^* Per 1000 live births plus fetal deaths

⁺ Per 1000 live births

Overall, the black infant mortality rate is about twice the white infant mortality rate. More specifically, black infants are 2.5 times as likely as whites infants to die of pneumonia and influenza; over twice as likely to die of maternal complications of pregnancy, interuterine hypoxia, and birth asphyxia; and 3.5 times as likely to die as a result of short gestation and unspecified low birth weight. Low birth weight infants are 5 times more likely to die during the first year of life than a normal birth weight infant, with black infants being twice as likely to be born with low birth weights. Although the factors leading to low birth weight are not completely understood, it is generally believed that inadequate prenatal care is a primary determinant and that socioeconomic status limits prenatal care, affects nutrition during pregnancy, increases stress, and increases the likelihood of harmful behavior during pregnancy, such as smoking and drug use. The weight of evidence seems to argue that poverty (and therefore race) strongly influence the adequacy of prenatal care, which is a determinant of low birth weight, which in turn is a leading cause of infant mortality.

If we schematize all of this data in the familiar form, we get an awfully powerful prime facie case that something is seriously wrong.

e₁. There is a strong correlation between wealth and poverty, and race.

e₂. There is a strong correlation between health -- infant mortality, morbidity rates, etc. -- and race.

========================================================================

t₀. Blacks are at a distinct disadvantage, both economically and in terms of health, because of their race. Contemporary American society discriminates against blacks; we are a racist nation.

Many of you will be extremely uncomfortable with this diagnosis of the data; you will seek rival explanations. I fear that some will be tempted further down the racist path and suggest that these racial differentials can be explained in terms of worth, ability, and natural physiological differences. I almost hate to put it into words, but one rival explanation to be considered is the following.

t₁. Whites are smarter and more hard working, hence their superior economic success. Whites are also physiologically better off, hence the improved health statistics.

A slightly less offensive rival explanation is very popular in contemporary economics. According this view the individual is seen as a "rational actor." Each person makes individual decisions for him or herself, including decisions to "invest" in one's future occupation though training and education, and one's future health through the consumption medical services and the adoption of a healthy lifestyle and diet. The model of "human capital" sees some of these decisions as rational -- blacks tend to have shorter work lifetimes and earn lower wages, hence there would be less return from investing in job training -- and some of then as culturally based -- diet, for instance.

t₂. Whites have more economic success, and a brighter health picture, because of differing decisions between blacks and whites regarding investments in human capital.

I suspect that the human capital model does get at something interesting. If I knew that I would only earn eighty cents on the dollar compared to a white co-worker, I might we be less inclined to invest in my professional career. But notice that this explanation presupposes a relevant racial difference in our earning potentials. Furthermore, the human capital model can be carried to implausible extremes, as when economists suggest that pregnant woman in the ghetto make "rational" investment decisions in the health of their unborn children.

Thus, I stand by the diagnosis of racism as the best explanation of at least part of the racial differentials in wealth and health. For a nation founded on the principle that "all men are created equal," and a nation whose Consitution guarantees "equal protection of the laws," this is an incredably damning account. One that I would argue we should all be ashamed of.

4. Statistics and the Death Penalty

You will remember that I had started to climb on a soapbox about capital punishment at the end of the last chapter. I claimed that the best constructive interpretation of our nation's abstract intentions with respect to the death penalty was the following.

t₀. Capital punishment may be exercised by Congress or the State, if and only if, (i) there is due process of law, (ii) capital punishment is neither cruel nor unusual, and (iii) capital punishment is administered in a non-discriminatory manner that constitutes equal protection of the laws.

United State Supreme Court

I want now to continue with my case against the death penalty by arguing that the third necessary condition for permissible executions is demonstrably absent. My argument to this effect will depend on the analysis of statistical evidence.

I take it that legal historians would agree with me that capital punishment has in the past been applied in a manner that was clearly discriminatory. We would like to think, however, that we have made some progress in the area of racial justice. That is why the following data is so disappointing.

