Considering supporting Barack Obama, but i'm a little put off by one issue in particular...

[PaperclipGod]

Obama's website says he's firmly in favor of getting rid of racial profiling. Not just on the federal level, but to the point where he'd give states hefty incentives to abolish the practice as well. I have to wonder... why?

Isn't racial profiling based on statistical data? I mean, it's not Officer Billy-Bob just randomly pulling over minorities because he doesn't like them. What differentiates "profiling" from "racism" is that you look at numbers and build your case from there, not first at skin color. Why is it wrong to focus your resources on the type of person most likely to commit the crime you're trying to prevent?

For example... airport security lines. What's wrong with focusing the majority of your resources on international and middle-eastern travelers? I'm certainly not saying that we stop checking everyone else, but just that the focus be on the people who are statistically more likely to blow up an airliner.

Why is it that everyone seems to equate this kind of number-crunching with racism? Just because race is used doesn't mean it's inherently racist. I mean, if we had statistics that showed the majority of people who traffic drugs use a certain brand of luggage, wouldn't it be foolish to not focus your anti-drug security screening on those people? You may miss the random drug trafficker with a different type of luggage, but on the whole you'll stop more drugs.

So, unless i'm missing something, why is Obama against racial profiling? Because it sounds good?

 

[jonks]

Racial profiling is illegal. You may mean intelligent profiling.

Scroll through this:

http://forums.anandtech.com/categories.aspx?catid=52

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Obama's website says he's firmly in favor of getting rid of racial profiling. Not just on the federal level, but to the point where he'd give states hefty incentives to abolish the practice as well. I have to wonder... why?

Isn't racial profiling based on statistical data? I mean, it's not Officer Billy-Bob just randomly pulling over minorities because he doesn't like them. What differentiates "profiling" from "racism" is that you look at numbers and build your case from there, not first at skin color. Why is it wrong to focus your resources on the type of person most likely to commit the crime you're trying to prevent?

For example... airport security lines. What's wrong with focusing the majority of your resources on international and middle-eastern travelers? I'm certainly not saying that we stop checking everyone else, but just that the focus be on the people who are statistically more likely to blow up an airliner.

Why is it that everyone seems to equate this kind of number-crunching with racism? Just because race is used doesn't mean it's inherently racist. I mean, if we had statistics that showed the majority of people who traffic drugs use a certain brand of luggage, wouldn't it be foolish to not focus your anti-drug security screening on those people? You may miss the random drug trafficker with a different type of luggage, but on the whole you'll stop more drugs.

So, unless i'm missing something, why is Obama against racial profiling? Because it sounds good?

He actually did some work in Illinois on this issue which helped round out the race numbers pulled over for unwarranted issues after he got elected. In the end though, as much as people say it doesn't exist, or it is needed it can be abused. Myself as a well dressed caucassion going through airport security I really have nothing to fear at all, most of the time I am not searched properly, nor am I giving a full pat down/dog sniff/opening of everything that I see alot of races given when I go through the airport. So what that means is if someone such as myself were to try and smuggle in something into the airports, chances are I would be successful because John Doe security officer is too busy looking at Mr Jamaican with locks.

So yes, the statistics do back up to a degree that a majority of crimes are commited by one or two races, but on the other hand, the prejudice of those races empower the law to go after them more aggressively, thereby letting a good number of other races get away with minor crimes because they do not fit the profile. Criminals are not idiots, if they know putting a well dress, well mannered, well spoke white person on a place to smuggle will work better than a an African-American with baggy clothes, who do you think they will chose? In the end the law should be making choices equally as criminals will abuse any racial profiling for there own means.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Obama's website says he's firmly in favor of getting rid of racial profiling. Not just on the federal level, but to the point where he'd give states hefty incentives to abolish the practice as well. I have to wonder... why?

Isn't racial profiling based on statistical data? I mean, it's not Officer Billy-Bob just randomly pulling over minorities because he doesn't like them. What differentiates "profiling" from "racism" is that you look at numbers and build your case from there, not first at skin color. Why is it wrong to focus your resources on the type of person most likely to commit the crime you're trying to prevent?

