Should the media report race when describing criminal suspects?

One of our local newspapers has implemented a policy that prohibits mention of race when issuing a description of a criminal suspect. So, an item in it might read, The suspect is described as male, 5’ 8", about 160 lbs, with short black hair, last seen wearing a blue baseball cap". Another paper, describing the same individual would report "The suspect is described as a black male, 5’ 8", about 160 lbs, with short black hair, last seen wearing a blue baseball cap".

Is either paper correct in its approach?

Deliberately leaving out facts that, if given, can lead to a suspect’s arrest? Sounds pretty damn stupid to me.

The purpose of providing a suspect’s features is to narrow down the list of potential suspects… if an area has, say, a population that’s 10% black, saying that a suspect is “black” suddenly eliminates 90% of the population, making a search that much easier. Doing otherwise is like rewarding a criminal for being of a minority race. “Hey, you’re Mexican, so we’re going to make it harder to find you.”

Personally it seems silly, doesn’t it?? You’re reporting * facts, * right? If I’ve committed a crime, oh, what would an old woman do? Okay, I’ve forgotten to bring back my library books and returned them to Blockbuster instead. The report ought to include any salient fact of my appearance in order to both alert the ** helpless public ** of my being on the rampage (so they can hide their own books) and make the authorities aware of the old, white woman with blonde hair, penchant for wearing black, usually sporting a knee wrap, also seen wearing white New Balance tennis shoes.

Somebody could say 1) in whose opinion was he “black”? What are the criteria for such a designation, and 2) by describing him as “black” you may be unfairly impugning the large, large majority of black people who are not suspects (and certainly not criminals).

Please tell me you are joking.

Well…first off, in the case of searching for suspects, if he looks black, he’s black. If he looks white, he’s white. It’s not rocket science here. There’s nothing wrong with being black, there’s nothing wrong with being white, yadda yadda yadda it’s a small small world…Has political correctness really gone this far? I consider myself to be something of a bleeding heart liberal (well, maybe not bleeding heart, but whatever) and this is the most ridiculous idea I’ve ever heard.
By your logic, we should eliminate gender, as well. By declaring the suspect to be “male” you may be unfairly impugning the large, large majority of males who are not suspects (and certainly not criminals).

Personally I think that if the race is obvious you would be doing a disservice by not telling it as you saw it.

Gosh, you leave out one fact, you’d have 25+ guys called in for acting suspicious, and none of them would be your bad guy. If you want any chance of catching him, you report everything. Otherwise, why bother?

OK, here’s a Canadian perspective. I was pretty young at the time, but my dad the journalist covered this story pretty assiduously, so I remember a lot of the salient points. Some time a few dozen years ago, a guy in Winnipeg committed a crime (I forget what it was.) A call went out on the police scanner advising the cops to be on the lookout for an Indian man, such and such a height, etc.

Constable Robert Cross was looking out for this guy. As he was motoring along, he spied an Indian man. He got out of the car. A scuffle ensued and Constable Cross ended up shooting the young man (J.J. Harper, a First Nations activist) to death.

The government of Manitoba eventually called the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry to deal with this and another case, to determine how First Peoples are treated in the justice system. One of its recmmendations was that police end the practice of naming race as the first thing on their reports. They determined that it was a major factor in Cross’s decision to flag down Harper - he basically had no reason to suspect him other than the fact that he was First Nations.

It was an extremely important finding in the history of European-Canadian dealings with First Peoples.

No particular point of view here; just a report.

What is so wrong with stating that the man or woman was black, white, asian or unknown because he/she was wearing a ski mask with sunglasses and a bandana around their nostrils and face?

I think that the more facts you have to identify a criminal the better off the public can help with catching a potential bank robber or whatever!

What a wimpy ass newspaper for not giving out the facts of the case at hand. As suggested, political correctness has gone to far if we can’t give a deep description in a newspaper.

I hate “Political Correctness” anyway, it’s become more of a cope out anymore when it comes to our uniqueness as people.

