kniz…actually there have been a couple of black serial killers their names escape me right now but you can read about them at http://www.crimelibrary.com
One was operating out on the west coast in Oregon or Washington State. I believe that A & E produced a story about him for their City Confidental series. Then there was the guy from either Philly or Pittsburg. He had bodies stuffed into the closets of his messy house. Check out crimelibrary it’s a very interesting comprehensive site. There are also articles about different types of forensics, criminal behavior, and even short story crime fiction.
Of course this thread is not about actually looking for real suspects. The problem with racial profiling is that it is an invasion of privacy that does not require an actual violation of the law.
Statistics do not show this. Statistics show that the numbers of minorities arrested for crimes is higher than that for non-minorities. When statistics are kept for who actually breaks the law, then things breakdown pretty much consistantly with the ratio of minorities to whites.
Procacious in addition to Biggirls point, yes, a single cop is justified in pulling over any individual speeder. However, once he singles out one classification of speeder to focus his attention on (and hence ignoring the other 90% speeders passing by), his actions are wrong. We have a right in this country to equal protection under the law, correct?
And, the bottom line to racial profiling at all is to subject certain citizens to a more scrutiny than others, without a basis in fact, something the FF found to be abhorant. For example, in order to search your house, car etc, the police must first : 1. have evidence that a crime has been committed, 2. have evidence that you personally probably were responsible or involved, and 3 that additional evidence of that crime would be apparent upon the search.
In racial profiling, the police officer would detain a person despite 1. No specific crime having been committed, and 2, No specific knowledge that the individual detained in any way was connected to criminal behavior.
We went throught this on another thread but here are the numbers again. For violent crime 40% of criminals arrested were black. 50% of all reported violent crimes ended in arrest. So even if you believe that all of the violent crimes in the country that were not solved were committed by white people that leaves 20% of violent crime committed by blacks. The percentage of black people in this country is 12%. 20% is bigger than 12% therefore black people commit more violent crime per capita than white people do.
What you are saying here is that the police should have the right to selectively enforce the law. Everybody speeds, but the cops only pull over blacks. Under what theory of justice is that acceptable?
Lemme give you a hypothetical. Jaywalking is a crime. Everybody jaywalks. There are two possible punishments under the law for jaywalking - a $25 fine or a day in jail. The Traffic Court judge hears these cases, and uniformly imposes the fine on whites and the jail time on blacks. The judge is perfectly within the law, but is that right in your opinion?
Have you read, or heard of, the Bill of Rights? Efficiency in criminal justice is subordinated to the rights of the accused, and the rights of all of us not to be accused. I’m sure it would be very efficient to beat a confession out of someone - saves on court time, etc.
If you choose to walk around with purple hair, and some people look at you weird, or refuse to hire you, fine. However, police officers, who are representatives of the state, with the power and violence of the state behind them, must accord to a higher standard. To exercise your personal prejudices while acting in your capacity as a representative of the law is known as abuse of authority.
You do realize that that is a disgusting sentiment? It’s not a “noble ideal” not to discriminate based on innate differences. It’s called “being a good person.”
puddleglum stats on violent crime relate to profiling…how? Racial profiling for traffic stops have never been purported to be done so that the cops can arrest folks who’ve done violent crimes. the two are unrelated.
You’re also forgetting the most important word - “reported” crime. It isn’t a crime if the cops don’t report it as such.
Every time you’ve come into these, you’ve reported on the narrow band of violent crime stats as if they have more to do with the subject at hand. I’m wondering why. Looking at stats on violent crime only will give you exactly zero information on the predictability of a single individual’s criminal history.
Blacks commit disproportionately more crimes, including violent crimes and drug-dealing.
In most cases, the crime victim is of the same race as the perpetrator.
Racial profiling has significant value in fighting crime.
The furor over racial profiling is causing police to be less agressive, particularly in targeting Blacks.