For example... airport security lines. What's wrong with focusing the majority of your resources on international and middle-eastern travelers? I'm certainly not saying that we stop checking everyone else, but just that the focus be on the people who are statistically more likely to blow up an airliner.

Why is it that everyone seems to equate this kind of number-crunching with racism? Just because race is used doesn't mean it's inherently racist. I mean, if we had statistics that showed the majority of people who traffic drugs use a certain brand of luggage, wouldn't it be foolish to not focus your anti-drug security screening on those people? You may miss the random drug trafficker with a different type of luggage, but on the whole you'll stop more drugs.

So, unless i'm missing something, why is Obama against racial profiling? Because it sounds good?

He actually did some work in Illinois on this issue which helped round out the race numbers pulled over for unwarranted issues after he got elected. In the end though, as much as people say it doesn't exist, or it is needed it can be abused. Myself as a well dressed caucassion going through airport security I really have nothing to fear at all, most of the time I am not searched properly, nor am I giving a full pat down/dog sniff/opening of everything that I see alot of races given when I go through the airport. So what that means is if someone such as myself were to try and smuggle in something into the airports, chances are I would be successful because John Doe security officer is too busy looking at Mr Jamaican with locks.

So yes, the statistics do back up to a degree that a majority of crimes are commited by one or two races, but on the other hand, the prejudice of those races empower the law to go after them more aggressively, thereby letting a good number of other races get away with minor crimes because they do not fit the profile. Criminals are not idiots, if they know putting a well dress, well mannered, well spoke white person on a place to smuggle will work better than a an African-American with baggy clothes, who do you think they will chose? In the end the law should be making choices equally as criminals will abuse any racial profiling for there own means.

The chances of pulling off any crime go up if one avoids tripping the trigger for any criteria. That does not mean that people are going to dress up to mug someone.

If Obama is saying that giving someone crap because they are black is wrong, then sure I go along with that. If he's effectively saying that being black disqualifies them from being profiled, then no. The devil is in the details.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Obama's website says he's firmly in favor of getting rid of racial profiling. Not just on the federal level, but to the point where he'd give states hefty incentives to abolish the practice as well. I have to wonder... why?

Isn't racial profiling based on statistical data? I mean, it's not Officer Billy-Bob just randomly pulling over minorities because he doesn't like them. What differentiates "profiling" from "racism" is that you look at numbers and build your case from there, not first at skin color. Why is it wrong to focus your resources on the type of person most likely to commit the crime you're trying to prevent?

For example... airport security lines. What's wrong with focusing the majority of your resources on international and middle-eastern travelers? I'm certainly not saying that we stop checking everyone else, but just that the focus be on the people who are statistically more likely to blow up an airliner.

Why is it that everyone seems to equate this kind of number-crunching with racism? Just because race is used doesn't mean it's inherently racist. I mean, if we had statistics that showed the majority of people who traffic drugs use a certain brand of luggage, wouldn't it be foolish to not focus your anti-drug security screening on those people? You may miss the random drug trafficker with a different type of luggage, but on the whole you'll stop more drugs.

So, unless i'm missing something, why is Obama against racial profiling? Because it sounds good?

Because the problem is that at the end of the day, you aren't just applying the policy to "groups", you have to apply it to individuals. You have to make it official government policy to tell Joe Smith that the government thinks he's a criminal because he's black, or tell Aziz Naziri that we think he's going to blow up an airplane because he's Middle Eastern. Now if you're fine with that because you think we get better security, that's certainly a valid position, although I think you're wrong. But surely you can see how some people might object to that.

Debate is good, whether on this topic or any other, but let's stop pretending that racial profiling is just a common sense idea without any obvious tradeoffs being made. There are obvious, and real, consequences to this approach...and it goes way beyond just appearing to be "not PC".

Edit: And I think it's worth listening to Obama on this issue. I'm a white guy and I look like I'm from Iowa, I NEVER get "profiled" anywhere. So it's sort of hard for me to say what getting profiled feels like, I can guess...but people who do get profiled would seem to have a better perspective.

