Above you’ll find my conversation with University of San Francisco law professor Lara Bazelon. She specializes in criminal law and has won exoneration for wrongfully convicted incarcerated people. We discuss systemic racism in the criminal justice system and debate the pros and cons of various reform efforts. We go into the details of
I am so grateful that you have these discussions. This one is a gem.
The truth? Ms. Bazelon recommended your discussion with Cornel West. That reminded me of how much I had enjoyed it so I watched again. In one comment Mr. West remarked that truth is barbed (or something like that). Telling your truth will not always polish your characters appearance but it does, I believe, polish your humanity and certainly does indicate a courageous character.
Finally finished watching. Amazing conversation. There is almost nothing of this quality almost anywhere.
Glenn, I would have told her:
---in 1970 blacks were 3.0 times as likely as non blacks to be arrested for homicide
---in 2019 blacks were 8.2 times as likely as non blacks to be arrested for homicide
---in 1926 21% of people arrested were black versus 39% in 1970 and 44% in 1986 and higher after that.
---We have seen a similar sharp increase in the likelihood that blacks are raped and violently assaulted as non blacks.
---If the number of blacks murdered in 2020 rose by 40%, then black Americans were about 15 or 16 times as likely to be murdered as people who live in Bangladesh (a poor country with a massive problem of Pakistani Army backed Al Qaeda linked terrorists mass murdering or otherwise causing mayhem against them.)
For black folk there *HAS* been a massive increase in violent crime. For non black folks, she has a partial point (I would say this to be nice . . . but even there I DISAGREE). What does it say about the character and compassion of the American people that the American people would allow the mass murdering, raping and violent assaulting of black Americans to take place with hardly a word?
She is 1000% right. The American people (in addition to specific institutions) are structurally racist. This is why. And the American people need to stop.
Lara Bazelson suggests that Louisiana being one of two states that allowed nonunanimous jury verdicts proved the practice to be racist. I live in the other state, deep-blue Democratic Oregon, whose state government reserves funding support for Blacks in covid relief. It's a bad idea; but to say it's racist is to assume a conclusion instead of providing evidence.
Bazelon shows her hand when she seems to blame a moral panic paranoia about crime to explain Eric Adams' win in the NYC mayoral primary: she points to the "relatively low murders compared with the 90s" as some kind of counter-argument to people's visceral fear of violent victimization by a criminal justice system seen increasingly as a revolving door. Okay, fine. Ms. Bazelon wants to hide behind numbers. How many blacks were *actually* killed by the police in the throes of these protests? As a percentage of all police killings? Weighted against the actual violent crime incidents across races? Compared with 20, 30, 50 years ago? Did she write prominently in 2020 calling for moderation against the excesses of the BLM and more extreme protests of similar ilk? Sure, there may be some vestigial laws down in Louisiana that we might want to revisit. But I'm not convinced that Bazelon argues in good faith like Glenn does. Rather, she shifts her epistemological bases to fit the preset agenda. Glenn is a complex thinker, nuanced, and you know very clearly where he's really struggling to reconcile his basic world view with his impulses to the opposite. Bazelon speaks like a lawyer, pounding the argument that works best for the corner of the ring where the discussion is taking place. She waxes eloquently on the life impact of prison on the convicted, with little concern to the victims. Glenn goes fairly easy on her I think, and to his credit, because she demonstrates to a discerning eye her argumentative weaknesses as the hour goes on. Let me be fair: I did learn things. I do think Yutico was dealt a bad hand that moves me to want to see change in their sentencing. Those majority-decision juries are atrocious. I'm sure she's a great criminal defense attorney, and would give some fine testimony on specific legislative reviews, but I do not want Bazelon setting policy on anything important. Her heavy sympathy with criminals over their victims, and inability to articulate the root of criminal law as a means for the innocent to see justice done is deeply disturbing.
I guess like a lot of listeners, I found this conversation frustrating. Partly, it was frustrating because Glenn was approaching it as a social scientist, while Ms. Bazelon was approaching it as an advocate. And not just any advocate, but as a career criminal defense attorney. In my experience, lawyers on both sides of the "vee" in the criminal justice system tend to approach their work as, to use her word, "zealots." You could easily find a prosecutor who lines up with Ms. Bazelon on every metric except whom she represents, and that person would make the counter argument to everything Ms. Bazelon said, with equal passion and equal persuasiveness (or lack thereof).
My other main source of frustration was that Ms. Bazelon's argument about systemic racism proved too much. Her point about social determinism (although I don't recall her using that precise term) would apply to everybody. It may be true that the deterministic forces are different for American black people than for others, but even if they're different, are they really any stronger or any less fair than the deterministic forces that create criminals among the poor or family-challenged of other races? If they're not, how does her argument establish the existence of systemic racism, as opposed to systemic classism, or some other systemic cause?