Professor Baldus examined over twenty-four hundred homicide cases in the state of Georgia during the period between 1974 and 1979. The dates are significant because the Georgia murder stature had been rewritten after Furman v. Georgia in order that death sentences not be administered in a "random and capricious manner." Here's a brief summary of what Professor Baldus discovered.

At some point in this case, Warren McCleskey doubtless asked his lawyer whether the jury was likely to sentence him to die. A candid reply to this question would have to tell McCleskey that few of the details of the crime or of McCleskey's past criminal record were more important than the fact that his victim was white. Furthermore, counsel would feel bound to tell McCleskey that defendants charged with killing white victims in Georgia are 4.3 times as likely to be sentenced to die as defendants charged with kill blacks.

I have discussed the McCleskey case with hundreds of students in the last several years. Many simply refuse to accept the following data.

e₁. When controlled for over two hundred non-racial variables such as the defendant's record and the severity of the crime, the Baldus study concluded that murderers of white victims were 4.3 times as likely to receive the death penalty.

It is, of course, true that life in the ghetto is different than life in the suburbs, and that the black culture is different that the white culture. The shocking figure that over four times as many murderers of whites receive the death penalty takes all of that into account. I know some of you will continue to believe that "statistics always lie." But the very same techniques that tell us that cigarette smoking causes cancer, or that so-and-so will win next month's election, tell us that the connection between race and the death penalty in Georgia is for real. Thus, the question before us is producing an explanation of why this correlation holds.

There is no big mystery about the reason for this disparity. The original study contained the crucial data.

e₂. District attorneys ask for a capital sentence in seventy percent of the cases involving a black defendant and a white victim. When the victim is black and the defendant is white, however, a mere nineteen percent are even prosecuted as capital cases.

Clearly the discretion of local law enforcement officials is the point at which racial attitudes enter the criminal process. Apparently, black on black murders are considered even less important, since the Baldus study showed that the death penalty was requested in only nineteen percent of these cases.

In Furman the Supreme Court was concerned with the arbitary and capricious actions of trial judges, and particularly juries. It appears now, however, that the judgments, both arbitary and prejudical, of other legal officials is even more problematic. I take it to be obvious that the best explanation of the Baldus data is the following.

t₀. The race of the murder victim causally influences the decision whether to seek the death penalty.

Given my earlier interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, this account of the murder statistics in Georgia seem to demand that the Supreme Court declare capital punishment, at least in the state of Georgia, to be unconstitutional.

5.  What's the Best Explanation?

As I hope by this point you are all already thinking, the crucial question is whether t₀ is really the best explanation. I, personally, cannot see anyway in this could be a case of "reverse causation." Thus, I reject any possibility that the following needs to be considered at all.

t₁. The decision to seek the death penalty causes the race of the victim.

I, also, find it pretty hard to explain the Baldus study results as simply a "statistical fluke." Such things are always possible, but modern statistical analysis guarantees us that they are exceedingly unlikely. Consequently, the following is also very low on my plausibility ranking.

t₂. It's just a coincidence that victims' race "correlated" with capital sentences in Georgia.

The only serious competitor I can imagine, therefore, is that there is some unnoticed "common cause" that is independently responsible for both the race of the homicide victims, and the fact that their murderers received the sentences they did. The Baldus team tried to think of some of the possible factors in their original evaluation of the data. That's what they were up to when they performed the statistical tests that "controlled for over two hundred non-racial variables." Even when they did this, it turned out that murderers of white victims were 4.3 times as likely to receive death sentences. Maybe something else is responsible for the correlation, but we have yet to see what it is. Hence, I am willing to take the following seriously as a potential rival explanation.

t₃. Some unidentified non-racial factor is responsible for the correlation of victim race and death sentences.

Since we have yet to even think of what this non-racial factor might be, I admit it's possibility, but rank it significantly lower than the racial explanation in t₀.