Conquer Club

Are you in favor of racial/gender/ethnicity profiling? If a rash of burglaries occurred in your neighborhood and they were allegedly committed by an old, white, woman, are you in favor of the police stopping old, white, women walking in or near your neighborhood? What if the crime was more serious? What if the crime was less serious?

I drive for Red Cross and I also know a few other old, white women. Without fail they are liars and shoplifters who butt in line. They also cause motor collisions.

Let the profiling begin. Mandatory strip searches.

thegreekdog wrote:Are you in favor of racial/gender/ethnicity profiling? If a rash of burglaries occurred in your neighborhood and they were allegedly committed by an old, white, woman, are you in favor of the police stopping old, white, women walking in or near your neighborhood? What if the crime was more serious? What if the crime was less serious?

Sure, it makes sense, but I wouldn't allocate resources where 100% is spent on profiling/investigating only one type of person.* I'd use some 20% randomly to increase the risks of being caught for using substitutes (e.g. terrorists who use others to transport goods/bads like... old ladies?. A better example is using cleanly shaven white guys with no tattoos to ship drugs).**

*Like always, it depends on the circumstances, so an absolutist approach is silly.

**Markets + greater network connections with more locally provided security would be better at finding the proper balance between profiling and random screenings--as well as other methods (i.e. innovation). Caveat: 'course, unwarranted searches are unwarranted, but then again it depends--e.g. all people who enter certain concerts should agree to be checked for weapons before entering; otherwise, they can't enter.

For more serious crimes--which cause greater harm or pose a greater threat, then more resources of the total "screening/profiling budget" should be allocated.

We have a Middle East crime squad in NSW. The is also an Asian crime squad in Victoria & NSW, not sure about the other states.

Oh, this should go without saying, but just in case:

Profiling need not be limited to race, gender, and ethnicity. You can profile by other relevant characteristics (age, mental health--if possible, physical behavior, etc.), and we profile others all the time (e.g. judging people by their clothing, their car, their immediate demeanor, etc.). So, I'd be interested in hearing the contrary position.

If it's "an old white lady recently robbed a bank" then it's ok for as long as the po-po are looking for the criminal.

If it's "old white ladies rob banks" then it's bad.

DoomYoshi wrote:I drive for Red Cross and I also know a few other old, white women.

Wait - DoomYoshi is an old white woman?

You didn't think that was my big black dick did you? It was just a loaner.

There's a difference between racial/gender/whatever profiling and questioning people who match the description of the suspect. If the only description you have is "black male, mid-20s, roughly 6 feet tall" then it's hardly racist to focus on tall, young black males, is it?

However, in the absence of a description of the suspect, if you assume that a robbery must have been committed by someone of a certain race, then that is outright bigotry.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh, this should go without saying, but just in case:

Profiling need not be limited to race, gender, and ethnicity. You can profile by other relevant characteristics (age, mental health--if possible, physical behavior, etc.), and we profile others all the time (e.g. judging people by their clothing, their car, their immediate demeanor, etc.). So, I'd be interested in hearing the contrary position.

Judging is quite a bit different than stopping, questioning, and/or searching.

The problem with profiling, or more specifically action taken based on only a single aspect of a profile is that many innocent people are inconvenienced or worse, simply because of one aspect.

I myself, because of my business, get judged quite a bit during a nice hot day when I fit the profile of someone you might not want to mess with, and certainly wouldn't want to pick up hitchiking, but after a shower and a change of clothes could easily be mistaken for an accountant or doctor....and in fact, have been on both counts.

I have been given some pretty suspicious looks from a cop or two, and while I dont love it, I actually do understand it. However, after I change the profile a bit, I would be absolutely pissed if I got those same looks simply because I happen to have blondish hair for example..or had dark skin. If I had to show my ID and answer questions often, I would certainly be pissed...again, unless I made other choices, that to some degree begged for it.

Again, the judging is everyone's right. The same millionaire that keeps a few feet from me in line at Dunkin Donuts might very well give me a $500 tip the following week, when I do some work at his house...its just an occupational hazzard that I have chosen for myself and therefore accept on some level. However, if cops were stopping me every day Id get pretty pissed off...thats not judging, thats harassing.

