[735892568]

I'm not sure what you mean. Everything in the comment I responded to apply to the same extent to women/men and white/black. Both the question in the first paragraph and the statement about crime statistics not being enough. It seems to me that the burden of providing a justification is with whoever wants to treat them differently. Why isn't the question just as applicable to gender? Why are crime statistics enough to come to a conclusion about gender but not race?

We know that there is a large sentencing disparity among both women/men and white/black people who are convicted, even when controlling for everything imaginable. We know that there are significant differences in the social and cultural expectations that are usually placed on both women/men and white/black people, and we know that there are on average psychological differences between both women/men and white/black people. The base assumption and the analysis required to come to a conclusion should be the same. The conclusion may or may not be the same.

[mxkopy]

> Why isn't the question just as applicable to gender?

The assumption is that gender and crime aren't related. The burden of proof is on showing that two things are related IMO. Black history and criminalization are related so you need to give context for that relationship.

[735892568]

Why would that be the assumption? If Black history is the reason for the disparity between white and black people (in the US, presumably), why can't the history of treating women as delicate quasi-children without agency be the reason for the disparity between women and men? Or perhaps the history of mass sacrificing men as expendable soldiers? Or any other past or present practice that no doubt has an effect on current cultural norms?

[mxkopy]

Show me how the precession of Mercury affects violent crime rates and I'll bite. Until then, I'd say the assumption is that two arbitrary things aren't related