 

[PaperclipGod]

You don't have to make it official policy, you can just NOT make it illegal.

I just don't see why there's so much hostility towards using colorblind numbers to fight crime. If it turns out that one race is more likely to commit a certain crime, then shouldn't that hostility and anger be redirected onto the kind of culture or circumstances that result in that racial statistic?

If, for example, asians are more likely to commit armed robbery, why would you want to handicap the states ability to protect itself against that threat? I mean, if we used statistics based on height instead - e.g. tall people are more likely to abuse animals, so we should double check tall people before letting them adopt pets - would there be as much outrage?

Even if the statistics showed a ridiculous prevalence of one race for criminal activities over another, why would you impede the states ability to prevent that crime? Why wouldn't you instead focus your attention on the cause of that statistical imbalance? Instead of allowing crime to flourish in an effort to keep justice blind, why not fight crime as effectively as you can and use the resources saved via profiling to fix the social issues that caused the imbalance in the first place?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
You don't have to make it official policy, you can just NOT make it illegal.

I just don't see why there's so much hostility towards using colorblind numbers to fight crime. If it turns out that one race is more likely to commit a certain crime, then shouldn't that hostility and anger be redirected onto the kind of culture or circumstances that result in that racial statistic?

If, for example, asians are more likely to commit armed robbery, why would you want to handicap the states ability to protect itself against that threat? I mean, if we used statistics based on height instead - e.g. tall people are more likely to abuse animals, so we should double check tall people before letting them adopt pets - would there be as much outrage?

Even if the statistics showed a ridiculous prevalence of one race for criminal activities over another, why would you impede the states ability to prevent that crime? Why wouldn't you instead focus your attention on the cause of that statistical imbalance? Instead of allowing crime to flourish in an effort to keep justice blind, why not fight crime as effectively as you can and use the resources saved via profiling to fix the social issues that caused the imbalance in the first place?

I think you're overstating how helpful racial profiling really is in preventing crime. But in any case, I find it interesting that you keep referring to broad generalities rather than looking at what you're actually doing. There is no such thing as "Asians", there are people who are Asian...and you can't do something to target that group without targeting the individuals who make it up. You're essentially arguing that it's a valid approach to use statistics to treat individuals differently...that it's OK to group people together based on factors they have no control over and then hold them responsible for what other people in "their" group are doing.

Edit: My objection is that you're bypassing any judgement based on the individual and trying and convicting them based on statistical models based on the most rudimentary data sets. Mostly because whatever the imbalance among criminals, chances are very good that the vast, VAST majority of people in your target group AREN'T criminals. To use your armed robbery example, it might be correct to say that IF someone is an armed robber, it's more likely they are Asian than non-Asian. But it's also correct to say that IF someone is Asian, it is extremely likely that they are NOT an armed robber. That second statement would see to be the important one, as it would suggest that treating Asian people like armed robbers is not supported by the statistics. It would be far more effective to actually go after armed robbers.

 

[PaperclipGod]

You make it sound malicious though, it's not. Just because asians may commit more armed robberies than other races doesn't mean we deny them any rights or treat them any differently - just that asian suspects might be given priority in an investigation of an armed robbery.

And we already use statistics to treat individuals differently, just not by race. We make gun-owners go through background checks and register their firearms because it's statistically more likely that a gun in a home will result in some sort of gun violence (accidental or otherwise). We make it hard for people to own guns to limit the damage they are statistically likely to inflict.

Should we instead let everyone buy a gun at 7-11 because it's wrong to make it difficult to procure a weapon "just because" owning a gun makes it statistically more likely that there will be some type of gun violence? I mean, we don't want to "group all [gun owners] together based on factors they have no control over and then hold them responsible for what other people in 'their' group are doing," right? It may make for a safer society, but it punishes people for the crimes of others.

Am i misinterpreting something there, or is that your position...?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
You make it sound malicious though, it's not. Just because asians may commit more armed robberies than other races doesn't mean we deny them any rights or treat them any differently - just that asian suspects might be given priority in an investigation of an armed robbery.

