Last month, the Toronto Star, a high-profile mainstream newspaper, published the results of a study they had done which showed that the Metro Toronto Police are guilty of ‘racial profiling.’ I am trying to find an article to link to, but there has been so much discussion about it that there isn’t one that will really tell the whole story. Here is a good place to start, and this is the article that started the whole affair.
Background: the Star, uses the police’s own data to show evidence of racial profiling. Their initial article (linked above) suggests that:
The debate is raging on in Toronto. The response from the police, to black community groups who want to work with them to address the problem as well as to the media, has so far been to deny that racial profiling exists on the force. They deny that they have a ‘policy’ of racial profiling and blame it on a few ‘bad apples.’
So what do y’all think? I’m not assuming the problem is unique to Toronto, they have named several US and Canadian cities that have faced the same debate.
Does your experience reflect any validity to the accusation of racial profiling? Is it systemic or the fault of a few “bad apples”? Is it the same in other cities? What can be done about it?
Racial profiling is an ingrained part of almost all law enforcement agencies in the US and Canada.
It is a rather simple cycle of ignorance and institutional racism.
Basically, law enforcement officers use biased statistics (that were created by racist cops/officials to begin with) in order to justify their profiling. In other words, police like to say that they pull over and harass young black males more often because the statistics “prove” that young black males are more often than not “criminals.”
It is built into the law enforcement institutions, so totally fair and balanced police officers act in a racist fashion without intending to consciously. It is a sick a viscous cycle of hate and finger pointing.
My favourite part of the whole thing was at a meeting last week, when the police chief had agreed to meet with community groups to discuss what could be done about it, and then hijacked the meeting to tell his captive audience why racial profiling doesn’t exist. There was a wonderful picture of some very dubious black people listening to his ‘presentation’, which was a neat contrast to all the pictures they’ve shown of white men insisting there’s no problem.
But does this report assume that the rate of actual crime amongst blacks and whites should be equal? For example:
This may be the result of police racial bias… or it could be the result of more black drivers committing violations of this type – brake light out, registration not paid, etc – than whites, and thus more tickets for such things getting written for blacks.
Where is the data that refutes this interpretation?
This is a logical question, but it relies on the assumption that black people are more apt to crime…which is definitely not true.
Consider this anecdote. I have driven down certain streets in Montreal hundreds (if not thousands) of times without ever being pulled over. The one time I sit in the passenger seat of my friend’s car, who is black, (along with another black friend in the back), we are pulled over by the first policeman we see just to check the paperwork. Coincidence…I think not.
Look, while I agree that there’s nothing inherent in black people that makes them more criminally inclined, I don’t agree that we can say that in Toronto, in 2003, that means the distribution of criminal tendencies is equal amongst blacks and whites.
For example, I might contend that poverty is a predictive measure for criminal tendencies - especially when “crime” in this discussion includes things like invalid registration or inspection stickers, which are more likely to be found among people that can’t afford to pay for them.
If I can show that more blacks than whites are near or below the poverty line, then would it be a surprising jump to learn that more blacks than whites were guilty of crimes?
Look, while I agree that there’s nothing inherent in black people that makes them more criminally inclined, I don’t agree that we can say that in Toronto, in 2003, that means the distribution of criminal tendencies is equal amongst blacks and whites.
For example, I might contend that poverty is a predictive measure for criminal tendencies - especially when “crime” in this discussion includes things like invalid registration or inspection stickers, which are more likely to be found among people that can’t afford to pay for them.
If I can show that more blacks than whites are near or below the poverty line, then would it be a surprising jump to learn that more blacks than whites were guilty of crimes?
It wouldn’t be surprising, but that’s not the issue here. If more blacks than whites are pulled over for “paperwork checks”, and police officers use those kinds of stops to hunt for different kind of infractions, then it stands to reason that blacks will be snagged more often than whites for violations that otherwise would have gone undetected. Does this mean that blacks are more criminal than whites? Or does this suggest that blacks are more likely to be caught than whites?
The problem with racial profiling is that it eventually justifies itself (just like American slavery did). Racial prejudice encourages extra scrutiny of blacks while turning a blind eye to the actions of whites. Because blacks are then seen committing more crimes than whites, they look more criminal. And because they look more criminal, they are profiled. So the justification is rather circular and flawed.
If you’re going to profile racially, perhaps you should go all the way. I’m reminded of a Micheal Moore film (might have been Bowling for Columbine), where IIRC he asks someone affiliated with Fox Broadcasting why so many of the people arrested on COPS are black. He then suggests a camera crew follow the arrest of white-collar criminals, which is countered with the fact that most businessmen don’t run, so it’s boring.
There followed a hilarious bit with Micheal Moore as a cop chasing down this white guy with the suit, haircut, briefcase etc. Guy tosses cell-phone at Micheal, and it end with the COPS standard toss against a cyclone fence and ripped shirt.
