reminds me of gay groups who are anti-abortion in case we identify a gay gene which would lead to parents aborting gay babies

[Wiglaf]

Perhaps the caller was right indeed. The caller was only calling for passive action (NOT aborting) whereas Bennett's counter-example involved actively slaughtering babies to achieve a similarly good objective.

Saying, "If you stop smoking, you'll save thousands of dollars" cannot be countered by saying "if you killed every smoker we'd save millions."

I am right about this

[Sava]

someone should abort Bennett

[DanS]

Is he right?

Levitt's book says that maybe a third or a fourth of the reduction in crime can be attributable to widespread practice of abortion. The rest can be attributed to increased police, increased incarceration, and some other minor factors (such as proper policing, to which he gave a small sliver of credit). Levitt wasn't addressing the morality of abortion and in fact said that if your purpose were to reduce crime, using abortion to achieve such an outcome would be like killing a flea with a hammer.

Bennett's being unfairly slammed here, even if he said it unartfully, and it's a shame that the WH went along with it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Levitt wasn't addressing the morality of abortion

Yep, that's true. He was just going for economic reasons for why it happens, not whether it is desireable or correct.

I have to agree with Agathon here. Bennett was simply saying how silly it can get to justify an abortion policy simply based on the crime rate.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Yes, he's right.

No, he's not right.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q]
I have to agree with Agathon here. Bennett was simply saying how silly it can get to justify an abortion policy simply based on the crime rate.

Though in doing so he used a racist stereotype without irony. Has he since gone back to point out the flaws in the assumption?

[Spiffor]

It's pretty obvious that a freer access to abortion helps about crime. Many women who want to abort are women that aren't ready for an (extra) kid, and who wouldn't be able to raise the kid properly. It can either come from the fact that the mother doesn't have the financial means to raise the baby properly, that the mother has emotional problems toward the baby (say, the baby represents a man she loathes, and she loathes her kid as a result), or other things.

Sure, some unwanted children grow up perfectly normally, but many don't. When you grow up in dire straits, or when you grow up in a family that hates you, you are more likely to have further problems in life. It's no rocket science.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Though in doing so he used a racist stereotype without irony. Has he since gone back to point out the flaws in the assumption?

So there isn't more crime among blacks? Is Levitt also using racial sterotypes when he speaks of black women having abortions may have led to less crime today?

[Provost Harrison]

Did he get mauled by a computer or something?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

How about shame on Bennett for making the disgusting implication that pro-choicers goal is to eliminate black people?

If had implied that, it would be shameful. But he didn't imply it. He was in fact responding to an anti-abortion argument by showing that that mode of reasoning had repulsive consequences.

He's right in this case.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How about shame on Bennett for making the disgusting implication that pro-choicers goal is to eliminate black people?

Eh, this statement would be implying that all black people are poor and criminals.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Did he get mauled by a computer or something?

I was expecting a thread about computers too.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


So there isn't more crime among blacks?

Oh for Christ's sake, Imran. You studied law. You should be able to punch holes in that assertion big enough to drive trucks through.

We just don't know. We don't know how many crimes are committed. We don't know how many of those that are committed are actually noticed. We don't know what proportion of noticed crimes are reported, and by whom. We don't what proportion of reported crimes are investigated and/or the reasons why they might not.

Then we don't know whether there are imbalances in the levels of effort expended by the investigators dependant on the victim's circumstances. The same goes for the Prosecutors and/or their willingness to proecute. And/or their willingness to look for out-of-court remedies.

We don't know much about the imbalances in legal advice available to the accused dependant on their circumstances, and how that translates into end results at trial. We don't know much about what skewing factors are caused by the whims and wiles of the judge and jury, for that matter.

So, to be blunt, if you think you can look at conviction stats (and "perceived victimhood" stats either, because they're wide open to skewing in different ways) and think you've found proof that blacks actually commit more crimes, then publish it far and wide. No other bugger's managed it.