And we already use statistics to treat individuals differently, just not by race. We make gun-owners go through background checks and register their firearms because it's statistically more likely that a gun in a home will result in some sort of gun violence (accidental or otherwise). We make it hard for people to own guns to limit the damage they are statistically likely to inflict.

Should we instead let everyone buy a gun at 7-11 because it's wrong to make it difficult to procure a weapon "just because" owning a gun makes it statistically more likely that there will be some type of gun violence? I mean, we don't want to "group all [gun owners] together based on factors they have no control over and then hold them responsible for what other people in 'their' group are doing," right? It may make for a safer society, but it punishes people for the crimes of others.

Am i misinterpreting something there, or is that your position...?

What if that suspect was sort of pale, Asian looking. The police, because of your idea focus all there attention on people of a Southeast Asian decent, letting the white guy with an Asian mother get away clean. The problem with your idea is you want to focus on people of a specific race before a crime is committed, rather than investigating the crime and trying to decide which people are suspects due to evidence.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Edit: My objection is that you're bypassing any judgement based on the individual and trying and convicting them based on statistical models based on the most rudimentary data sets. Mostly because whatever the imbalance among criminals, chances are very good that the vast, VAST majority of people in your target group AREN'T criminals. To use your armed robbery example, it might be correct to say that IF someone is an armed robber, it's more likely they are Asian than non-Asian. But it's also correct to say that IF someone is Asian, it is extremely likely that they are NOT an armed robber. That second statement would see to be the important one, as it would suggest that treating Asian people like armed robbers is not supported by the statistics. It would be far more effective to actually go after armed robbers.

If you have 3 suspects in an armed robbery, one of whom is asian, then using racial profiling he'd be the first person you'd want to interrogate. Even if it's just a minor 1% increase in likelihood that he's the robber, that's enough to warrant the priority attention... because over time, that 1% adds up to more criminals caught.

The vast majority of americans (of any race) aren't criminals - that doesn't mean we ignore security at banks because most people are law-abiding, does it? Nope... instead we make everyone stand behind bulletproof glass to conduct their business, and record them on multiple CCTV's. Does that mean that banks are somehow biased against americans? Not likely... it's more plausible that the occasional robbery from that group of people has illustrated the need for those security measures.

If you've got statistical data saying that one out of every 100,000 bank patrons will be a robber, wouldn't it be foolish to ignore that data in an effort to prevent your patrons from feeling like they were being lumped in with the criminals? Likewise, if asians were 1% more likely than other americans to rob that bank, wouldn't it be foolish to ignore that data in an effort to prevent your (asian) patrons from feeling like they were being lumped in with criminals?

I just don't see how using statistical data to fight crime is morally wrong. We do it all the time when the criteria doesn't involve race.

 

[yowolabi]

You cannot predict an individual who will commit a crime by looking at their race. It's as simple as that. No one who is in a favor of racial profiling will find legitimate evidence to prove otherwise.

This is a good article summarizing the fallacy of profiling

Meanwhile, while you're on a wild goose chase chasing everyone with a certain characteristic, you're letting people without those characteristics fall through the cracks. Profiling can only make you less safe, not more.

 

[FuzzyBee]

So - how can you predict who will commit a crime?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
So - how can you predict who will commit a crime?

3 chicks in tubes tell me and I put it on a cool apple screen display

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: RichardE

What if that suspect was sort of pale, Asian looking. The police, because of your idea focus all there attention on people of a Southeast Asian decent, letting the white guy with an Asian mother get away clean. The problem with your idea is you want to focus on people of a specific race before a crime is committed, rather than investigating the crime and trying to decide which people are suspects due to evidence.