Anyway, the point was that white guys are responsible almost all corporate crime and get treated way nicer.
Perhaps police should start pulling people over for improptu audits? “Are you carrying any securities not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission?” “Why, uh, no officer, just some ah, regular corporate bonds, heh heh heh.” “Step out of the limousine please”
True - but that’s not the fact in evidence. I don’t see evidence that more blacks than whites are initially pulled over. The quote I pulled was: “It also shows a disproportionate number of black motorists are ticketed for violations that only surface after a traffic stop.”
I interpret that to mean that AFTER a traffic stop, more blacks are ultimately ticketed than whites - the disproportionality, in other words, refers to the tickets issued after the stop, not the number of stops.
There are two interpretations: that officers are using their discretion to ignore violations by whites that would earn blacks a ticket, OR that blacks simply commit more such violations and are thus properly ticketed disproportionately.
Where is the evidence that shows which of these views is accurate?
Great! Since we’ve agreed to accept my common sense as the authority for this argument, I can now report the following: blacks in Toronto are more likely to commit the sort of crimes under discussion here, because of the pervasive poverty affecting the black community. The disproportionate numbers of blacks ticketed after a traffic stop are not an example of racial profiling, but a natural result of the fact that more blacks commit ticketable offenses.
Or… did you want pick another source of evidence?
I’m perfectly happy with using my common sense, and eagerly await the next set of facts that require explanation… but perhaps you’d like to change your mind on that plan.
Bricker, let me ask you a slightly different question. Let’s say for argument’s sake that you’re right, blacks commit more street crimes than whites. Now. Does this justify the experience of many black men in Toronto, who are not responsible for any crimes against anyone, of being targeted by police? Of routinely being pulled over while driving? Of being stopped while walking down the street, strip-searched and thrown in jail while your white counterparts are not, for the same minor crime?
And, again assuming that blacks do commit more crimes than whites, do you think this would at all be affected by the fact that they are treated like criminals by police (and by much of society) for their entire lives? Is this a productive way to run a society?
I am pretty sure I will get reemed for this comment…
Since statistically more blacks commit crimes than whites, there is racial profiling, perhaps blacks should stop committing crimes and the profiling would stop?
In my view, no person should be targeted by police, except upon a reasonable, articulable suspicion of wrongdoing, and no person should be arrested without probable cause to believe a crime was committed. I have no idea what the law in Toronto is, of course, but that’s the standard I would support.
And I absolutely believe that race is a particularly invidious basis upon which to exercise law enforcement discretion – that is, confronted by two suspects guilty of the same offense, the police should not choose to let one go and vigorously prosecute the other based on race.
No. I believe that if blacks do commit more crimes than whites, it’s only in areas in which the majority of poor inhabitants are blacks, and the cause is neither “being treated like criminals” nor being black, but rather a response to pervasive poverty. And I believe this is borne out by crime rates among whites in similarly poor areas, which are consistent with those of blacks in poor areas. Middle- and upper-income blacks are no more prone to crime than middle- and upper-income persons of other skin colors.
But none of what I believe is at issue here. The OP quotes the Toronto Star’s study in an effort to show that the police use racial profiling - that is, that they make invidious distinctions based on race. I’m asking what, specifically, the evidence is for that claim, and pointing out that merely because more blacks are ticketed after a traffic stop is insufficient evidence to conclude that the cause is racial distinctions made by the police.
You keep asking for specific evidence to support racial profiling. That’s what’s so insidious about it: you can’t prove it with specific evidence, because the police don’t reliably keep statistics on race. Also the nature of incidents of racial profiling is very power imbalanced: the people who would know the most about it have very little opportunity to participate in the discussion. Just because there is no proof which accords to rigorous principles of scientific inquiry, the thing does not exist? Even if it is supported by many other kinds of ‘proof’? This is the kind of discussion which I believes completely hijacks (both in this thread and in the Toronto Star vs Police Board) meaningful discussion on how to improve relations between the cops and black people.
When black people feel targetted because of their race, that is a problem. As long as ‘driving while black’ is a crime, it will be a problem. The first step in resolving a conflict is to acknowledge the other side’s point of view: the Toronto Police refuse to do this and until they do they will look like assholes to the black people who know, in a different way than even the Toronto Star does, that racial profiling exists.
Your post offers examples of two logical fallacies: the argumentum ad ignorantiam and the argumentum ad numerum. If you wish to prove a proposition, you must present evidence that supports it; it’s insufficient to suggest that “Just because there is no proof which accords to rigorous principles…” it must still exist. On the contrary, if there’s no proof, that’s good reason to suspect it doesn’t exist.
By the same token, the mere fact that many believe racial profiling exists is not proof that it does.
If you wish to be convincing, then yes - you need evidence. That’s the way you advance and support a proposition.