Pragmatism. Thats is all.

thegreekdog wrote:Are you in favor of racial/gender/ethnicity profiling? If a rash of burglaries occurred in your neighborhood and they were allegedly committed by an old, white, woman, are you in favor of the police stopping old, white, women walking in or near your neighborhood? What if the crime was more serious? What if the crime was less serious?

I do believe that there are VERY LIMITED situations when profiling is appropriate (aside from "the suspect in the bank robbery is a black male driving a red Chevelle", which is absolutely acceptable).

The problem with allowing it is that those being allowed (our law enforcement officers) have shown a penchant for, from time to time, taking things quite too far...and given the reality of The Blue Line in law enforcement and the difficulty of prosecution, it's probably better to err on the side of not profiling.

ConorJames wrote:There's a difference between racial/gender/whatever profiling and questioning people who match the description of the suspect. If the only description you have is "black male, mid-20s, roughly 6 feet tall" then it's hardly racist to focus on tall, young black males, is it?

However, in the absence of a description of the suspect, if you assume that a robbery must have been committed by someone of a certain race, then that is outright bigotry.

I'm only responding to you, but this response could be to a number of posts - if the only thing the police have to go on is "Black male between the ages of 17 and 24 last seen wearing an Eagles starter jacket" then what to do?

For example, I work in Philadelphia and there are fairly regular occurrences where two to five young black men will randomly attack a person on the street and then run off. The only description anyone has is "young black men" and perhaps the clothing those young black men were wearing at the time. What to do?

Profiling, specifically at airports, has been shown to work...very well (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... urity.html), but we must ask ourselves at what costs? We risk becoming more hated internationally if that's even possible.

Similarly, overreacting the other way would give us some politically correct bill that would make it tougher on law enforcement to do its job (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops ... MTmPtu6xfI).

The problem with profiling is that it is a very easy tool... and too often incorrect.

There are a couple of famous experiments, both replicated in various forms. In one, students (sometimes psycology students, sometimes police officers) are in class, when someone comes in, quickly runs out. Everyone is questioned. Initially, folks are hesitant, but then one person steps up and firmly declares that it was a young black man (or something similar) Very quickly, a profile emerges of the person and what they did. Usually, the profile is of a young male, often black, maybe with gang insignia, wielding a gun or knife, usually threatening. Then the video tape is rolled and it turns out that the person was white, maybe not even wearing a sweatshirt and usually not holding any kind of weapon at all. (that varies with the experiment). In some cases, the person does something semi-threatening, waving something in the air, in other cases the person just ran in quickly and out quickly. NOTE.. at least in the past, it turned out that the more highly trained, the quicker these people typically profiled wrongly.

In another, folks are asked to watch a video tape carefully, usually asked to particularly pay attention to one person for any unusual activity, though that can vary. Folks are asked if they saw anything unusual at all. Generally, they say "no". Then, when it is played back, it turns out there was a guy in a gorilla suit walking across the screen!

The real problem with profiling is that it gives not a real sense, but a false sense of identification. When people are stressed and overworked (as any police officer will be, particularly in a big city), it becomes far, far too easy to lapse into bad habits. The habits are perpetuated because, well, if you are targeting young black males you tend to find a lot of young black males. Several people have cited statistics saying that blacks are arrested and convicted more frequently than whites. That is true, and sometimes there are definite, valid reasons -- gangs, for example, very much do tend to run along racial lines, so gang targeting will almost inevitably target specific ethnicities. In NY city, there was a rash of black on black crime. BUT... when independent investigators have looked fully at the details of arrests, crime and convictions, it very much turns out that blacks are much more likely to be arrested, then once arrested more likely to be convicted and to be given given harsher sentences. It is no cooincidence that a lot of those now being released from death row, for example, are black. (women, ironically, are also more likely to get harsh treatment. --- women are less likely to be initially arrested, but get more convictions and far harsher sentences than males, even in the exact same incident)

Is it OK to send out a bulletin that says "looking for a black male driving a blue pickup, last seen heading south" -- ABSOLUTELY. It is OK to say "a black man robbed the bank, so lets make sure we check every black male". Well, a few years ago that very thing resulted in some very prominent basketball players being laid prone on the sidewalk in Santa Barbara by some "oh so vigilant" police officers. And, well... the real perpetrators were not caught.