I never said the police should focus all of their attention on the asian suspect just because there's a statistical tendency for asians to commit that type of crime. The focus should be proportional to the statistical tendency. When you go to a sporting event security checks the inside of your bag AND makes you go through a metal detector. People without bags just get to walk through a metal detector. Is that tactic somehow morally wrong? Should people who want to bring bags to stadiums resent the fact that they're being profiled? Or should they understand that a terrorist with a bomb is likely to have a bag with him, and so expect that people with bags are under greater scrutiny?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
So - how can you predict who will commit a crime?

3 chicks in tubes tell me and I put it on a cool apple screen display

Weren't two of those dudes?



Seriously, though - if you can't use statistics to determine who is more likely to commit a crime, how can you prevent it? It seems like all you can do is sit back and wait until they have commited a crime before being able to do anything about it.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod

Originally posted by: RichardE

What if that suspect was sort of pale, Asian looking. The police, because of your idea focus all there attention on people of a Southeast Asian decent, letting the white guy with an Asian mother get away clean. The problem with your idea is you want to focus on people of a specific race before a crime is committed, rather than investigating the crime and trying to decide which people are suspects due to evidence.

I never said the police should focus all of their attention on the asian suspect just because there's a statistical tendency for asians to commit that type of crime. The focus should be proportional to the statistical tendency. When you go to a sporting event security checks the inside of your bag AND makes you go through a metal detector. People without bags just get to walk through a metal detector. Is that tactic somehow morally wrong? Should people who want to bring bags to stadiums resent the fact that they're being profiled? Or should they understand that a terrorist with a bomb is likely to have a bag with him, and so expect that people with bags are under greater scrutiny?

The problem with your analogy is that bags can be use to conceal weapons and explosives, whereas my skin pigment does not.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
So - how can you predict who will commit a crime?

3 chicks in tubes tell me and I put it on a cool apple screen display

:thumbsup: Minority Report!

I thought they were in a small pool of some sort though.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
You cannot predict an individual who will commit a crime by looking at their race. It's as simple as that. No one who is in a favor of racial profiling will find legitimate evidence to prove otherwise.

This is a good article summarizing the fallacy of profiling

Meanwhile, while you're on a wild goose chase chasing everyone with a certain characteristic, you're letting people without those characteristics fall through the cracks. Profiling can only make you less safe, not more.

That article actually isn't a very good reference, since it's talking about racial profiling that's based on stereotypes. I'm talking about racial profiling based on statistical data.

And i never said racial profiling has some magical ability to predict precisely who will commit a crime, only that it's a tool that can aid in the process of preventing crime. As for your "wild goose chase", that wouldn't be the case if you use legitimate statistical data. In such a case you'd be apt to catch more criminals, not less. Numbers don't lie.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod

Originally posted by: yowolabi
You cannot predict an individual who will commit a crime by looking at their race. It's as simple as that. No one who is in a favor of racial profiling will find legitimate evidence to prove otherwise.

This is a good article summarizing the fallacy of profiling

Meanwhile, while you're on a wild goose chase chasing everyone with a certain characteristic, you're letting people without those characteristics fall through the cracks. Profiling can only make you less safe, not more.

That article actually isn't a very good reference, since it's talking about racial profiling that's based on stereotypes. I'm talking about racial profiling based on statistical data.

And i never said racial profiling has some magical ability to predict precisely who will commit a crime, only that it's a tool that can aid in the process of preventing crime. As for your "wild goose chase", that wouldn't be the case if you use legitimate statistical data. In such a case you'd be apt to catch more criminals, not less. Numbers don't lie.

So because more blacks deal drugs we should follow blacks on welfare waiting for them to deal drugs? Since we can safe to say that we will indeed catch some. Or most white collar crime is committed by white middle aged Americans, so perhaps the cyber units should obtain search warrants for most of there computers looking for evidence since they are in the proper group segment for the crime you want to prevent.

How about stopping Arabs for "more in depth" searches on planed, even though only roughly 20% of Arabs are Muslim. (and even than only a minuscule percent of Muslims are extremist enough in views to commit harm)

So in essence, your idea it to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens because a few people more in there profiled segment show behavioral tendencies that are greater in number than other segments?

Would you say black people are born with a gene to want to deal drugs as well? Since that is what you are saying with racial profiling.


