Racial controversy

[Solly]

It's about maximising the usefulness of police time and trying to keep their costs and your taxes down.

[Solly]

I'd never expect police to spend half their time targetting females, for example. It's a waste of their time.

[Japher]

Is it a good idea to have line-ups then?

"The crime was committed by a man," the shopowner told the cop.

"We have some suspects, care to take a look at a line-up and see if you can identify him?" The cop responded.

"Sure," replied the shopowner.

AT THE STATION

Case 1: The Racist Profiling Way

"Take a look," says the cop.

A curtain opens and 5 white males of equal height, shaved heads and goatees stand in a row.

Case 2: The Non-Racist, Non-Sexist Way

"Take a look," says the cop.

A curtain opens and amongst two women (one black and one white), an asian male, and a hispanic transexual, stands a white male.

---

Hmmm...
You'd complain either way.

[Jac de Molay]

Marketers target the people they think are more likely to buy their product...nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with police targetting people (men, minorities) who are more likely to commit crimes.

And if either misses their mark, ie innocent black/white men harassed, wrongly jailed, profiled in sweeping police actions, well I guess that's just the nature of the beast.

[Solly]

Jailing an innocent is a totally different matter than targetting people who are more likely to commit crime.

[Japher]

Good point Bodd... There is a reason for everything. Ever see "The Usual Suspects"?

It can boarder harassment (I should put that word in the 'I hate it when ppl mispronounce these words' thread), but unless you shape up you will be target... Sorry, smoke your dope, kill ya Be'atches, and the coppers will target you for a long time.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Japher

First, I want to point out the believing that a specific race or ethnicity is more likely to commit a crime or act in a certian way is not racist... it's prejudice. And, yes, there is a difference.

Racial Profiling is a justifiable condition in that most ppl of specific race and social stature tend to "hang" with each other and tend to share the same views and behaviors.

The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.

Here's what I have from the Oxford Edition Online. www.oed.com Racism is a highly charged word that is often used as a slur and seen as evil, but this is what I take it to mean. I would disagree with you here, though I would agree that it is also prejudice.

I personally am very leary when it comes to racial profiling. Any sort of random stopping done by the authorities should be essentially random. However, I am not completely against racial profiling within limits, certainly not exclusive racial profiling. Lets remember that white men and even white women commit crimes from time to time and we do want to catch them to. Don't forget 70 year old Korean women. Damn 70 year old Korean women

EDIT: wrong damn smilie

[Jac de Molay]

Jailing an innocent is a totally different matter than targetting people who are more likely to commit crime.

But the infringement of other rights, such as equal protection under the law, freedom from unwarranted searches, and harrassment based on racial profile are ,of course,perfectly acceptable. After all, you never know what those crazy ni###rs might be up to.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia

Even so, if police racism is eliminated as a factor (above) it would still be correct to say that race X commits more violent crime wouldn't it?

You are not omniscient. You do not know which race commits more violent crime.

You might comment on which races are more likely to be accused of crimes, more likely to be arrested for them, more likely to be charged, less likely to have the charge dropped, less likely to have access to quality representation, more likely to be convicted by a jury, etc, etc.

See where the flaws creep in?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MikeH


You aren't following me. The problem is that statement implies that the reason they commit more crime is purely racial.

If you specified the area where the violent crime was being committed, then you would only be referring to members of that race that live in that area. Would that be more acceptable?

You can also prove with statistics that more violent crime is comitted by poor people. Why not make the statement that "more crime is committed by low income groups" and then have the focus on improving standards for those groups rather than imposing on society an idea that minorities are more likely to be criminals.

How can you help the group that has a problem with violent crime unless you recognise that this is so?

By your argument it would also be factually correct for me to say that in the UK or US white males are more likely to commit fraud than other races. Does this mean that the tax departments should inspect the accounts of companies with white accountants more thoroughly than those that employ black accountants?

Not necessarily, but I am not offended by the statement you made about white males if it is factually correct.

Would it be OK for a police chief to say that publically and give the impression that the white males are generally corrupt?

Its still a statement of fact, so I don't have a problem with it.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Right, "environment". Which means that saying race x is more likely to commit x crime is completely irrelevant.

No. Its still a factual statement.

[gsmoove23]

"race x is more likely to commit x crime"

Its not a factual statement, its an assumption or perhaps prediction based on statistical analysis. Sorry to nitpick but I think its an important distinction.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I agree with this statement, sure. Other, earlier posts are more sinister though, at least in my eyes. Using the statement minorities are arrested for more crimes as an explanation to argue a genetic difference is another story. It is awfully reductionist and I would call it racist.

I agree that such a statement is not particularly persuasive when arguing genetic differences, but that doesn't make the statement untrue.

These are 2 definitions I've found on dictionary.com
1.The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Perhaps the question should be is the word racism necessarily evil. YES! IMHO

The problem is that someone who is labeled a racist is always considered to have #2, when this may not be the case. "Racism" is a poorly defined word.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
"race x is more likely to commit x crime"

Its not a factual statement, its an assumption or perhaps prediction based on statistical analysis. Sorry to nitpick but I think its an important distinction.

Ok, but its not irrelevant.

[Japher]

Caligastia; I agree that definition is bad.

I heard a commedian who once said that white people are right to be prejudice. If you are white and you are walking down the street, at night, in his old neighborhood, and you see three N***ers walking towards you... RUN!!!

What a racist commedian. Yet, he pretty well defined the difference between racism and prejudism. Racism is a result of ignorance, Prejudism is the result of education.