Do crime statistics justify prejudice in policing? And what is the solution to the discrepancies?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,285
136
So prejudice is the causal factor behind SF gang members shooting each other as @Greenman was discussing?

I can see that reasoning now, "I'm so mad about that racist white man not giving me a job I'm going to go kill another black dude in my neighborhood that also didn't get the job."

I'm simply taking this statement at face value:
It's called profiling, and everyone does it. Some pretend they don't, but we all know it's a lie.

We know people are being discriminated against it and the government has the tools to balance out the scales. Therefore, it should use them.

This is about as A->B as anything can get. If anything, it would seem that affirmative action would be constitutionally required because otherwise we have systemic oppression based on race, by the government no less.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I'm simply taking this statement at face value:


We know people are being discriminated against it and the government has the tools to balance out the scales. Therefore, it should use them.

This is about as A->B as anything can get. If anything, it would seem that affirmative action would be constitutionally required because otherwise we have systemic oppression based on race, by the government no less.

The government has an unlimited reservoir of laws which all of us are likely breaking at some point so no "affirmative action" is required. You just need to make the political decision to say openly "police need to target blacks less and whites more" and take the consequences of that decision. It's not like minorities will have actually committed less crime if you had your way, we'd just be choosing to not arrest/prosecute them for it for political reasons. And since minority "market share" of violent crimes is disproportionately high in reality land borne out by provable stats like dead bodies with bullet holes, that means because of your feels you'd effectively be saying "it's OK to murder someone because it's unfair not more whites go to jail for murder."
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,285
136
The government has an unlimited reservoir of laws which all of us are likely breaking at some point so no "affirmative action" is required. You just need to make the political decision to say openly "police need to target blacks less and whites more" and take the consequences of that decision.

Sorry, that's not the logic of his post. His logic is that everyone does it and it is not preventable.

You are correct that police need to target blacks less and whites more though. This is inescapable common sense. For example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/

4NQCJGAZHI475DUUPENVXLINHY.png


SGHNPWXKAE5Y7HVA4TWRGQ7VYM.png


It's not like minorities will have actually committed less crime if you had your way, we'd just be choosing to not arrest/prosecute them for it for political reasons. And since minority "market share" of violent crimes is disproportionately high in reality land borne out by provable stats like dead bodies with bullet holes, that means because of your feels you'd effectively be saying "it's OK to murder someone because it's unfair not more whites go to jail for murder."

No, we would be choosing to arrest and prosecute them less because our current situation is discriminatory and thus violates the Constitution. Since according to Greenman that violation is inescapable the only logical move is massive affirmative action across the board in order to compensate minorities for these violations. Again, common sense.

What you don't seem to understand is that we already know that black people are arrested and prosecuted more often even after accounting for a higher crime rate. Apparently you think that because of your feels we should keep having the government oppress people based on their race.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Sorry, that's not the logic of his post. His logic is that everyone does it and it is not preventable.

You are correct that police need to target blacks less and whites more though. This is inescapable common sense. For example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/

4NQCJGAZHI475DUUPENVXLINHY.png


SGHNPWXKAE5Y7HVA4TWRGQ7VYM.png




No, we would be choosing to arrest and prosecute them less because our current situation is discriminatory and thus violates the Constitution. Since according to Greenman that violation is inescapable the only logical move is massive affirmative action across the board in order to compensate minorities for these violations. Again, common sense.

What you don't seem to understand is that we already know that black people are arrested and prosecuted more often even after accounting for a higher crime rate. Apparently you think that because of your feels we should keep having the government oppress people based on their race.

If you think enforcing the law is "oppressing" people that says everything we need to know about your view of the world. Laws are just another tool to be used or ignored in pursuit of your perfect world.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,708
10,016
136
Basic Income would let people escape inner city gangs. They would not be limited to living in their territory, and they would not depend on them for income. To fix a broken culture, you've got to make things right with the people in it. You have GOT to give them economic liquidity and mobility.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,285
136
If you think enforcing the law is "oppressing" people that says everything we need to know about your view of the world. Laws are just another tool to be used or ignored in pursuit of your perfect world.

You don't seem to realize the irony in your post because you are responding to evidence that the law isn't being enforced, it's just another tool to be used or ignored.

I just showed you that despite the two groups violating the law at roughly equal rates one group is arrested for it at rates 300% to 400% higher. Selective enforcement of the law is absolutely oppression.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You don't seem to realize the irony in your post because you are responding to evidence that the law isn't being enforced, it's just another tool to be used or ignored.

