Racial Profiling... Pros And Cons

[musturde]

I don't have anything against racial profiling. If the country is in a state in which it can be attacked at any time, it needs to take action.

[quote]Dont get me wrong, terrorism does exsist, but whatever happen to the concept of courage, and not giving up liberty for security like a bunch of scaredy-cats?[/quote]

I don't believe in any way that we're being cowards by doing this. If by being a coward, we are saving lives, then it is more just to be a "coward". In all honesty, I'm for the patriot act also, only in these circumstances. The Patriot act goes against the basic rights of the American people. However, what is more important in this case, stopping people from attacking us, or holding onto a liberty? It's pointless to have full liberty and be dead as opposed to allowing the government to do things that would usually be unconstitutional in order to save the lives of its people.

[Socrates]

Politically incorrect as it may be to say this, racial profiling (as with other kinds of profiling) is necessary in order for law enforcement to be effective.

The fact is that most acts of terrorism lately have been comitted by young Middle-eastern men. So when conducting airport security searches, for instance, it would make far more sense to pay more attention to men of this description.

This in no way makes a racist statement against Middle-easterners, nor implies that all men of such a description are terrorists. It simply makes more sense in a real-world situation. Yes, some people may feel upset or humiliated by this, but that is hardly worth the risk of mass deaths by a terrorist act.

Fo instance, if there had been a recently in my area a rash of bank robberies by 30-year-old white men of my description, it might make sense for cops to be suspicious if I am around the bank. Yes, their suspicion of me might make me unconfortable and be humiliating for me, but it could hardly be called unjustified.

Likewise with cop racial profiling of blacks. The simple fact is that statistically blacks commit more crime than people of other races. I'm not going to get in a discussion of the reasons for this, nor whose at fault, but that's the facts. So cops have reason to be more suspicious of young black males. This in no way means that all black men are thugs or criminals. (Likewise, young men of any race commit more crime than their older or female counterparts, so they are naturally going to be the object of more police suspicion. So far, no one accuses police of "gender profiling" or "age profiling" that I am aware of)

Can racial profiling be abused? Of course. But this doesn't mean that it has no place.
Crime in the real world is not spread out evenly among all people to fill some sort of p.c. quota. Law enforcement acting in the real world must act accordingly. When lives are at stake, there is no room for politically-correct bean-counting.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1098771' date='Oct 22 2006, 11:12 PM']The simple fact is that statistically blacks commit more crime than people of other races.[/quote]
Can you produce evidence for this "simple fact", broken down by every race throughout the world?

[kujo]

Ever since 8th grade, I have been stopped at airports when flying...every single time. Why? Because I am dark and I have a beard.

Am I of Middle Eastern dissent? No.
Is it annoying to be stopped? Yes.
Is it a little embarassing? Yes.
Do I have anything to hide? No.

Small inconveniences are nothing when lined up next to my desire to fly safely. If myself and others who look like me have to endure the big bad metal detector so that the security officials are sure that there is nothing being brought onto the plane that could be used by a terrorst to harm, than I am for it.

It boils down to a simple question: Are you willing to sacrifice your sensibilities in order to be safe?

[musturde]

[quote name='kujo' post='1099319' date='Oct 23 2006, 05:56 PM']
Ever since 8th grade, I have been stopped at airports when flying...every single time. Why? Because I am dark and I have a beard.

Am I of Middle Eastern dissent? No.
Is it annoying to be stopped? Yes.
Is it a little embarassing? Yes.
Do I have anything to hide? No.

Small inconveniences are nothing when lined up next to my desire to fly safely. If myself and others who look like me have to endure the big bad metal detector so that the security officials are sure that there is nothing being brought onto the plane that could be used by a terrorst to harm, than I am for it.

It boils down to a simple question: Are you willing to sacrifice your sensibilities in order to be safe?
[/quote]
'
exactly. I think America is even more sensitive than some other countries (like France and Italy) when it comes to airport security.

Edited October 23, 2006 by musturde

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1099191' date='Oct 23 2006, 02:23 PM']
Can you produce evidence for this "simple fact", broken down by every race throughout the world?
[/quote]
interesting website..

this [url="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ageracesex.htm"]page[/url] may be interesting, but only shows homicides..

the page is part of the Bureau of Justice Statistics.. i am sure you can find what is needed to prove or disprove the above sub-thread...

but in the end, it may be of little consequence to this discussion..

overall, profiling seems to make common sense. If a guy, who looks like me, is blowing up buildings, you should be on the lookout for people who look like me. To harrass old mother hubbard because she is knitting an afgan, seems reaching to say the least, and a waste of resources to boot.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1099191' date='Oct 23 2006, 03:23 PM']
Can you produce evidence for this "simple fact", broken down by every race throughout the world?
[/quote]
I realize that this is a touchy topic, and I risk being labeled "racist" for even bringing this up. Maybe I should have clarified, but I was actually referring to crime in the U.S. - I don't know a lot about crime statistics world-wide, and with regards to police profiling and blacks, it is usually America that is being discussed. I don't see why I should have to give something broken down by "every race throughout the world" - the crime rates of say, Eskimos, or East African Bushmen, are not really relevant to my point.