It follows that RP significantly helps to reduce Black on Black crime. IMHO the practice should be stopped and will be stopped. Nevertheless, we ought to be realistic about the consequences.
An unintended result of ending RP will be more violence against Blacks and more drug-related deaths to Black children. IMHO these two effects may be substantial. I’m not happy with this conclusion. Perhaps there are other crime-fighting methods that could supplement the lack of RP…
I present my statistics to show that criminality is not evenly divided amoung the races in this country. Therefore in order to prove that police are disproportionately targeting minorities it is not enough to show that certain groups are stopped more than their proportion to the overall population. You must show that police target the group more than proportion of the people who are engaged in the targeted crime.
For example, police are targeting drug runners along a particular highway. If whites make up 75% of the drivers but only 50% of the drug runners then it would follow if police pull over 50% blacks they are not engaged in racial profiling even though the percentage of black people pulled over is twice that of their percentage of drivers generally.
It would be very difficult to find out precisely what the racial makeup of the criminal population is aside from arrest and prison numbers, but I would be willing to bet that those who know criminals best are those who spend every day dealing with the criminals, the police.
Nope, can’t agree on this for we have the issues above which I raise. The problem is race and the degree to which in American society, among others, it becomes a causal explanation based around the fallacy of composition.
I can’t agree or disagree insofar as I no longer live in the USA, however my immediate observation is that if the police are forced to step beyond a fallacy of composition and treat black crime as white crime, that is to look beyond skin color in identification of suspects, then this is likely to be a good thing promoting better, more accurate police work.
The above * may or may not* hold for other issues, such as INS work of course, which is a different nature.
Indeed, and clearheaded at the same time.
Perhaps, or a result might be rapprochement between police and the community as well as the adoption of more rigorous and less alienating policing habits which do not treat the community itself as the enemy.
I’ve said it once, I suspect I will say it a thousand more times, poor categorization and lack of critical examination of one’s data and categories are one of the most significant barriers to clear, accurate analysis. While it may be that some kinds of profiling may be necessary and useful, profiles such as “race” clearly are highly likely to be too broad and ultimately counter- productive. Above all given the context of racial prejudice in the USA — which frankly I think shows in some of the breezy justifications here.
I would agree with points 1 and 2. I would say that point three is not proven. point 4 seems to be true for those crimes that are reported and solved, and have a victim identified, point 5 I most sincerly do **not ** agree with. Point 6, I’m not certain that effect has been seen - it’s perhaps less overt.
We know that blacks are disproportionately convicted for some crimes, but that information cannot be used to assume the characteristics of unreported or unsolved crimes. Again, this focus on violent crime concerns me. IME, much of the violent crime is personal vs. systematic - a shoplifter will cause more crime as a raw number, than some one who assaults his girlfriend. Is the assaultive thing something he should be punished for and we need to be concerned about, yes, but it doesn’t really allow us to predict that his criminal behavior will spill into other areas.
And, as far as the drug convictions are concerned, IME, the arrests/convictions etc are heavily skewed in favor of urban dwellers, who are often minorities (for example, the emphasis on crack cocaine vs. other forms of cocaine). And, in those cases, the concept of ‘victim’ is the more generalized “society is hurt, your family is hurt” then the concept of victim in relation to either property or assaultive crimes.
You seem to be heading for a place that will let you say with all sincerity ‘racial profiling is actually good for the minority population because it scours out those who are offenders who would be more likely to harm y’all, so we’re really doing this for your own good’.
Pretty scarey place. REmember, racial profiling is not done as a response to a specific crime. That would be called ‘an investigation’. racial profiling is done for stop and searches, where no specific crime is being investigated. What it will do is locate and identify persons who may be in violation of a law, who otherwise wouldn’t be identified.
Yes, if you do crime you’re more at risk to be convicted. However, if the police are allowed to pointedly screen certain classifications of persons for this closer attention, it will of course follow that more of that group than others will be identified as criminals.