I just showed you that despite the two groups violating the law at roughly equal rates one group is arrested for it at rates 300% to 400% higher. Selective enforcement of the law is absolutely oppression.

Then scale up police forces so we can arrest and prosecute to meet the rates at which the crime is being committed. I'm fine if the arrest rates normalize at equally high rates.
 
Jan 25, 2011
17,075
9,553
146
If you think enforcing the law is "oppressing" people that says everything we need to know about your view of the world. Laws are just another tool to be used or ignored in pursuit of your perfect world.
So he shows you a clear example of the disparity in how the law is applied based on race, where blacks face charges at a rate of 3-4X as frequently based on almost identical rates of occurrence , and this is what you come up with?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,708
10,016
136
Then scale up police forces so we can arrest and prosecute to meet the rates at which the crime is being committed. I'm fine if the arrest rates normalize at equally high rates.

Scale up?

13% of the population, largely concentrated into select neighborhoods. Especially when it comes to poverty and crime. Let's say a city has 100 square blocks to patrol and enforce laws in. But 50% of the crime happens in just 15 blocks. You think you can scale up to match the presence in black neighborhoods and have that rate of policing occur in the other 85% of the city? Not likely.

Especially not with current pyramid based pension schemes threatening to bankrupt local and state governments across the nation. They lack the resources to do what they currently do, let alone any expansion.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,285
136
Then scale up police forces so we can arrest and prosecute to meet the rates at which the crime is being committed. I'm fine if the arrest rates normalize at equally high rates.

If you want to scale up police forces that's fine but there's absolutely nothing that prevents us from just not racially discriminating with the ones we have. This is a choice.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If you want to scale up police forces that's fine but there's absolutely nothing that prevents us from just not racially discriminating with the ones we have. This is a choice.

What you want is called "de-policing" and I'm perfectly fine with it. Heck, I'd actively welcome it.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,227
6,428
136
Since you are stating that prejudice is

1) widespread
2) unavoidable, and
3)that they only people claiming this prejudice does not exist are liars

That sure seems like one of the strongest possible arguments for government policies designed to combat the harmful effect of prejudice such as affirmative action.
Is profiling prejudice? Or is it prediction based on statistical analysis? Can credit reports be prejudice? Should they be outlawed because they discriminate against poor people? What about information used by insurance company's to establish rates? Why should obese diabetic smokers pay more for life insurance than thin vegetarian runners? Isn't that profiling?
On the personal side, we predict the behavior of others based on prior experience. I had an employee that couldn't work a forty hour week. He called in sick one day a week every single week. I used that information to schedule work, was that profiling? Was I prejudiced when he was passed over for the choice assignments? When I don't hire people with a history of on the job accidents is that wrong? Or is it protecting myself and my other employees?

Clearly there is a line where any of these things can become racist. Just as clearly some of them have valid applications throughout our society. Often the only difference between something being racist and being a valid operational consideration is the attitude of the person making the call. I don't know how you codify that into law.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
We'll just ignore the long and concerted attack on sex education, contraception, and abortion. None of those things could possibly have anything to do with anything.

haha. Yes, to paraphrase Ginsburg, these are definitely populations of which we want less, right?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,285
136
Is profiling prejudice? Or is it prediction based on statistical analysis? Can credit reports be prejudice? Should they be outlawed because they discriminate against poor people? What about information used by insurance company's to establish rates? Why should obese diabetic smokers pay more for life insurance than thin vegetarian runners? Isn't that profiling?
On the personal side, we predict the behavior of others based on prior experience. I had an employee that couldn't work a forty hour week. He called in sick one day a week every single week. I used that information to schedule work, was that profiling? Was I prejudiced when he was passed over for the choice assignments? When I don't hire people with a history of on the job accidents is that wrong? Or is it protecting myself and my other employees?

Clearly there is a line where any of these things can become racist. Just as clearly some of them have valid applications throughout our society. Often the only difference between something being racist and being a valid operational consideration is the attitude of the person making the call. I don't know how you codify that into law.

Can you explain the charts on marijuana use vs. incidence of arrest without some sort of racial discrimination?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,285
136
What you want is called "de-policing" and I'm perfectly fine with it. Heck, I'd actively welcome it.

Not really, I just think police should employ strategies where people should be arrested for crimes roughly in proportion how often they commit them, not based on what color their skin is.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,844
30,611
136
haha. Yes, to paraphrase Ginsburg, these are definitely populations of which we want less, right?