Anyway, here's a Wikipedia article: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime"]Race and Crime[/url], which provides some charts. I'd recommend checking out the sources linked to. [url="http://www.amren.com/color.pdf"]Here's a lengthy report on the topic.[/url]

While racism may be a factor in disproportionate arrests/incarcerations for blacks, the discrepancy is too huge to be blamed entirely on police racism. Few would deny that blacks do in fact commit more crimes per capita than whites. (And they are also the victims of much more crime.) I am not arguing here that there is something intrinsic to being of the black race that makes people more likely to commit crime; I'd say that is more of a socio-economic problem. The simple fact is that a kid growing up in the ghetto will have much more temptation towards getting involved in gangs, drugs, and crime than an upper-middle-class kid from the 'burbs, and this problem of course begets a vicious cycle for many poor blacks.
Of course, discussing all the factors involved with black poverty, crime, environment, etc., would require a whole other debate thread.

All I'm doing here is saying that "racial profiling" by police has reasons beyond simple racism, and can be legitimate, so long as people's rights are not being clearly violated.

[Era Might]

[quote]Few would deny that blacks do in fact commit more crimes per capita than whites. (And they are also the victims of much more crime.) I am not arguing here that there is something intrinsic to being of the black race that makes people more likely to commit crime; I'd say that is more of a socio-economic problem. The simple fact is that a kid growing up in the ghetto will have much more temptation towards getting involved in gangs, drugs, and crime than an upper-middle-class kid from the 'burbs, and this problem of course begets a vicious cycle for many poor blacks.[/quote]
The prison population as of 1997:

[quote]Whites: 3,429,000

Blacks: 2,149,900

Other: 113,600

-[url="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/cpracetab.htm"][u]SOURCE[/u][/url]-[/quote]
So while, by your own admission, race is a disproportionate factor in the incarceration of black Americans, the number of white Americans in prison still outweighs black Americans by more than a million people.

[quote]All I'm doing here is saying that "racial profiling" by police has reasons beyond simple racism, and can be legitimate, so long as people's rights are not being clearly violated.[/quote]
I have no idea what this means in any practical way. If a black man is riding in a car, is he to be suspected of committing a crime?

Consider, for example:

[quote]Half of all multiple-offender rape/sexual assault victimizations (49.4%) were committed by Whites, 29.5% by Blacks, 15.5% by mixed races, and 5.7% by other races than White or Black.

-[url="http://www.swcp.com/nmcsaas/statistics.html"][u]SOURCE[/u][/url]-[/quote]
Whites comprise 50% of repeat sex offenders. So if a white man is driving in a car with a child, should he at least be suspected of sexual misconduct with that child, since he fits the profile of a repeat sex offender?

Race very rarely has anything to do with a legitimate investigation. If you're looking for a black man, and you see a black man, that alone is not enough to stop somebody. If you're looking for a fat black man driving an old pickup truck, and you see a fat black man driving an old pickup truck, then that's a legitimate use of race in a profile. But just because someone is white or black is not reason enough to suspect them of a crime. I sure hope we don't start stopping white men who are with a child because they fit the profile of a sex offender.

It's easy for white Americans to blow off racial profiling, but when white Americans outnumber black Americans by 200 million, then it's completely understandable why racial profiling would be brought into question. Imagine living in a land as a Catholic outnumbered by 200 million Muslims. You might not think everyone had your best interest in mind.

Let's not forget that this is a country that sustained institutional slavery of black Americans for more than a century and a half, and it has only been a few decades since black Americans started to receive civil rights. Whether we like it or not, we are still living with the institutional effects of our history, and we have cause to be concerned about racial profiling. It's not like America has a legacy of kumbaya when it comes to race.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1099459' date='Oct 23 2006, 07:51 PM']
The prison population as of 1997:
So while, by your own admission, race is a disproportionate factor in the incarceration of black Americans, the number of white Americans in prison still outweighs black Americans by more than a million people.
I have no idea what this means in any practical way. If a black man is riding in a car, is he to be suspected of committing a crime?

Consider, for example:
Whites comprise 50% of repeat sex offenders. So if a white man is driving in a car with a child, should he at least be suspected of sexual misconduct with that child, since he fits the profile of a repeat sex offender?

Race very rarely has anything to do with a legitimate investigation. If you're looking for a black man, and you see a black man, that alone is not enough to stop somebody. If you're looking for a fat black man driving an old pickup truck, and you see a fat black man driving an old pickup truck, then that's a legitimate use of race in a profile. But just because someone is white or black is not reason enough to suspect them of a crime. I sure hope we don't start stopping white men who are with a child because they fit the profile of a sex offender.

