It's not enough to characterize every disparate outcome as "systemic racism" and then to "fight systemic racism". We need to talk about what are the specific unjust factors that contribute to these disparities and identify solutions to combat them.
An example of putting forth a concrete, actionable model and proposing a solution might be (and note that this is only an example):
* jurors are more likely to convict a black defendant than a white defendant
* we believe that jurors see racial disparities in crime committance and project them onto defendants
* to combat this, we might try promoting cultural integration to reduce the racial disparities in crime committance as well as advocating for colorblind antiracism so jurors are less likely to see a defendant as a token of his race
The important thing is that the example (1) puts forth a testable model for how the system works and (2) proposes solutions based on that model. You may find yourself disagreeing with our hypothetical model, and that's fine. Note that you can even debate it because it's testable (you can probably conceive of data which rebut it). This is in contrast to esoteric debates about systemic racism, which seem more religious in nature than useful for combatting unjust disparities.
But this is great right? What you just wrote? I'm confused now. Is this what you wanted me to say? This is why I point you to research books or articles. Or even follow actual politicians on what work they are doing. I'm not going to have this. I'm a software developer removed from the issue mostly.
But if you know that black people are more likely convicted than a white person(they also get longer sentences for the same crimes), then why are you asking as if you don't know. Overall, you've ended up raising more questions than answering...
> But this is great right? What you just wrote? I'm confused now. Is this what you wanted me to say?
I don't know how to parse this. What are you trying to communicate here?
> This is why I point you to research books or articles.
I'm pretty widely-read on this subject, and yet there is no indication that this is converging on something useful.
> Or even follow actual politicians on what work they are doing
If the literature isn't forthright, why would a politician be different? Who are the honest, forthright politicians to whom I should be listening?
> But if you know that black people are more likely convicted than a white person(they also get longer sentences for the same crimes), then why are you asking as if you don't know.
I'm not asking whether black people are more likely to be convicted or not, I'm asking what utility there is in framing the problem with esoterics.
> Overall, you've ended up raising more questions than answering...
Right, I'm asking a question, and explicitly not positing any answers, so of course I'm raising more questions than answers.
Genuine question: what countries are you referring to? Also, I'm unfamiliar with any philosophy that posits that jury trials are lesser to judge trials. Isn't the whole point of trial by jury that juries are less likely to be partial than judges ("professionalism" doesn't stop a judge from being corrupt or from a classist selection bias in which judges are chosen from the upper echelons of society and thus biased accordingly)? No doubt there are tradeoffs between judges and juries, I just thought the consensus was "juries are fairer".
The way jury trials are portrayed in American media -selection bias of jurors, prosecutor deciding what evidence and significantly limiting the power of juries - I rather prefer the way it's done in European countries (and in Latin American ones like mine which copy Europe usually).
An example of putting forth a concrete, actionable model and proposing a solution might be (and note that this is only an example):
* jurors are more likely to convict a black defendant than a white defendant
* we believe that jurors see racial disparities in crime committance and project them onto defendants
* to combat this, we might try promoting cultural integration to reduce the racial disparities in crime committance as well as advocating for colorblind antiracism so jurors are less likely to see a defendant as a token of his race
The important thing is that the example (1) puts forth a testable model for how the system works and (2) proposes solutions based on that model. You may find yourself disagreeing with our hypothetical model, and that's fine. Note that you can even debate it because it's testable (you can probably conceive of data which rebut it). This is in contrast to esoteric debates about systemic racism, which seem more religious in nature than useful for combatting unjust disparities.