Can you be more dishonest?

The point is the poor have the fewest resources to ensure their reproductive choices are intact and you tried to make it a “black culture” issue. While you support laws attacking the meager resources made available to them.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Is profiling prejudice? Or is it prediction based on statistical analysis? Can credit reports be prejudice? Should they be outlawed because they discriminate against poor people? What about information used by insurance company's to establish rates? Why should obese diabetic smokers pay more for life insurance than thin vegetarian runners? Isn't that profiling?
On the personal side, we predict the behavior of others based on prior experience. I had an employee that couldn't work a forty hour week. He called in sick one day a week every single week. I used that information to schedule work, was that profiling? Was I prejudiced when he was passed over for the choice assignments? When I don't hire people with a history of on the job accidents is that wrong? Or is it protecting myself and my other employees?

Clearly there is a line where any of these things can become racist. Just as clearly some of them have valid applications throughout our society. Often the only difference between something being racist and being a valid operational consideration is the attitude of the person making the call. I don't know how you codify that into law.

Presuming we can ringfence the crime into the neighborhoods where it happens most, the @fskimospy approach would be ideal. He's forgotten that policing is designed to help the neighborhood by removing its worst elements. Every dollar we can save by reducing police presence and arrests in the inner city and other undesirable areas via "affirmative action" is another dollar which can be used in more affluent and less minority neighborhoods for everything from public safety to amenities (like more police or schools in the better neighborhoods) or tax cuts.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Is profiling prejudice? Or is it prediction based on statistical analysis? Can credit reports be prejudice? Should they be outlawed because they discriminate against poor people? What about information used by insurance company's to establish rates? Why should obese diabetic smokers pay more for life insurance than thin vegetarian runners? Isn't that profiling?
On the personal side, we predict the behavior of others based on prior experience. I had an employee that couldn't work a forty hour week. He called in sick one day a week every single week. I used that information to schedule work, was that profiling? Was I prejudiced when he was passed over for the choice assignments? When I don't hire people with a history of on the job accidents is that wrong? Or is it protecting myself and my other employees?

Clearly there is a line where any of these things can become racist. Just as clearly some of them have valid applications throughout our society. Often the only difference between something being racist and being a valid operational consideration is the attitude of the person making the call. I don't know how you codify that into law.

Prejudice is wrong when it involves holding you individually responsible for the actions of a group of which you are a member, by choice or not. Credit reports are not that. They are a reflection of your individual decisions. Prejudging individual behavior based on previous individual behavior is defensible. Being skeptical of someone who has lied to you before is defensible. Doing so because he or she is color A or sex A is not, unless there are factors which are directly affected by skin color or sex, such as blacks being much more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anemia, or the like.

Group responsibility is averse to justice.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Can you be more dishonest?

The point is the poor have the fewest resources to ensure their reproductive choices are intact and you tried to make it a “black culture” issue. While you support laws attacking the meager resources made available to them.

I don't support laws prohibiting contraceptives. Sex education is a matter of some debate, and I'm conflicted on the best approach to it. I support laws which protect the lives of innocents. The poor should not be encouraged to kill their offspring any more than the wealthy should. Poverty isn't made less miserable by putting the blood of one's children on one's hands.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,340
32,947
136
I don't support laws prohibiting contraceptives. Sex education is a matter of some debate, and I'm conflicted on the best approach to it. I support laws which protect the lives of innocents. The poor should not be encouraged to kill their offspring any more than the wealthy should. Poverty isn't made less miserable by putting the blood of one's children on one's hands.
A lot of abortions happen before the "baby" even has blood, so there is a silver lining for you.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,844
30,611
136
I don't support laws prohibiting contraceptives. Sex education is a matter of some debate, and I'm conflicted on the best approach to it. I support laws which protect the lives of innocents. The poor should not be encouraged to kill their offspring any more than the wealthy should. Poverty isn't made less miserable by putting the blood of one's children on one's hands.

Poverty is made miserable by actively working to remove control from people’s lives. You explicitly support and advocate for policies that do this. At least own it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Poverty is made miserable by actively working to remove control from people’s lives. You explicitly support and advocate for policies that do this. At least own it.

Should you be allowed to kill innocents if it's done in the name of exercising control over your life?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,285
136
Your basic premise is broken.

If you grant his premise that fertilized embryos are human, deserving of all the same rights and protections as anyone else his position makes perfect sense.

The issue is of course that such a premise is insane and not a single person on this planet actually believes that.