I wish Glenn would bring some of his considerable "numbers" skill to bear on the issues he brings to the world. For example, in this episode, is over sentencing the "problem" or is the justice "system's" problem that it is way, way, way, way more likely to not catch the culprit, plea bargain, under sentence and then finally fail to convict? Glenn, What do the "numbers" indicate?
Another "interesting" question that could be explored with actual numbers; Is a "masculine" predisposition of culture and "systems" a salient problem today (patriarchy)? Or, as is usually the case, is the Left telling the OPPOSITE of the truth. I propose that the "real news" is that the predominant attitude displayed by the justice, intelligentsia, media, culture (systems) is one of being overly feminine and altruistically pathological. My examples are the millions of cases of, No pretrial confinement, letting felons out of jail because of overcrowding, defunding the police, BLM riots, not prosecuting crimes like repeated theft under $1,000, defecating in the street, drug use, prostitution, vagrancy, sanctuary cities, flooding the nation with illegal third-world in the millions....on and on.
Programming note for Glenn; I suggest a format for your show where you interview a guest to let them make their case.......then you use your considerable "numbers" skills to do a follow-up episode where you present your exploration of the relevant data and your findings. Maybe teach a little bit about your methodology and how math can help structure one's thinking to bring actual problems to light.
I finished Lara's book, "The Good Mother". I'll give it a solid B-. Even though it's fiction, there are just too many legal procedural "errors" in how she weaves the story.
After reading the book and watching the discussion with Glenn, it's pretty clear that Lara is a typical bleeding heart progressive, almost certainly one of McWhorter's "Elect". Based on her bio she seems to come by it honestly.
All of this is just good fodder for assessing her contribution to the Bari Weiss essay on "systemic racism" as C- level stuff..............at best.
It's also weird that at one point she declares her self a single mother while just minutes later admitting that her ex husband is a wonderful co-parent and the responsibilities are divided equally so she's not really what one pictures as a single parent; struggling alone... maybe she's a single parent like princess Diana was, I guess it's all in the definition
I echo many of the sentiments of other listeners: Unfortunate that she ignored the fact that her sample case was one of TEN children to a neglectful mother and former imprisoned father. Why is there such a refusal to see this as the core of the problem rather than her finger pointing at the post civil war reconstruction. No point complaining about wealth disparities when those in poverty (of any race/ethnicity) are perpetuating problems of poverty born into poverty! Also a slight shame that she could not bring herself to embrace Trump's policy (and I am not generally a fan of him but even a broken clock...) of reviewing non violent drug crime sentencing and reducing sentences by an average of 70 months, and no mention of Biden's 1994 crime bill... still, nice to see her explaining everything to Glenn from her ivory tower!!! Eyes roll, head in hands...
It is a wonderful conversation, so great many thanks to both Professor Loury and Professor Bazelon. My only gripe is the use of this particular case as an illustration of the racial component of our justice system. Much time was spend describing and discussing the unfortunate circumstances of Yutico's life. The most pertinent fact about his case is that he DID NOT DO what he was accused and convicted of. His background is irrelevant to that fact and so it is of doubtful value as an illustration of racial bias that is built into the system.
Unless of course the argument is that most or at least significant portion of black Americans convicted of violent crime in this country are in fact innocent.
This was really a great conversation and I have to say I had tears in my eyes at the end. So rare to hear people people being so honest. Kudos to both of them.
I can't help but think that the issue in cases like this has less to do with racism, and more to do with the authoritarian character of the legal institution revealing itself as a result of the accused rejecting the plea deal and forcing the trial gears into motion. In other words, if the agents of the legal system are slighted, I expect they will make you pay dearly for that offense.
Dear Glenn, re: homicide rates in Philadelphia, you were right to challenge Lara. Numbers have increased steadily under Larry Krasner, and have gone through the roof since 2020. We're on track for over 600 homicides at the current rate (last year we had 499). Philadelphia now has the highest per capita crime rate of the country's largest cities. My husband is a homicide detective.
Thank you for this conversation. Really enjoyed it.
I just re-read Mark Kleiman's "When Brute Force Fails" and I can't but think that there is a tension between distaste for habitual offender laws and a desire for certainty and predictability in criminal sentencing that can help shape the patterns of behavior.
It's curious to me that there has been such a heavy focus on pre-trial detention (I suppose that is the item most readily available to DA's from a policy matter) as opposed to reducing the length of criminal sentences when pre-trial detention can be a certain and immediate cost to criminal activity and time served X years down the road may be discounted or cause reluctance in the minds of judges or juries.
I am so grateful that you have these discussions. This one is a gem.