It's easy for white Americans to blow off racial profiling, but when white Americans outnumber black Americans by 200 million, then it's completely understandable why racial profiling would be brought into question. Imagine living in a land as a Catholic outnumbered by 200 million Muslims. You might not think everyone had your best interest in mind.

Let's not forget that this is a country that sustained institutional slavery of black Americans for more than a century and a half, and it has only been a few decades since black Americans started to receive civil rights. Whether we like it or not, we are still living with the institutional effects of our history, and we have cause to be concerned about racial profiling. It's not like America has a legacy of kumbaya when it comes to race.
[/quote]
You have as yet provided no solid evidence against the statistics showing that blacks have much higher rates of crime [i]per capita[/i] than whites and other races. (Did you even look at the charts of homicide rates?) If you have anything which effectively debunks such statisitics as false, I'd be open and happy to see it, but you have not done this. (You have instead tried to fudge things by using [i]total numbers[/i] while ignoring the fact that the total number of whites in America is still considerably higher than that of blacks. Thus the [i]rates[/i] for blacks are significantly higher.)

The debate concerned racial profiling. I simply provided a statistical fact. Rather than provide counter-statistics, or solid evidence proving my statistics false, you have made an emotionally-based response, with little in the way of substance.

If you can provide something authoritative showing that whites do in fact commit as many or more crimes [i]per capita[/i] than blacks, I'd be open to seeing it.

I'm not making a racist argument - merely providing statistics. A greater proportion of blacks than whites come from rough backgrounds (for reasons not entirely their own fault), and people from rough backgrounds of any race are more likely to be involved in crime. If a group of people is statistically more likely to be involved in crime, they are more likely to get the attention of the police. It may not be "fair", but that's the way it is.

(And if this discrepancy is entirely due just to police racism, how do you account for pretty much the same arrest levels when the cops involved are themselves black?)

Edited October 24, 2006 by Socrates

[Era Might]

You have not proven anything, except that people in poor areas commit more crime than people who are not in poor areas. It has nothing to do with whether they are black or not. To say "blacks are more likely to commit crime than whites", and then somehow use that to justify racial profiling, is a false argument, because race has nothing to do with the matter. If you want to say people in poor areas, irrespective of race, should be profiled, then that would flow logically from the point you are making. Poverty has something to do with crime. The color of your skin does not. It's like saying "Catholics commit more crimes per capita than Protestants, therefore, Catholics should be profiled and suspected of a crime". Being Catholic has nothing to do with the matter. It's a false conclusion, even if the numbers are correct, because it assumes that being Catholic suggests that one is a criminal. Many things might suggest that someone is involved with crime, but merely that they are black is not one of them.

You still haven't answered my question: what does your point mean practically? Should black men be suspected of a crime because they are black? You can call it "emotional", but racial profiling has to take place in the real world. What are you proposing? A black man in a nice car is suspected of stealing that car because his skin is darker than yours? If Alan Keyes and Rick Santorum are driving the same car in the same neighborhood, and a cop sees them, should Alan Keyes be pulled over and Rick Santorum left free? DWI, DUI, and DWB (Driving While Black)?

If that is the case, then white men in public with a child should be suspected of being sex offenders.

[Anomaly]

Era,
You are making cause and effect judgements where there are none.

Read Soc's post again, keeping in mind that being black is just a physical trait, NOT a causitive attribute.

A higher per-capita % of white males being caught for sex-crimes is a physical trait identifying WHO is more likely to commit the crime. It has NOTHING to do with WHY. If I saw a white male walking in a mall with a crying boy, YES, i would give a second glance at them instead of a black guy. Not that the white guy would commit the crime because he's WHITE, but because of environment/social conditons, etc., the probablility is there. I'm not assuming he's guilty, just giving a second glance.

Now if I assumed he HAD to be guilty because he's WHITE, and confronted him rudely, making accusations, that's a different story. Or if I began confronting all the white males, making accusations because I believe white males are degenerate sexual predators, that's wrong.

Being black doesn't cause one to commit crimes. It's a physical trait that is shared in common with a sub-set of the population that are more likely to have suffered from environmental conditions that helped lead to choices made to commit crimes.

NOBODY, is trapped by genetics to commit crimes or act morally. NOBODY is trapped by environmental conditions to commit crimes or act morally. We ALL have the Free Will necessary to decide good OR bad. We are all imperfect and make imperfect choices and screw up. Being black, middle-eastern, white, asian, hispanic, are just physical traits that are proportionally shared by others who MAY share the same cultural influences and values.

