What is racial profiling?

What amazes me is how many people either think it's justified or that it simply doesn't happen.
 
Yes, a person would have to be pretty naïve to think that this doesn’t happen. To an extent though, most law enforcing agencies do have to use profiling to be even remotely efficient.

In a homicide case, why is the 80 year old lady living next door to the murder victim not investigated to any appreciable extent as a suspect? I’m sure 80 year old ladies have committed murder, but the chances are very slim.

In the same fashion, why when a 35 year old mother driving a minivan with 3 kids in the back when pulled over for having a headlight out, is her vehicle never searched for illegal substances?

It’s just statistics. If you were to go through all those cities and examine tickets, you would also see that males are far more likely to be arrested or searched over females. We never complain about that profiling. Why? Because we accept the statement that males DO violate the laws more often than females. We accept the statement that people in their late teens and early twenties DO violate laws more often than older people. Is it incorrect to think that race also affects the chance that someone is involved in criminal behavior? I don’t believe so. If we don’t accept racial profiling, then why should we accept age or gender profiling either?

I’m not saying that I endorse racial profiling. I think that many law enforcement agencies take it too far. However, if no profiling is used law enforcement agencies would have to dramatically increase in size to catch the same number of criminals and have the same effectiveness.
 
RDX said:
It’s just statistics. If you were to go through all those cities and examine tickets, you would also see that males are far more likely to be arrested or searched over females. We never complain about that profiling. Why? Because we accept the statement that males DO violate the laws more often than females. We accept the statement that people in their late teens and early twenties DO violate laws more often than older people. Is it incorrect to think that race also affects the chance that someone is involved in criminal behavior? I don’t believe so. If we don’t accept racial profiling, then why should we accept age or gender profiling either?

I’m not saying that I endorse racial profiling. I think that many law enforcement agencies take it too far. However, if no profiling is used law enforcement agencies would have to dramatically increase in size to catch the same number of criminals and have the same effectiveness.
Click to expand...

But you just did by quoting statistics...those same statistics that were gathered using racial profiling BTW. Guess I'll have to go through this once more...

Minority drivers are only 10% to 20% of all drivers on the road. They make up over 75% of all stops. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. To make the math simple, I'll limit the maximum number of 'drivers' to 1000.

20% of that 1000 is minority, so that makes a nice number of 200. those 200 people make up 75% of all stops, leaving 800 drivers to make up the other 25%. Getting a clear picture now? Using your own statistics, you could say that that minority is more criminal, thus your stops are justified, but wasn't that the reason for stopping them in the first place? You are the problem because you created your own statistics.
 
um...why did he run? think it was because of the previous warrants and he thought "oh no, not again?" that's the only reason i can think of...
 
Minority drivers are only 10% to 20% of all drivers on the road. They make up over 75% of all stops.
Click to expand...

Where are these figures coming from? Is it the national average? From that dateline investigation, Richmand Virginia was the only city that gave more tickets to Blacks rather than whites. On average Blacks do get more tickets than white people, but I think you're over way over exaggerating this.
 
tonks said:
um...why did he run? think it was because of the previous warrants and he thought "oh no, not again?" that's the only reason i can think of...
Click to expand...


To a certain extent, yes, but the question that should be asked is why he had 14 warrants for non-moving violations at all. I'll admit that he should've had a license...that's the law...and I'll also admit that he should've been fined, but the question still remains...Why was he stopped at all? For all intents and purposes, he was driving in a reasonable manner, even though he was unlicensed. The stops were for things like a seatbelt not being on...Unless the cop was right next to him when he spotted the infraction, then he (the cop) couldn't have known he wasn't belted. The cop even stated that he (the cop) was stationary, and the other car was driving by at the time. :shrug: I'd like anyone to tell if I'm driving 35 MPH without a seatbelt when I drive by them. It's almost impossible. He was stopped for DWB. 19 times in a 2-month period. All for non-moving violations.
 
Gato_Solo said:
To a certain extent, yes, but the question that should be asked is why he had 14 warrants for non-moving violations at all. I'll admit that he should've had a license...that's the law...and I'll also admit that he should've been fined, but the question still remains...Why was he stopped at all? For all intents and purposes, he was driving in a reasonable manner, even though he was unlicensed. The stops were for things like a seatbelt not being on...Unless the cop was right next to him when he spotted the infraction, then he (the cop) couldn't have known he wasn't belted. The cop even stated that he (the cop) was stationary, and the other car was driving by at the time. :shrug: I'd like anyone to tell if I'm driving 35 MPH without a seatbelt when I drive by them. It's almost impossible. He was stopped for DWB. 19 times in a 2-month period. All for non-moving violations.
Click to expand...
it's thoroughly disgusting and contemptable to be targeted based on your color...but running from a cop is an invitation to get yourself shot....not that he deserved what he got - that is not what i mean - but you have to wonder what he was thinking was going to happen when he ran.
 