The truth? Ms. Bazelon recommended your discussion with Cornel West. That reminded me of how much I had enjoyed it so I watched again. In one comment Mr. West remarked that truth is barbed (or something like that). Telling your truth will not always polish your characters appearance but it does, I believe, polish your humanity and certainly does indicate a courageous character.
With love,
Myles
And in your case Glenn, your brilliant humanity.
Could someone please respond to AnAn (22 hrs ago)? Am I missing something?
Finally finished watching. Amazing conversation. There is almost nothing of this quality almost anywhere.
Glenn, I would have told her:
---in 1970 blacks were 3.0 times as likely as non blacks to be arrested for homicide
---in 2019 blacks were 8.2 times as likely as non blacks to be arrested for homicide
---in 1926 21% of people arrested were black versus 39% in 1970 and 44% in 1986 and higher after that.
---We have seen a similar sharp increase in the likelihood that blacks are raped and violently assaulted as non blacks.
---If the number of blacks murdered in 2020 rose by 40%, then black Americans were about 15 or 16 times as likely to be murdered as people who live in Bangladesh (a poor country with a massive problem of Pakistani Army backed Al Qaeda linked terrorists mass murdering or otherwise causing mayhem against them.)
For black folk there *HAS* been a massive increase in violent crime. For non black folks, she has a partial point (I would say this to be nice . . . but even there I DISAGREE). What does it say about the character and compassion of the American people that the American people would allow the mass murdering, raping and violent assaulting of black Americans to take place with hardly a word?
She is 1000% right. The American people (in addition to specific institutions) are structurally racist. This is why. And the American people need to stop.
Lara Bazelson suggests that Louisiana being one of two states that allowed nonunanimous jury verdicts proved the practice to be racist. I live in the other state, deep-blue Democratic Oregon, whose state government reserves funding support for Blacks in covid relief. It's a bad idea; but to say it's racist is to assume a conclusion instead of providing evidence.
Bazelon shows her hand when she seems to blame a moral panic paranoia about crime to explain Eric Adams' win in the NYC mayoral primary: she points to the "relatively low murders compared with the 90s" as some kind of counter-argument to people's visceral fear of violent victimization by a criminal justice system seen increasingly as a revolving door. Okay, fine. Ms. Bazelon wants to hide behind numbers. How many blacks were *actually* killed by the police in the throes of these protests? As a percentage of all police killings? Weighted against the actual violent crime incidents across races? Compared with 20, 30, 50 years ago? Did she write prominently in 2020 calling for moderation against the excesses of the BLM and more extreme protests of similar ilk? Sure, there may be some vestigial laws down in Louisiana that we might want to revisit. But I'm not convinced that Bazelon argues in good faith like Glenn does. Rather, she shifts her epistemological bases to fit the preset agenda. Glenn is a complex thinker, nuanced, and you know very clearly where he's really struggling to reconcile his basic world view with his impulses to the opposite. Bazelon speaks like a lawyer, pounding the argument that works best for the corner of the ring where the discussion is taking place. She waxes eloquently on the life impact of prison on the convicted, with little concern to the victims. Glenn goes fairly easy on her I think, and to his credit, because she demonstrates to a discerning eye her argumentative weaknesses as the hour goes on. Let me be fair: I did learn things. I do think Yutico was dealt a bad hand that moves me to want to see change in their sentencing. Those majority-decision juries are atrocious. I'm sure she's a great criminal defense attorney, and would give some fine testimony on specific legislative reviews, but I do not want Bazelon setting policy on anything important. Her heavy sympathy with criminals over their victims, and inability to articulate the root of criminal law as a means for the innocent to see justice done is deeply disturbing.
I guess like a lot of listeners, I found this conversation frustrating. Partly, it was frustrating because Glenn was approaching it as a social scientist, while Ms. Bazelon was approaching it as an advocate. And not just any advocate, but as a career criminal defense attorney. In my experience, lawyers on both sides of the "vee" in the criminal justice system tend to approach their work as, to use her word, "zealots." You could easily find a prosecutor who lines up with Ms. Bazelon on every metric except whom she represents, and that person would make the counter argument to everything Ms. Bazelon said, with equal passion and equal persuasiveness (or lack thereof).
My other main source of frustration was that Ms. Bazelon's argument about systemic racism proved too much. Her point about social determinism (although I don't recall her using that precise term) would apply to everybody. It may be true that the deterministic forces are different for American black people than for others, but even if they're different, are they really any stronger or any less fair than the deterministic forces that create criminals among the poor or family-challenged of other races? If they're not, how does her argument establish the existence of systemic racism, as opposed to systemic classism, or some other systemic cause?