[kujo]

So, have we decided to use racial profiling in airports?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1099805' date='Oct 24 2006, 07:47 AM']
You have not proven anything, except that people in poor areas commit more crime than people who are not in poor areas. It has nothing to do with whether they are black or not. To say "blacks are more likely to commit crime than whites", and then somehow use that to justify racial profiling, is a false argument, because race has nothing to do with the matter. If you want to say people in poor areas, irrespective of race, should be profiled, then that would flow logically from the point you are making. Poverty has something to do with crime. The color of your skin does not. It's like saying "Catholics commit more crimes per capita than Protestants, therefore, Catholics should be profiled and suspected of a crime". Being Catholic has nothing to do with the matter. It's a false conclusion, even if the numbers are correct, because it assumes that being Catholic suggests that one is a criminal. Many things might suggest that someone is involved with crime, but merely that they are black is not one of them.

You still haven't answered my question: what does your point mean practically? Should black men be suspected of a crime because they are black? You can call it "emotional", but racial profiling has to take place in the real world. What are you proposing? A black man in a nice car is suspected of stealing that car because his skin is darker than yours? If Alan Keyes and Rick Santorum are driving the same car in the same neighborhood, and a cop sees them, should Alan Keyes be pulled over and Rick Santorum left free? DWI, DUI, and DWB (Driving While Black)?

If that is the case, then white men in public with a child should be suspected of being sex offenders.
[/quote]
Basically, what Anomaly said. It doesn't look like you're really reading my posts, but instead reading into them what you want, and thus missing the point.

I posted a fact, you asked for evidence to support my statement, which I provided, and then you act as though I am saying that being black somehow in itself causes crime.
I'd strongly suggest reading this report: [url="http://www.amren.com/color.pdf"]The Color of Crime[/url], which uses data from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice, and the FBI. Read it carefully, and then come back when you're done.

Cops cannot know immediately what neighborhood, background, etc. someone comes from, but he can see race, among other things (which is why this becomes an issue). Race is only one part of police "profiling." Sex, age, and general appearance also come into play. Obviously, a young black man dressed in a "gangsta" style is going to be more likely to be suspect by a cop than a prim, middle-aged lady.
And Alan Keyes under normal circumstances would be unlikely to be pulled over. A 20 year old "gangsta"-styled dude (of any race) will attract more attention than a respectable looking 60-year-old black man in a conservative suit. And I doubt very many black grannies, for instance, get stopped by the police.
Simply being young and male will make you the object of more police attention than being old or female. Not that this is fair, but it's the way it works. Cops are human, and must go by physical appearances like everyone else.

Of course simple harrasment by police where there is absolutely no reason for suspicion of crime is wrong, whatever the race, and I am not defending everything done by any cop. But sometimes cops have to "play a hunch" in order to uncover crime.

How would a policy [i]against[/i] "racial profiling" work? Would cops have to fill an equal quota for race of everyone they stop? That would be ludicrous, and would lead to a great reduction in the effectiveness of crime fighting.
Political correctness simply does not work in the real world.

Spend a few years working in law enforcement, and I might take what you have to say a bit more seriously.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Socrates

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1100508' date='Oct 24 2006, 09:55 PM']How would a policy [i]against[/i] "racial profiling" work? Would cops have to fill an equal quota for race of everyone they stop?[/quote]
Easy. Nobody is suspected of anything because of the color of their skin. If a black man is riding down the street, he is not to be suspected of stealing cars. If a white man is in a car with his daughter, he is not to be suspected of abducting her.

"Racial profiling" is something entirely different from "including race in a profile". Racial profiling is the targeting of someone because they are a particular race, and nothing more. If a black man is riding a car, then he should be pulled over because he's a black man, and all black men are suspicious; as opposed to the police are looking for a middle aged black man in a Chevy truck, and they see a middle aged black man in a Chevy truck.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1100808' date='Oct 25 2006, 10:46 AM']
Easy. Nobody is suspected of anything because of the color of their skin. If a black man is riding down the street, he is not to be suspected of stealing cars. If a white man is in a car with his daughter, he is not to be suspected of abducting her.

"Racial profiling" is something entirely different from "including race in a profile". Racial profiling is the targeting of someone because they are a particular race, and nothing more. If a black man is riding a car, then he should be pulled over because he's a black man, and all black men are suspicious; as opposed to the police are looking for a middle aged black man in a Chevy truck, and they see a middle aged black man in a Chevy truck.
[/quote]That's not what racial profiling is. Racial profiling is the application of using statistics to choose who to stop, search, and question in a set circumstance. In this case, we are talking about using racial profiling on who to stop, search, and question of the people boarding airlines. You are mischaracterizing what racial profiling is and how it is used. Racial profiling is questioning 80% of the middle eastern men and 20% of the rest of the population so that effectively, you can question X number of persons boarding planes with the personnel you have available. We aren't talking about traffic stops.