The problem, as I see it, is when you report a minority race having committed a crime, some people’s tendency would be to grab the first Asian man or Black woman or whatever whom they happened to see - a situation which wouldn’t take place with a White person.

They’d be a very sorry Cop if they did. That’s why they give out other minor details, like, say, height, weight, hair color, eye color, what he was riding/driving/wearing, how big the gun was he was carrying, or even if he was. So you can pick up the right guy. Most of the time the people involved know/recognise who did it.

I know this may come as a shock, but lynch mobs went out of style years ago. Trust me.

If somebody “scuffled” with the cops for no reason, they’re an idiot. Finding somebody that matches some of the descriptions of a suspect and wanting to check him more closely is just common sense.

I understand the concern, of cours… here in southern California, we’ve got all sorts of police scandals to worry about, the most prominent being what the media is calling the “Rampart Scandal”. A division of the LAPD, Rampart Division, apparently had at least one REALLY crooked cop and, according to him, lots more, that falsified reports, planted evidence, and got dozens of innocent people wrongfully imprisoned.

So I understand the desire to not want people stopped ONLY because of their race (there’s an urban legend going around my area about a cop who pulled over a suspect 'cuz he was black, arrested him, brought him down to the station, questioned him, etc… and found out several hours later that the suspect was also a woman, not a man). However, just because of that, we shouldn’t exclude important information. If a suspect was black, white, mexican, asian, green and covered in baked beans, it doesn’t matter, that information should be included, lest we increase the probability of that suspect getting away.

Not unless the cops provide a complete description that could substantially narrow the field of suspects.

If a newspaper reports merely that a black man raped a white woman, what’s the point of mentioning race? Rapes occur all the time. Race has nothing to do with it. It would be the same thing as reporting that a man with blue eyes raped a woman with brown eyes. The eye color, like the skin color, is irrelevent.

But if a newspaper can say that a rape suspect was described as a black man, 5 foot 2, weighing 180 pounds and wearing a pink tuxedo, then all those facts should be reported, because they are relevant. They may help identify the rapist.

A newspaper that never mentions race in connection with criminal suspects is not doing the public any favors.

Boog is right. And I also want to point out, there is a difference if they have captured him/her, in which case race is not needed, or if he/she is still at large, in which case every important descriptive detail MUST be given to the Public. Can you imagine if they leave out details like race, and another victem is hurt as they do not recognize the suspect?

Spoofe is right (as well as most everybody else here) – it’s just plain stupid.

“Oh, dear, we don’t want to offend people with red hair, so let’s leave hair color out of the description.”

“Oh, dear, we don’t want to appear sexist, so let’s leave sex out of the description.”

If they have information, they should use it.

Sometimes the information is incorrect, such as somebody appearing to be black but actually being (for example) a Pakistani with dark skin. I know that a lot of crimes committed by Gypsies are reported to the police by victims as having the criminal described as “Hispanic” (because the criminal is darker than white, swarthy, etc.). But you have to go with what you’ve got.

I pretty much agree with all of your responses. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn’t a racist for thinking that the editorial staff of the local daily were fools.

Write 'em a letter, and say, “The Straight Dope Message Board participants think you’re a bunch of ninnies, too! So there!”

:smiley:

To answer the OP, I think it is very helpful for as good a description as possible.

One other comment: Remember the school shooting in Michigan, when one first-grader shot a six year old girl?

Did you ever hear it reported that the shooter was a black kid?

He was.

It seems to me that you would want to give as much identifying details about the suspect as you can. Once in hand, it should not be necessary to give race once the suspect is in hand.

As for the Native American incident and all other similar
situations, law enforcement officers must be trained and use skills which counterbalance any racism. That’s why I am against profiling. DWB should not be a crime or treated as a crime by law enforcement officers. Frankly, I think that police should be renamed law enforcement officers because that is what they are hired to do [enforce the laws]. They were not hired to bring their racial prejudices to the job. If you cannot do the job, then you should be outta there quicker than you can say Wha?