RDX said:
Where are these figures coming from? Is it the national average? From that dateline investigation, Richmand Virginia was the only city that gave more tickets to Blacks rather than whites. On average Blacks do get more tickets than white people, but I think you're over way over exaggerating this.
Click to expand...

No...I'm not. These figures are from population, the tickets were from 12 different cities, and were based on non-moving violations. In all those cities, blacks were ticketed an average of 3 times more than whites. How am I, now, exaggerating this? Did you even look further than what you wanted to see?
 
RDX, what happens to those figures when you take into account the fact that less than fifteen percent of the US population is black?
 
In all those cities, blacks were ticketed an average of 3 times more than whites.
Click to expand...

Ahhh... that's what we were missing. In your example of 1000 people you had 200 people receiving 75% of the total tickets. That would come out to the minority receiving tickets 12X more often than whites. If minority drivers were 3 times more likely to receive tickets than whites, then the 200 people in your example would receive about 43% of the tickets, while the white drivers would take about 57% of the tickets. Again, this is not an equal distribution, but it is much more even than what you had described in your example.

RDX, what happens to those figures when you take into account the fact that less than fifteen percent of the US population is black?
Click to expand...

That's a good question, and dateline should have also included this in their report. For it to be fair, they should have included the general population statistics of the cities they were looking at. The minority population percentages in each of these cities would vary substantially. The percentage for each of these cities is the basis that should be compared to. They really gave no basis. I am willing to bet that most of these cities have black populations that are above the 15% national average though. Until that information is received, it is really hard to analyze this data correctly.
 
RDX said:
That's a good question, and dateline should have also included this in their report. For it to be fair, they should have included the general population statistics of the cities they were looking at. The minority population percentages in each of these cities would vary substantially. The percentage for each of these cities is the basis that should be compared to. They really gave no basis. I am willing to bet that most of these cities have black populations that are above the 15% national average though. Until that information is received, it is really hard to analyze this data correctly.
Click to expand...

Those cities are on the site I linked to, just for these types of questions. I, personally, didn't get a total population break-down of each city, but I'm sure that dateline did...Check out the 'numbers' sub-folder.

Also, you, yourself, can look up those numbers. I'm fairly sure, though, that blacks are in the minority of every large city in the US. ;)
 
Also, you, yourself, can look up those numbers. I'm fairly sure, though, that blacks are in the minority of every large city in the US.
Click to expand...

That's a guess, and even if it were true, that still doesn't really say anything. In all the cities except for Richmond, whites received the majority of the tickets, and the blacks received the minority.

BTW, according to the 1990 census,

55.2% of the Richmond population is black (obviously a majority)
28.1 % Houston
29.6% Kansas City
47.5% St Louis
37.9% Cincinnati
9.4% San Diego
25.6% Boston

Although I couldn't find data readily available for all of the cities listed in that dateline article, of the ones that I did find, it is quite apparant that these cities contain a much higher black demographic than the 15% national average (except for San Diego).

What amazes me is how many people either think it's justified or that it simply doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that I think it's justified or that I think it doesn't happen? I will address both since I don't know exactly where you are coming from.

It does happen, I am not arguing against this. Although I would argue that it is not a prominant as you would want us to believe.

Is it justified? I would say to a certain extent...yes. While this may really piss some of you off, I think it is to a certain point. Gender, age, race - they all make a difference on the probability that someone will do something or that something is done to them. Why are auto insurance rates so much higher for young males than anyone else? Simiple, because they're more likely to be involved in an accident. I have never been in an accident, yet I still must pay these high premiums. You wont see me ragging on about it. It's profiling, so why do we tollerate it? In the same way, males are more likely to commit a violent crime. Is it because the police are simply looking for male suspects more often? No! Almost any logical person realizes that these characteristics do make a difference. So why should race be any different? If a location has a traditionally high rate of crime among Swedes living in the area, shouldn't law enforcement keep a tighter eye on them? If a large Mongolian gang is terrorizing a certain part of a city, shouldn't the activity of the local Mongolian populition be watched more closely?

