Column on Gascón’s policies demonstrates the impact of implicit bias

If you read Eric Siddall's August 11 column ("DA Gascón's Ideology Is Not Making Us Any Safer"), paid close attention to what he was saying, how he was saying it, and did not allow yourself to get emotionally triggered, you would have noticed that throughout his article, whenever he referred to the "tough on crime policies" for which he is advocating, he used words such as "suggests," "likely," and "may have." He acknowledges throughout his article that the reduction of crime rates may or may not be related to such "tough on crime policies." In the recently published book, "Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment," the authors, Daniel Kahneman, Cass Sunstein and Olivier Sibony, state, "[R]emember the often-repeated warning that 'correlation does not imply causation.'"

However, when Siddall refers to Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón and members of the California Legislature who are or are attempting to change or eliminate certain "tough on crime policies," he refers to those exact same policies as if a causal link has been established.

He referred to the members of the California Legislature who recently "put a stop" to efforts to repeal the "10-20-life -- use a gun and you're done" law as "sensible." Meanwhile, such laws were specifically addressed in "Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment" and used as examples of rigid rules designed to reduce or eliminate discretion which have resulted in such injustice that prosecutors have exercised discretion "underground." They state, "With the three-strikes policy, the frequent response of prosecutors -- to avoid making a felony charge against people who have been convicted twice -- was extremely difficult to control and even see." They then go on to state that the exercise of such "underground" discretion "might be a clue [that] the rules should be revised."

Meanwhile, Siddall admits that the "tough on crime" laws have "some flaws" and "unintended consequences."

The fact that, after three decades on the books, such "tough on crime" laws have not yet been proven to have been responsible for the reduction in crime rates means that no such causal relationship was established before the laws were enacted. He speaks about "uncritical retreat," "willful ignorance," "ideology rather than evidence," and "reckless social experiments" when it involves attempting to change or eliminate certain such policies. However, he does not consider them to have been "reckless social experiments" when they were enacted or in keeping them on the books after many decades with no proof of anything more than a correlation without a causal link.

He then goes on to state that with crime rates increasing, now is not the right time to change such policies. When, if ever, would be the right time in Siddall's world, considering that he is "assuming facts not in evidence" and making so many other conclusory statements despite a lack of supporting evidence?

Untested assumptions are unchecked biases. The thing about unchecked biases is that they cause people to constrict and distort the information they receive and consider, which impairs people's thinking. Politics aside, Siddall exposed many of his unchecked biases for all to see by just looking at what he said and how he said it in his article. I am not even going to get into his labeling people "progressophobists," when it is plain as day that Siddall fears change, even if the policies subject to change have not proven effective and come with flaws and unintended consequences. I am not a licensed mental health professional; however, it seems to me that Siddall is engaging in a great deal of projection. And, contrary to Siddall's contentions, there is research to back up much of Gascón's agenda. The problem is that his unchecked biases are preventing him from receiving, understanding and considering that information.

What Siddall has demonstrated in his article is the impact of implicit bias.

-- Mark B. Baer

Pasadena