Sure. And I’d like to put you in some dark skin, where your daily interactions with shopkeepers depends on their racist preconceptions about you. Something tells me your attitude toward racism would stop being so flip.
This, of course, is why we have the rule of law. An individual, desperate shopkeeper is somewhat likely to ignore good science in favor of catering to his worst fears and prejudices, no matter the nasty effect it has on others. Legal penalties will hopefully blunt this ugly effect, as long as they’re significant.
Incidentally, I wouldn’t be an awned of a store. I’d be the pwner.
The law is not just about science. It’s because even to the extent that the stereotypes do have validity, they’re still harming innocent people. It’s a balance of competing interests.
My family did that for a while, in a predominantly black neighborhood. Seemed like it was the quiet housewife/mother types that you really needed to watch for. Also, the guys who were twitchy and obviously hopped up on drugs. Focusing on every “suspicious”, i.e. young and black, person who came into the store wouldn’t leave you any time to actually run the store.
What’s your point?
Along the same lines, there’s a generation of parents with autistic kids who let their emotions get the better of them about vaccines, despite better available science. They were free to do that, just as everybody else was free to tell them and the rest of the world what idiots they were for ignoring good science to follow their guts.
It may feel cathartic to give your prejudices free rein, but it’s not economically efficient and has poor consequences for society. It’s one thing to defend it as being cathartic for the owners to give in to their prejudices, which is a purely emotional defense. It’s another to defend it as economically or socially justified, where the case isn’t made at all.
Well, sure. But in this case, the interests actually aren’t all that competing: good science and good public policy are working together here. The only thing that competes with them is anecdotal observation and racist stereotypes.
When I was young, about 100% of the shoplifters we caught were black. But our store was in the south bronx where about 100% of the population was black. Then we opened a store in a Peurto Rican neighborhood in Brooklyn and lo and behold, almost all the shoplifters were Peurto Rican. Then we opened a store in a white neighborhood where almost all the shoplifters were white. There were a couple of differences, there was more shoplifting in the poorer black and Peurto Rican neighborhoods so we were more diligent about watching our customers. I imagine we would have exercised similar scrutiny if we had a store in an Irish neighborhood at the turn of the century. Poor kids shoplift a lot more than kids with parents that can afford to buy them impulse purchases, there’s probably a study out there saying its genetic.
Question is what if most of the poorer people are of one ethnic group and most of the richer people of another, but it’s easier to identify ethnic groups than to identify wealth.
Isn’t the more relevant question (in a real world sense) what you are going to do AFTER you catch someone shoplifting, and whether your methods of catching and deterring theft are effective? What is your actual shrinkage? Can you fully eliminate or account for loss due to employee theft? How much do you plan to spend to prevent theft relative to your losses? Do you plan to detain thieves that you have caught? Are you going to have them arrested and charged? Are you going to show up to court if need be? Are you going to be covered if some employee gets hurt trying to stop a thief? Can you rearrange your store to prevent shoplifting or eliminate areas where theft could occur?
All of these things are questions that need to be answered before you get to, “should I give extra scrutiny to Black youths” (you probably shouldn’t for a variety of reasons). I get the desire to want to catch shoplifters and murder them (figuratively), but any well run business should primarily be focused on making money, not taking personal stances that hurt their bottom line and are both unwise and possibly illegal.
My point is that some whose livelihood is dependent upon a deli or bodega doesn’t really have the luxury to be racist when it comes to preventing theft, or who his customers are. You have money to spend? Please, by all means come spend it here, whether you’r black, white, brown or polka dot. And if shoplifting is a problem, he’s going to be able to figure out, over time, who is settling from him. If he notices a pattern—whatever it is—that helps him watch a group more closely, that helps him, if he’s right. If he’s wrong, it hurts him. And he’ll constantly readjust his theories.
This is a nice theory, contradicted only by the evidence that millions of shopkeepers have maintained racism in spite of its deleterious effects on their business, and that people are poor anecdotal judges of who’s really ripping them off.
The data you’re using s=does not mean that every single store owner is guilty of the errors in judgment you suggest. You’re insisting so is as absurd as someone concluding that all black teens are shoplifters.
Well then I suppose you should use the method that we ended up using in the white neighborhood. You judge people based on behaviour, dress and age/gender. But to be honest, you probably end up profiling a lot.
Preventing shoplifting in a poor neighborhood IS about protecting your bottom line. Shrinkage is enormous in poor neighborhoods and keeping a watchful eye allows you to maintain lower prices for everyone else. You basically end up watching pretty much everyone that walks through the door.
But that is not what was suggested. It was basically, “should I watch young Black kids”, which is likely not going to work out as a net positive for a number or reasons. My point was that there are a dozen other questions you should be answering and addressing first before you even consider having a discriminating profiling policy as a means of theft prevention. I am not saying shoplifting doesn’t hurt the bottom line, I am saying it usually a drop in the bucket for a store that has addressed shrinkage in a general sense.