If race plays no role in determining the chances that someone will break the law, than racial profiling is NOT acceptable. If it does play a role though, than it's just stupid for the law enforcement not to focus more of there resources on whichever population is commiting these crimes.
 
RDX said:
That's a guess, and even if it were true, that still doesn't really say anything. In all the cities except for Richmond, whites received the majority of the tickets, and the blacks received the minority.

BTW, according to the 1990 census,

55.2% of the Richmond population is black (obviously a majority)
28.1 % Houston
29.6% Kansas City
47.5% St Louis
37.9% Cincinnati
9.4% San Diego
25.6% Boston

Although I couldn't find data readily available for all of the cities listed in that dateline article, of the ones that I did find, it is quite apparant that these cities contain a much higher black demographic than the 15% national average (except for San Diego).
Click to expand...

So, according to you, since one city has a higher black population, it justifies all cities to follow it's lead? Preposterous. I've never seen such a ridiculous explanation in my life. As for your "vast majority" of the tickets, I'll agree, but you took that out of the context of the study, didn't you? :grinyes: If you have to cherry-pick data that you want to see to justify, or outlaw, a behavior, instead of facing the problem, then you become the problem


RDX said:
Are you saying that I think it's justified or that I think it doesn't happen? I will address both since I don't know exactly where you are coming from.

It does happen, I am not arguing against this. Although I would argue that it is not a prominant as you would want us to believe.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. :eek: For someone who claims to believe that everybody has an equal chance, you sure sound a bit racist.

RDX said:
Is it justified? I would say to a certain extent...yes. While this may really piss some of you off, I think it is to a certain point. Gender, age, race - they all make a difference on the probability that someone will do something or that something is done to them.
Click to expand...

Here's a fact. 99% of all serial killers are white males between the ages of 24 and 40. Does that mean that, if a serial killer is running loose in your city, the police can stop every white male between the ages of 24 and 40 for consent searches? According to your words it is...

RDX said:
Why are auto insurance rates so much higher for young males than anyone else? Simiple, because they're more likely to be involved in an accident. I have never been in an accident, yet I still must pay these high premiums. You wont see me ragging on about it. It's profiling, so why do we tollerate it? In the same way, males are more likely to commit a violent crime. Is it because the police are simply looking for male suspects more often? No! Almost any logical person realizes that these characteristics do make a difference. So why should race be any different? If a location has a traditionally high rate of crime among Swedes living in the area, shouldn't law enforcement keep a tighter eye on them? If a large Mongolian gang is terrorizing a certain part of a city, shouldn't the activity of the local Mongolian populition be watched more closely?
Click to expand...

So now you're comparing private industry practice, which has no bearing on your criminal record, or criminal practice, and police judgement calls, which can lead to repeated harassment and, in some cases, death. There is no more crime in black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods...Fact, or fiction? Why should I, as a black male with no criminal record, be subject to more police scrutiny than you, a white male that is a possible serial killer? Perhaps you need to read the book Black Like Me by Robert Bonazzi.

RDX said:
If race plays no role in determining the chances that someone will break the law, than racial profiling is NOT acceptable. If it does play a role though, than it's just stupid for the law enforcement not to focus more of there resources on whichever population is commiting these crimes.
Click to expand...

Then it's not acceptable because race plays no part in determining chances someone will break the law, and law enforcement is stupid for letting predjudice cloud their thinking.
 
Gato_Solo said:
No...I'm not. These figures are from population, the tickets were from 12 different cities, and were based on non-moving violations. In all those cities, blacks were ticketed an average of 3 times more than whites. How am I, now, exaggerating this? Did you even look further than what you wanted to see?
Click to expand...


Just a simple point. Maybe that's because 3 times as many blacks were caught making moving violations. I dunno about where you live, but I'm on the road a lot, and I'd not be suprised to find out that Mtl had a similar slew. But ... it would be a majority of overweight black women drawing them. And not for speeding, but for just plain poor driving habits, including lane straddling, last minute exiting, and crossing solid lines.
 
Professur said:
Just a simple point. Maybe that's because 3 times as many blacks were caught making moving violations. I dunno about where you live, but I'm on the road a lot, and I'd not be suprised to find out that Mtl had a similar slew. But ... it would be a majority of overweight black women drawing them. And not for speeding, but for just plain poor driving habits, including lane straddling, last minute exiting, and crossing solid lines.
Click to expand...

Prof :nono: Look again. It's for Non-moving violations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top