One other point - before the term ‘racial profiling’ occured do ya think perhaps that cops did it anyhow? nahhhhhhh. Do ya think, perhaps, that might account for the higher percentages of minorities with convictions? nahhhhh.
Consider: we do not know how many or in what percentage that any group/sub group actually commits crimes. (I personally know quite a few who did criminal behavior and were never caught). But if the police, in their zeal, look closer at one sub group of persons than others, why should it be surprising that you’d find more of them in the convicted pile? And then of course, we’d end up with the stats that ‘prove’ the point.
(this last goes to **puddleglums ** post as well. The do not see all. You fail to answer my objections to the stats you submit - why the focus on violent crime? for example - you mention ‘targeted crime’. what are you talking about? profiling is applied when no crime is known therefore none can be ‘targeted’. If they’re investigating a specific crime thats different, but to just randomly stop people on the street is not ‘targeting crime’)
Maybe, but a recent review by the CHP, also showed significant targeting of Latinos.
Prove it.
As with most crimes, point?
Wrong.
Where on earth are you getting this idea?
How you made this incredible leap in logic astounds me. Care to back it up with a cite?
I can’t find the words to combat this drivel. Care to back up any of that with something resembling a fact? Oh say drug related death statistic, those among blacks, that blacks arrested are primarily for violent crime, something?
I focused on violent crime because it has higher clearance levels than other types and thus the numbers can be better extrapolated to include the unsolved cases. Police who engage in racial profiling are targeting a specific type of crime, if they were not then a profile would have no basis.
And latinos and, in the case of US Customs, women.
No they do not. When studies actually look at the commission of crimes, they find that it breaks down socio-ecomomically and not by race. When looking at arrests and convictions, then yes, more blacks are arrested and convicted of these crimes. However, if one cared to follow the links I provided, it is easy to how how minorities -blacks in particular- are over represented in arrests and convictions. Blacks do not use or traffick drugs any more than any other race. If you have proof otherwise, please present it.
Yes.
Please explain this further. How is concentrating all your efforts onto one race or gender a significant value? Especially since, even using the scewered arrest records, 60% of violent crime is committed by white people?
Is the Evening News blocked in your area?
Racial profiling is based on a fallacy that RP’ing perpetuates. Minorities commit more crimes than non-minorities. This is not true in absolute numbers and has yet to be proven (although it is certainly taken for fact) that this is true proportionatly.
Stuffinb – You got it right when you said my points wouldn’t engender agreement. You asked me to PROVE IT, when I wrote"
**
**
Statistics have been provided earlier on this thread.
**
As with most crimes, point?**
The point is that the big majority of Blacks, who are law-abiding citizens, are in especial need of effective law enforcement.
**
Wrong. **
I don’t know of any scientifc, statistical studies one way or the other. However, the fact that law enforcement experts use this technique suggests that they think is effective. They know better than I do.
**
Where on earth are you getting this idea?**
This is common sense. If you’re a policeman and you stop a Black driver, you now have the risk of being accused of racism added to the usual risk that the driver may attack you. Who needs it? I’ve also seen statistics that show reduced police activity after the flap in NJ, but do not have a conevenient cite.
**
How you made this incredible leap in logic astounds me. Care to back it up with a cite? **
If you accept the points above, this conclusion follows logically.
**
I can’t find the words to combat this drivel. Care to back up any of that with something resembling a fact? Oh say drug related death statistic, those among blacks, that blacks arrested are primarily for violent crime, something? **
Calling something “drivel” isn’t an effective refutation.
**Wring wrote: "You seem to be heading for a place that will let you say with all sincerity ‘racial profiling is actually good for the minority population because it scours out those who are offenders who would be more likely to harm *y’all[/], so we’re really doing this for your own good’.
Pretty scarey place. **
I agree that it is indeed scary. But, one should have the courage and integrity to admit that sometimes behavior may be immoral and un-Constiotutional, but it may nevertheless benefit certain people in certain situations. (E.g., there are well-intentioned people who sincerely believe that un-Constitutional gun control has value in certain situations.)