I wish Glenn would bring some of his considerable "numbers" skill to bear on the issues he brings to the world. For example, in this episode, is over sentencing the "problem" or is the justice "system's" problem that it is way, way, way, way more likely to not catch the culprit, plea bargain, under sentence and then finally fail to convict? Glenn, What do the "numbers" indicate?
Another "interesting" question that could be explored with actual numbers; Is a "masculine" predisposition of culture and "systems" a salient problem today (patriarchy)? Or, as is usually the case, is the Left telling the OPPOSITE of the truth. I propose that the "real news" is that the predominant attitude displayed by the justice, intelligentsia, media, culture (systems) is one of being overly feminine and altruistically pathological. My examples are the millions of cases of, No pretrial confinement, letting felons out of jail because of overcrowding, defunding the police, BLM riots, not prosecuting crimes like repeated theft under $1,000, defecating in the street, drug use, prostitution, vagrancy, sanctuary cities, flooding the nation with illegal third-world in the millions....on and on.
Programming note for Glenn; I suggest a format for your show where you interview a guest to let them make their case.......then you use your considerable "numbers" skills to do a follow-up episode where you present your exploration of the relevant data and your findings. Maybe teach a little bit about your methodology and how math can help structure one's thinking to bring actual problems to light.
I finished Lara's book, "The Good Mother". I'll give it a solid B-. Even though it's fiction, there are just too many legal procedural "errors" in how she weaves the story.
After reading the book and watching the discussion with Glenn, it's pretty clear that Lara is a typical bleeding heart progressive, almost certainly one of McWhorter's "Elect". Based on her bio she seems to come by it honestly.
All of this is just good fodder for assessing her contribution to the Bari Weiss essay on "systemic racism" as C- level stuff..............at best.
It's also weird that at one point she declares her self a single mother while just minutes later admitting that her ex husband is a wonderful co-parent and the responsibilities are divided equally so she's not really what one pictures as a single parent; struggling alone... maybe she's a single parent like princess Diana was, I guess it's all in the definition
I echo many of the sentiments of other listeners: Unfortunate that she ignored the fact that her sample case was one of TEN children to a neglectful mother and former imprisoned father. Why is there such a refusal to see this as the core of the problem rather than her finger pointing at the post civil war reconstruction. No point complaining about wealth disparities when those in poverty (of any race/ethnicity) are perpetuating problems of poverty born into poverty! Also a slight shame that she could not bring herself to embrace Trump's policy (and I am not generally a fan of him but even a broken clock...) of reviewing non violent drug crime sentencing and reducing sentences by an average of 70 months, and no mention of Biden's 1994 crime bill... still, nice to see her explaining everything to Glenn from her ivory tower!!! Eyes roll, head in hands...
It is a wonderful conversation, so great many thanks to both Professor Loury and Professor Bazelon. My only gripe is the use of this particular case as an illustration of the racial component of our justice system. Much time was spend describing and discussing the unfortunate circumstances of Yutico's life. The most pertinent fact about his case is that he DID NOT DO what he was accused and convicted of. His background is irrelevant to that fact and so it is of doubtful value as an illustration of racial bias that is built into the system.
Unless of course the argument is that most or at least significant portion of black Americans convicted of violent crime in this country are in fact innocent.
This was really a great conversation and I have to say I had tears in my eyes at the end. So rare to hear people people being so honest. Kudos to both of them.
This was fantastic. I'd love for Glenn to have more folks on who have differing points of view.
I thoroughly disagreed with Ms. Bazelon on many points. But I also thoroughly enjoyed listening to the conversation.
RE: Yutico
I can't help but think that the issue in cases like this has less to do with racism, and more to do with the authoritarian character of the legal institution revealing itself as a result of the accused rejecting the plea deal and forcing the trial gears into motion. In other words, if the agents of the legal system are slighted, I expect they will make you pay dearly for that offense.
Dear Glenn, re: homicide rates in Philadelphia, you were right to challenge Lara. Numbers have increased steadily under Larry Krasner, and have gone through the roof since 2020. We're on track for over 600 homicides at the current rate (last year we had 499). Philadelphia now has the highest per capita crime rate of the country's largest cities. My husband is a homicide detective.
Thank you for this conversation. Really enjoyed it.
I just re-read Mark Kleiman's "When Brute Force Fails" and I can't but think that there is a tension between distaste for habitual offender laws and a desire for certainty and predictability in criminal sentencing that can help shape the patterns of behavior.
It's curious to me that there has been such a heavy focus on pre-trial detention (I suppose that is the item most readily available to DA's from a policy matter) as opposed to reducing the length of criminal sentences when pre-trial detention can be a certain and immediate cost to criminal activity and time served X years down the road may be discounted or cause reluctance in the minds of judges or juries.