The only, and I say it again, only way that statiscal profiling can be used in law enforcement is to view where the greater amount of resources dedicated to prevention can be used. Black inner city kids from Chicago deal the most drugs? Lets find out what social and economical issues are causing this and work towards a solution. That would be the only real benefit.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: RichardE

So because more blacks deal drugs we should follow blacks on welfare waiting for them to deal drugs? Since we can safe to say that we will indeed catch some. Or most white collar crime is committed by white middle aged Americans, so perhaps the cyber units should obtain search warrants for most of there computers looking for evidence since they are in the proper group segment for the crime you want to prevent.

If statistical data shows that blacks commit more drug-related crimes than other races, you think it would be a bad idea to have a few more police patrols through predominantly black neighborhoods, then?

And as i've said multiple times now, i'm not advocating the suppression of anyones rights. Nowhere have i said anything that could be equated with "cyber units obtaining search warrants for every white persons computer" just because white-collar crime has a statistical tendency to be committed by whites. Instead i've been advocating that law enforcement resources focus their attention on the groups most closely associated with each type of crime. Not to the exclusion of every other race, but in proportion to the statistical tendency. If you were investigating the embezzlement of millions from a corporation, would you focus on everyone in the company, or just those with access to the money? Further, out of that narrowed pool of suspects, would you then focus on those who had recently made lavish purchases or left the country? And out of that pool - assuming a statistical tendency existed - would you focus your attention on the white people or the hispanic? I hope you see my point... racial profiling is just a tool to be used to prevent and solve crime, not some sort of overbearing, stereotype based segregation.

Originally posted by: RichardE
How about stopping Arabs for "more in depth" searches on planed, even though only roughly 20% of Arabs are Muslim. (and even than only a minuscule percent of Muslims are extremist enough in views to commit harm)

So in essence, your idea it to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens because a few people more in there profiled segment show behavioral tendencies that are greater in number than other segments?

Yes, stop arabs for more in depth searches if there is enough of a statistical tendency to warrant that extra security. If it's a fraction of a percent, then no. If it's something significant - say 10%+ - then yes. Please, explain to me how this is any different than any of the analogies i've already listed? Bombs and weapons tend to be hidden in bags, so we check the bags of everyone who goes to a sporting event. We make it hard for people to buy guns because guns increase the chance of someone being hurt by a gun. We don't have some inherent bias against people who carry bags or buy guns, we just understand that both of those characteristics warrant extra security. How can you be against racial profiling, yet FOR bag checking? Both are based on the same principle.

Originally posted by: RichardE
Would you say black people are born with a gene to want to deal drugs as well? Since that is what you are saying with racial profiling.

Are you actually reading anything that i've posted, or are you just crying "RACIST!" with your fingers in your ears?

Originally posted by: RichardE
The only, and I say it again, only way that statiscal profiling can be used in law enforcement is to view where the greater amount of resources dedicated to prevention can be used. Black inner city kids from Chicago deal the most drugs? Lets find out what social and economical issues are causing this and work towards a solution. That would be the only real benefit.

If you had read one of my first posts, then you'd see that one of my main arguments is that the anger people have towards racial profiling is misdirected, and should be properly focused on the environmental issues that create such a statistical imbalance. That said, just because there are extenuating circumstances surrounding that statistical imbalance, doesn't mean we should stop fighting crime as effectively as we can (and by using all the tools at our disposal), which is what you seem to be suggesting. We can't give people a pass just because they have some social/cultural/economic excuse. If you start down that road then you pave the way for pedophiles to be freed because they were abused as children, or murderers to be paroled because their victim was a really nasty person.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
So - how can you predict who will commit a crime?

To a degree, you can't. If anyone had that kind of power, they'd be in the lottery or gambling business instead of the police business. As far as those you can prevent, it comes down to good police work. Looking at people's behavior, instead of their race. If you see a black person legitimately behaving suspiciously, by all counts you should pull them over. Being black itself, is not suspicious activity, though.