I italicized certain words in your first paragraph to emphasize the error of lumping a group of people together just because they have the same race. RP is bad for drug smugglers who get caught. It’s good for a 12-year old child who’s saved from drug addiction or from being shot. (Of course, it’s automatically bad for all of society, because it’s racist.)
Was it “bad for the Jews” when Michael Milken was caught and convicted? NO, it was good for the honest ones.
wring wrote: "One other point - before the term ‘racial profiling’ occured do ya think perhaps that cops did it anyhow? nahhhhhhh. Do ya think, perhaps, that might account for the higher percentages of minorities with convictions? nahhhhh."
I wish you were right. Wouldn’t it be convenient if ending the disgusting practice of RP also brought the Black crime rate way down. However, it’s striking that despite Orientalism and widespread prejudice against Asian-Americans (including putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps), this group has a lower than average crime rate. The causes of crime go far beyond poice racism.
** Collounsbury wrote: "quote:
Blacks commit disproportionately more crimes, including violent crimes and drug-dealing.
Categories of analysis, why is it the fallacy of composition is so very popular? Sloppy analytics leads to sloppy conclusions.
Question, should one not think of economics? Or rather expose the fallacy of composition.
All his points are reasonable IMHO, but they don’t refute what I said. When one combines my point with the fact that most Black crime is committed against other Blacks, logic demonstrates that Blacks have a particular need for effective law enforcement.
** C’bury wrote, “Perhaps, or a result might be rapprochement between police and the community as well as the adoption of more rigorous and less alienating policing habits which do not treat the community itself as the enemy.”**
I don’t believe that the police and the inner city treat each other as enemies. E.g., in most of the 15 Cincinnati shooting cases, the police had been called in by local Black residents for protection against a violent Black criminal. However, the political ruckus being raised today by politicizing these incidents might contribute to greater alienation.
Your idea that rapprochment will reduce crime is reminiscent of wring’s point. I hope you’re correct. However, the evidence says that inner city crime wasn’t caused by bad police habits, so it won’t be cured by improved police habits (although better police habits are very desiriable for a number of other reasons, as you say.)
well you would be wrong to do so. The reason that violent crime has a larger clearance rate is obvious, I would think. HOwever, you cannot extrapolate from violent crime stats any relevant data regarding other crime at all.
For example, you’ll often find wide variences in violent crime due to unusual events (Oklahoma City for example had a large increase in homicide the year of the bombing).
With violent crime you have wide varience on reporting stats (some figure quite a few sexual assaults go unreported), certainly you’d have the cases where a domestic assault did not end up with criminal charges (still happens - remember Jeffrey Dahmer? - one of his victims managed to get away temporarily, the cops decided that it was a ‘domestic squabble’ despite the victims nudity and distress, and left, so that Dahmer was able to kill the kid)
With violent crime you often have situations where the victim knows and can identify the criminal (hence part of the reason for the high solve rate).
And to use that data as a justification for racial profiling for stops and searches is ludicrous. I’m certain that you’re not attempting to say that during routine stops, the police are able to find evidence linking the folks they’ve stopped to assaults etc?
Your last statement:
care to elaborate/back that up? racial profiling, ASAIK, (and as it’s being discussed here) is where the police, while driving around selectively choose to stop/question/search persons/cars etc. based on the racial characteristics of those involved.
If there is a specific crime being investigated, then that’s an investigation. As in “frankie claims to have been robbed by a white guy in his mid 20’s”, the cops perhaps would be justified in stopping and questioning a white guy in his mid 20’s that was in the area - however, that’s not called profiling.
No they do not. When studies actually look at the commission of crimes, they find that it breaks down socio-ecomomically and not by race. When looking at arrests and convictions, then yes, more blacks are arrested and convicted of these crimes. However, if one cared to follow the links I provided, it is easy to how how minorities -blacks in particular- are over represented in arrests and convictions. Blacks do not use or traffick drugs any more than any other race. If you have proof otherwise, please present it.