The problem is not that profiling is wrong, it is that it has to be used very, very VERY cautiously and, when it comes to race, too many people just plain become lazy. Saying "its a black man" is really no more informative than saying "it was a human being". THAT is the real problem. If you add even a few details -- a black man wearing a white cap and black pants, for example, then it becomes more realistic, but then you also can risk making mistakes as noted above.

Only cause I could see for profiling a certain group of people, is if there are eye witness descriptions (preferably multiple, as singular tend to be less accurate) of the perpertrators. Otherwise, it only causes more problems.

thegreekdog wrote:

ConorJames wrote:There's a difference between racial/gender/whatever profiling and questioning people who match the description of the suspect. If the only description you have is "black male, mid-20s, roughly 6 feet tall" then it's hardly racist to focus on tall, young black males, is it?

However, in the absence of a description of the suspect, if you assume that a robbery must have been committed by someone of a certain race, then that is outright bigotry.

I'm only responding to you, but this response could be to a number of posts - if the only thing the police have to go on is "Black male between the ages of 17 and 24 last seen wearing an Eagles starter jacket" then what to do?

It seems to me that ConorJames covered that above.

thegreekdog wrote:For example, I work in Philadelphia and there are fairly regular occurrences where two to five young black men will randomly attack a person on the street and then run off. The only description anyone has is "young black men" and perhaps the clothing those young black men were wearing at the time. What to do?

Again, it's not racist at all to question people about young black men if you're responding to the area reasonably quickly (before those who may know something have left the area or whatever). Some may TAKE IT as racial profiling but it isn't, in that case. This is different than, for instance, profiling for Muslims at airports...in which case there is no actual crime you're responding to that was perpetrated by those Muslims. It's the lazy way of doing things because it's entirely possible not to even catch the future criminal (who may or may not look Muslim, for instance).

PLAYER57832 wrote:Saying "its a black man" is really no more informative than saying "it was a human being". THAT is the real problem.

No, that is a stupid statement. Of course it is more informative, and realistically so. That information may not be particularly useful in, for instance, a deeply black neighborhood, but in most cases it does add usefulness to the information.

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you add even a few details -- a black man wearing a white cap and black pants, for example, then it becomes more realistic, but then you also can risk making mistakes as noted above.

Of course...this is obvious to anyone. And there will almost always be risk of mistaken identity in such situations, but you can only do the best you can with the information you have available.

thegreekdog wrote:For example, I work in Philadelphia and there are fairly regular occurrences where two to five young black men will randomly attack a person on the street and then run off. The only description anyone has is "young black men" and perhaps the clothing those young black men were wearing at the time. What to do?

My home town has had rashes of a similar problem, except it was larger groups (10+), younger people (I'm assuming on this one), and they were not just male.

What do do? Increase police presence (ideally foot patrols) in the areas where it's happening most often, to help stop attacks that are happening, and then find a way to provide these young people with something better to do, to prevent future attacks (this is where I have no idea the specifics).

PLAYER57832 wrote:Is it OK to send out a bulletin that says "looking for a black male driving a blue pickup, last seen heading south" -- ABSOLUTELY. It is OK to say "a black man robbed the bank, so lets make sure we check every black male". Well, a few years ago that very thing resulted in some very prominent basketball players being laid prone on the sidewalk in Santa Barbara by some "oh so vigilant" police officers. And, well... the real perpetrators were not caught.