 

[DanceMan]

The problem is that racial profiling can cause you to focus on the *wrong* individuals. Even worse, if criminals know this, they may try to be one of the non-descript persons instead of the profiled type.

Two good examples of this: The DC Sniper. Many police and FBI profilers assumed the sniper to be a middle-age white loner-type. I think in the analysis it was found that there were videos and clues to his true identity all along, but so much police work went into looking for the proper profiled type, that initial clues were overlooked.

A second example: Al-Qaeda is supposedly trying to recruit Russian Chechens, mainly because they DON'T fit the stereotype.

I remember having a conversation with a state police officer about this. He said that while profiling individuals may help you catch a few criminals, it does not override proper police training, where a police officer can be trained to look for certian clues and body language, etc.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Edit: My objection is that you're bypassing any judgement based on the individual and trying and convicting them based on statistical models based on the most rudimentary data sets. Mostly because whatever the imbalance among criminals, chances are very good that the vast, VAST majority of people in your target group AREN'T criminals. To use your armed robbery example, it might be correct to say that IF someone is an armed robber, it's more likely they are Asian than non-Asian. But it's also correct to say that IF someone is Asian, it is extremely likely that they are NOT an armed robber. That second statement would see to be the important one, as it would suggest that treating Asian people like armed robbers is not supported by the statistics. It would be far more effective to actually go after armed robbers.

If you have 3 suspects in an armed robbery, one of whom is asian, then using racial profiling he'd be the first person you'd want to interrogate. Even if it's just a minor 1% increase in likelihood that he's the robber, that's enough to warrant the priority attention... because over time, that 1% adds up to more criminals caught.

The vast majority of americans (of any race) aren't criminals - that doesn't mean we ignore security at banks because most people are law-abiding, does it? Nope... instead we make everyone stand behind bulletproof glass to conduct their business, and record them on multiple CCTV's. Does that mean that banks are somehow biased against americans? Not likely... it's more plausible that the occasional robbery from that group of people has illustrated the need for those security measures.

If you've got statistical data saying that one out of every 100,000 bank patrons will be a robber, wouldn't it be foolish to ignore that data in an effort to prevent your patrons from feeling like they were being lumped in with the criminals? Likewise, if asians were 1% more likely than other americans to rob that bank, wouldn't it be foolish to ignore that data in an effort to prevent your (asian) patrons from feeling like they were being lumped in with criminals?

I just don't see how using statistical data to fight crime is morally wrong. We do it all the time when the criteria doesn't involve race.

I think you're a little too ready to brush aside the impact on society of lumping people in with criminals based on superficial traits. And that's the key to the issue with racial profiling, it ISN'T based on other criteria, it's based on race...something that has a long and pretty depressing history of dividing people for pretty much all of human history. It's different when it's a security measure that targets everyone individually, or is based on a trait that doesn't have a history behind it, like wearing a ski mask in the bank. But basing the "profile" on race, and treating people differently because of their skin color, is going to have a pretty detrimental effect on society. I'm not suggesting it's like making black people ride at the back of the bus, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that it could bring up similar feelings of division and resentment.

Arguing that racial profiling is worth it even if there is only a minor gain in security ignores the costs that go with it...and they are anything but minor. You might think it's "foolish", but racial problems haven't entirely disappeared in this country, and nothing makes those problems worse like reinforcing the idea that the police are here to protect the white folks from the non-white folks.

You're arguing statistics...and I'm saying you have to look beyond that, a society that really runs on statistics alone would be one of the worst places I can imagine living. We are supposed to be a society of individuals, and while it might be true that statistics suggest there is a slightly increased chance a random black guy is a criminal vs a random white guy, that doesn't mean it's unreasonable for a specific black guy to feel slighted that you consider him a likely criminal because of his skin color. And I don't think it's foolish or overly sensitive or too PC to judge people as individuals, in fact it's vital to a truly integrated society. It's ironic when you consider that the same people that tend to support racial profiling also tend to complain when some non-white people don't integrate very well into society. Things like racial profiling aren't exactly a huge step in helping that problem.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod

Originally posted by: yowolabi
You cannot predict an individual who will commit a crime by looking at their race. It's as simple as that. No one who is in a favor of racial profiling will find legitimate evidence to prove otherwise.