BG – Thank you for the sources. If you’re correct and Blacks do NOT have higher rates for certain crimes, then I apologize.
I was struck by the following quote from your cited article in the Advertiser-Tribune,
[quote]
Numbers concerning trafficking in drugs consider “hit rates,” the percentages at which law enforcement finds contraband on the people they stop and search. Broken down by race, records kept on 1,200 stops and searches in Maryland showed that there was no statistical difference in the contraband found on the people; they were both 28 percent.
[quote]
The 28% rate seems very high, which is good. Whatever bases the police were using to stop cars must have had fairly good predictive value.
The rate of contraband was the same for Blacks and Whites, even though a higher percentage of Blacks may have been stopped. So, a Black or a White driver who was stopped had the same 72% chance of not carrying contraband. This is a kind of equality.
december the ‘stats’ that you base your whole arguement on have been shown to be biased, unrepresentative, and flawed. Your point about Asian crime vs. black crime - the percentage of Asian Americans has always been very low when compared to the country as a whole. whenever your select group is a statistically low number in the first place, any extrapolations you make will be suspect because of the small sampling. You know this- you work with stats.
You assume that police use racial profiling because it’s an ‘effective tool’? nope. It’s a convenient one. It allows them to show lots of arrests and convictions, without the trouble of investigating crime reports. Think about it. You stop a car, based on a profile, search, and find drugs. Wow. You’ve just gotten a perfect solve rate for an unreported crime. That’s what profiling does. It won’t, of course, find the other 40 folks who had drugs in their cars who didn’t fit the profile.
The reason I said “pretty scarey place” is cause what you’re attempting to do is to claim that by hyper-scrutiny of blacks, the police will be able to find, identify, try and convict large numbers of them, and they should feel that this is being done to protect them? It’s taking large quantities of them and incarcerating them, causing more and more of their children to be raised motherless or fatherless or both, subjecting them to the inhumanities of a prison cell, all 'cause it’s convenient for the police to stop and search all blacks.
The problem is that (other than unconstitutionality, immoral, repugnacy etc.), what in the world makes you think that if the police performed the same level of scrutiny on whites the results wouldn’t be the same for whites? Remember, with profiling, they’re not investigating reported crimes, they’re finding unreported, unnoticed crimes.
According to BG’s stats, Maryland police are finding the same results for those Blacks and those Whites whom they stop – 28%. This is a high ratio. I sure wouldn’t know how to pick out 1000 suspicious drivers so that 280 were actually carrying drugs. It seems that the MD police must be using characteristics in addition to race, which are leading to fairly accurate predictions.
This leads to a question: as we prohibit racial profiling, should we still permit other types of profiling? Whether we should or not, WILL we permit other types of profiling?
Note that these stops have not only led to the arrest of numerous criminals, they also may deter crime. (Or, at least, they might help persuade drug dealers to do their evil somewhere else.)
Nice thought but hardly true. Please consider the whole picture. we have finite amount of police resources. Would you really rather have them spend hours stopping cars at random to discover 20% could be charged with crimes that otherwise wouldn’t have been known or… have them investigate actual crimes that have been committed, perhaps patrol areas more frequently etc.?
Wring – they’re NOT “stopping cars at random.” They have some algorithm, which is impressively accurate. It leads to 28% (not 20%) with illegal drugs. This is highly efficient. They can arrest a large number of criminals in a single day and probably convict most of them. And, they’re out on the road, so they’re patrolling for other crimes at the same time.
I’m mystified at your distinction between “crimes that otherwise wouldn’t be known” vs. “actual crimes.” Would secretly killing someone not be an actual crime, as long as nobody ever found out that murder had been committed?
In the case at hand, the couriers might be delivering harmful drugs destined to turn our children into addicts. This is “actual crime” in my book. Big time!