A description of a criminal act is OK, Profiling (which is moreso passing judgement before an individual has a chance to do anything) leads to the violations of individuals rights and these generalizations have plagued many people who are otherwise innocent of nothing more than. Trayvon Martin was profiled and followed because of it, even though he hadn't done anything, as a result he ended up dead. Plenty of men, black, hispanic, although to a lesser extent even white generally males (shaved/skin head, tattoes, bikers, ect) have been mistreated and judged due simply to their appearance.

I have a feeling the entire forum has me foe'ed except for BBS and saxi. Nobody else responds to me anymore. Is that a form of profiling?

Timminz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:For example, I work in Philadelphia and there are fairly regular occurrences where two to five young black men will randomly attack a person on the street and then run off. The only description anyone has is "young black men" and perhaps the clothing those young black men were wearing at the time. What to do?

My home town has had rashes of a similar problem, except it was larger groups (10+), younger people (I'm assuming on this one), and they were not just male.

What do do? Increase police presence (ideally foot patrols) in the areas where it's happening most often, to help stop attacks that are happening, and then find a way to provide these young people with something better to do, to prevent future attacks (this is where I have no idea the specifics).

The city did the worst thing - they installed video cameras. Which I hate.

I guess I should point out that I'm vehemently against racial profiling (and the use thereof). But I also hate government, so that's probably why.

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh, this should go without saying, but just in case:

Profiling need not be limited to race, gender, and ethnicity. You can profile by other relevant characteristics (age, mental health--if possible, physical behavior, etc.), and we profile others all the time (e.g. judging people by their clothing, their car, their immediate demeanor, etc.). So, I'd be interested in hearing the contrary position.

Judging is quite a bit different than stopping, questioning, and/or searching.

The problem with profiling, or more specifically action taken based on only a single aspect of a profile is that many innocent people are inconvenienced or worse, simply because of one aspect.

I myself, because of my business, get judged quite a bit during a nice hot day when I fit the profile of someone you might not want to mess with, and certainly wouldn't want to pick up hitchiking, but after a shower and a change of clothes could easily be mistaken for an accountant or doctor....and in fact, have been on both counts.

I have been given some pretty suspicious looks from a cop or two, and while I dont love it, I actually do understand it. However, after I change the profile a bit, I would be absolutely pissed if I got those same looks simply because I happen to have blondish hair for example..or had dark skin. If I had to show my ID and answer questions often, I would certainly be pissed...again, unless I made other choices, that to some degree begged for it.

Again, the judging is everyone's right. The same millionaire that keeps a few feet from me in line at Dunkin Donuts might very well give me a $500 tip the following week, when I do some work at his house...its just an occupational hazzard that I have chosen for myself and therefore accept on some level. However, if cops were stopping me every day Id get pretty pissed off...thats not judging, thats harassing.

Yeah, I see what you're seeing and generally agree with you.

I'm in favor of profiling for particular circumstances---with everything else held constant (including implementation through state-owned police and/or market-provided security). When we apply that implementation variable to the puzzle, then... I'm not sure where I stand. Profiling can easily be abused and abusive, and I've never found cops to be held equally to the law, so I'd be worried to directly approve of their profiling.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Saying "its a black man" is really no more informative than saying "it was a human being". THAT is the real problem.

No, that is a stupid statement. Of course it is more informative, and realistically so. That information may not be particularly useful in, for instance, a deeply black neighborhood, but in most cases it does add usefulness to the information.

No, it really doesn't, except in VERY limited circumstances... sad you think it does.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you add even a few details -- a black man wearing a white cap and black pants, for example, then it becomes more realistic, but then you also can risk making mistakes as noted above.

Of course...this is obvious to anyone. And there will almost always be risk of mistaken identity in such situations, but you can only do the best you can with the information you have available.

You can also recognize how often the "information given" is just wrong. When you add a t-shirt of a specific type or such, that is real information. Just saying "it was a young black guy" or feeling that anyone who is black should get extra scrutiny because they are more likely to have committed crimes.

That information in this case white cap and black pants eliminates everyone not wearing a white cap and black pants, and the black part eliminates just about everyone who isn't black..... I call both pieces of information very useful. Now Police might stop everyone with black pants as well as everyone with black pants and a white cap because caps are easily taken off.