This is a good article summarizing the fallacy of profiling

Meanwhile, while you're on a wild goose chase chasing everyone with a certain characteristic, you're letting people without those characteristics fall through the cracks. Profiling can only make you less safe, not more.

That article actually isn't a very good reference, since it's talking about racial profiling that's based on stereotypes. I'm talking about racial profiling based on statistical data.

And i never said racial profiling has some magical ability to predict precisely who will commit a crime, only that it's a tool that can aid in the process of preventing crime. As for your "wild goose chase", that wouldn't be the case if you use legitimate statistical data. In such a case you'd be apt to catch more criminals, not less. Numbers don't lie.

Stop using "legitimate statistical data" like it's the end all argument in this debate. Presumably there are things "legitimate statistical data" would not justify, so I don't see how it can go without saying that it can be used to justify anything at all. If you want to make the argument for racial profiling based on statistics, do so...but don't just wave around "legitimate statistical data" like that's a totally self explanatory answer.

For example, if "legitimate statistical data" suggested that black people were more likely to sell drugs out of their home, I assume you still wouldn't support making it illegal for black people to live in certain neighborhoods. Clearly you're drawing a moral line that goes beyond simply being able to come up with some statistics...so why does profiling lie on the "acceptable" side of that line?

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod

Originally posted by: yowolabi
You cannot predict an individual who will commit a crime by looking at their race. It's as simple as that. No one who is in a favor of racial profiling will find legitimate evidence to prove otherwise.

This is a good article summarizing the fallacy of profiling

Meanwhile, while you're on a wild goose chase chasing everyone with a certain characteristic, you're letting people without those characteristics fall through the cracks. Profiling can only make you less safe, not more.

That article actually isn't a very good reference, since it's talking about racial profiling that's based on stereotypes. I'm talking about racial profiling based on statistical data.

And i never said racial profiling has some magical ability to predict precisely who will commit a crime, only that it's a tool that can aid in the process of preventing crime. As for your "wild goose chase", that wouldn't be the case if you use legitimate statistical data. In such a case you'd be apt to catch more criminals, not less. Numbers don't lie.

Statistical data does not allow you to predict the behavior of an individual person. You think you're making some legitimate distinction, but you aren't. Police officers working a case aren't working on the whole data set, they're working with individuals, and individuals aren't a microcosm of the whole. Even if 20% of young black men have been arrested, the young black man in front of you hasn't been 1/5 arrested. He's either been arrested 0% or 100%. When you reach conclusions about the individual based on the group, that's the very definition of stereotyping. There is no other type of racial profiling that's ever been used.

We shouldn't lose sight of that little fact. Your can talk about your theoretical chinese bank robber till you're blue, but it's not based in reality. The reality of racial profiling is what i've described and what the article I gave you described. When Obama says he's against it, that'the kind of behavior he's against. After you go and develop your theroetical system that allows crime fighters to "legitimately" apply statistics to an individual, go ahead and introduce it to police departments and to Obama, and maybe you can change everyone's mind. Until then, let's keep focused on how it's applied in reality.


There is no way to use "legitimate statistical data" about race to catch more criminals. Whenever someone uses the sorry line that "numbers don't lie", they seem to always be in the process of trying to misuse the numbers to reach some erroneous conclusion, just like you are right now.

It's not a useful tool. You want a more comprensive study, read David Harris's book. It's called "Profiles in Justice"There's a short interview with him here. I'll give you a clue to the conclusion that his research led to.... profiling does not aid in detecting criminals, and can only hurt as you disregard better indicators of wrongdoing in favor of ineffective ones like race. Crime fighting has limited resources, and you don't get the time back that you waste looking at race. If your strongest indicator that someone is doing wrong is race, then that means that you're engaging in nothing but guesswork. Guesses don't catch criminals or prevent crime. Legitimate investigations into individuals does.