how do you feel about racial profile if it is effective (as supported by statistics)?

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Text

The NYPD is far more likely to stop and question black and Latino subway riders than white commuters...

Blacks and Hispanics make up 49% of subway riders, yet account for nearly 90% of the citizens stopped and questioned in the subways in the last two years.

Whites make up 35.5% of subway ridership, yet they account for a mere 7.9% of the subway riders stopped in the last two years, records show.

The department says more blacks and Latinos are stopped because 93% of violent crime suspects in the city were described by witnesses as black or Hispanic.

This occurred as the crime rate in the subway continued its drop. The average number of crimes per day in the subways fell from nine to six, while grand larcenies - the most common crime underground - slipped from 1,910 to 1,346.

actually, after reading the article more carefully, it does not state whether the drop in crime is due to increase in stopping riders.
so the question should be changed to... how do you feel about racial profiling if statistics justify/support it?

 

[Tiamat]

The truth (statistical) doesn't care about skin color.

Most large decisions are made with statistics in mind. Launch of new products, granting insurance, etc. Crime prevention shouldn't be any different.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

I'm ok with routine checks if the statistics back it up . It's only a problem if law enforcement starts treating people like criminals before they have valid reason to.

I'm Muslim and my passport lists my place of birth as 'Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia'. If that means a lifetime of closer checks & an extra half-dozen questions when going through airport security, I am fine with that. Just don't throw me in a room with a big mirror every time I travel just for the heck of it.

 

[Sphexi]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
I'm ok with routine checks if the statistics back it up . It's only a problem if law enforcement starts treating people like criminals before they have valid reason to.

I'm Muslim and my passport lists my place of birth as 'Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia'. If that means a lifetime of closer checks & an extra half-dozen questions when going through airport security, I am fine with that. Just don't throw me in a room with a big mirror and a big man with a rubber glove every time I travel just for the heck of it.

Fixed for the horrible, horrible truth.


Also, if 93% of the suspects are described by the victims as black/Hispanic, why would the police be looking for anyone else? Seems to be working as crime has gone down, perhaps instead of complaining about how the police are being "racist", these communities should be looking inward at their own members that are ruining it for all of them.

 

[bsobel]

For crime prevention yes, for anti-terror activities no. Thieves are thieves, they don't get or trick other into doing their work. Terrorists do (the two Chechnyan flights brought down were woman suicide bombers, the Russians profiles military aged males, so the attackers just changed the profile).

 

[shortylickens]

We've already had this discussion in P&N.

Incidentally, it went nowhere real fast.

 

[goog40]

If a crime has been reported and they're looking for a person of a certain skin color, it's certainly not racial profiling when they question people who fit the description. I'm assuming they're not frisking people when they're not looking for a particular suspect, but that's a big assumption.

 

[Jumpem]

I completely support it, and think that it should be used much more.

 

[BrownTown]

its deffinitely a VERY sensitive area for alot of people, even mentioning that black people are more likely to be criminals than white people will get you branded racist, same with similar statements about Muslims, Hispanics etc..

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
We've already had this discussion in P&N.

Incidentally, it went nowhere real fast.

It's nice to have conversations like this OUT of P&N for just that reason.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

The department says more blacks and Latinos are stopped because 93% of violent crime suspects in the city were described by witnesses as black or Hispanic.

If this means "we make a point of stopping blacks and latinos because blacks and latinos are more likely to commit violet crimes," I think that's wrong. If it means "we stop more black and latinos because they are more likely to be acting suspiciously, just like they are more likely to commit crimes," then I think that's fine. They should not stop a person solely based on the color of their skin; but if people of a certain skin color act suspiciously enough to warrant being stopped more frequently, then they should not be worried about stopping them more frequently.

A person who has given police no reason to search him other than being who is should NOT be subjected to a search.

 

[XZeroII]

Good for them.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
its deffinitely a VERY sensitive area for alot of people, even mentioning that black people are more likely to be criminals than white people will get you branded racist, same with similar statements about Muslims, Hispanics etc..

And this is where the problems arise. Statisticians will generally tell you that you should never apply statistical findings to individuals, because it's both a) a misuse of the data, and b) likely relying on a whole slew of assumptions that may or may not be true.

That being said, even if statistics show that 93% of violent crime suspects were described by witnesses as being black or Hispanic, that doesn't mean that blacks or Hispanics are more likely to be criminals. It means that of those individuals described by witnesses as having committed a crime, 93% are black or Hispanic. It doesn't allow you to generalize that finding to future results or to individuals, it tells you nothing about the accuracy of the witnesses or of the situations surrounding their reporting or the occurrence of the crime, and it provides no information regarding the prevalence of criminality in the black or Hispanic community.

 

[0roo0roo]

stats...do they consider that more stops are probably made in bad areas where more ethnic minorities probably are?

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

The department says more blacks and Latinos are stopped because 93% of violent crime suspects in the city were described by witnesses as black or Hispanic.

Seems like a pretty damn good reason to me. It's just logical.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
stats...do they consider that more stops are probably made in bad areas where more ethnic minorities probably are?

This racial disparity occurs across the city, particularly in NYPD Transit Districts that serve mostly white neighborhoods of Manhattan, including Wall Street, SoHo, Tribeca, the West Village, the upper West and East Sides, and midtown.

not necessarily. apparently stops happen in the affluent parts of nyc.
but because all trains originate from the ghetto boroughs and travel through manhattan, there will be a lot of minority ridership on all trains, even in white neighborhoods in manhattan.

 

[ric1287]

You stop the types of people that are either A) committing all the crime in a certain area or B) out of place in an area. Its really as simple as that, but unfortunately 'activist' type groups say that this is racist and force police to change the way they do their jobs.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: ric1287
You stop the types of people that are either A) committing all the crime in a certain area or B) out of place in an area. Its really as simple as that, but unfortunately 'activist' type groups say that this is racist and force police to change the way they do their jobs.

yeah, rev al sharpton and his shenanigans...

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
We've already had this discussion in P&N.

Incidentally, it went nowhere real fast.

no wai!!!

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: shortylickens
<snip>
[see above]

It's nice to have conversations like this OUT of P&N for just that reason.

wait... you actually have faith that ATOT can pull off an intelligent conversation regarding racial profiling? :laugh:

 

[mugs]

Let me rephrase my position this way - suppose a crime is known to have been committed by a person with AB blood type. I would expect that the majority of people who are interviewed by the police to have AB blood type (assuming that the police knew each suspect's blood type, which I realize is unlikely but that is not important for the purposes of this analogy). But I do not believe that any person with AB blood should be subjected to a search if the police have no other basis for suspecting them.

If the police are searching black people because they have good reason to suspect that each individual who is searched is guilty of a specific crime, that is fine. If they are searching them because they are black, that is NOT fine.