Racial Profiling
GENE DOUGLAS
A discussion of racial profiling I am momentarily hearing reminds me of some
photographs I saw in a magazine a number of years ago. A professor of
sociology and some students had set up a "disabled" car across from a
building, and set up a camera in the window of a building across the street.
Then they waited. People drove by, stopped, and one by one dismantled the
car. They took the battery, the radio, the tires, anything that would come
off. What impressed me was that they didn't look like crooks. They were
middle class looking white guys, wearing creased slacks, sweaters with a
shirt collar at the neck, short hair styles, horn-rimmed glasses, not an
earring or tattoo in the lot. People you would take a check from without
another thought.
I once worked in a prison, with an inmate clerk as an assistant, who was
very average looking. He had gone through several states writing hot
checks, and told me his formula for looking average and honest.
What does this tell us? Maybe that people who are doing profiling to catch
criminals should stop the honest-looking ones. Those are the ones to watch
out for.
Gene Douglas
-
GeneDou...@prodigy.net
Spammer bait: postm...@prodigy.net postm...@compuserve.com
postm...@aol.com
--
Portal to un-mod UU group at: http://www.deja.com/~soc_religion_uu/
Remember: (current list) Rich Puchalski / Richard Kulisz / --------- /
(Your name here)
New Un-Moderated group at alt.religion.unitarian-univ, or use URL to
go there.
-
"I quoted Rich Puchalski."
--
To err is human, to forgive... unlikely.
--
"Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by
crime feel as indignant as those who are." - King Solomon
--
Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety.
Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation.
In between lies survival and progress.
--
You know, you could have been prevented for a quarter.
--
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you...
--
DEATH to all fanatics.
--
Dirk Coburn
GENE DOUGLAS wrote:
> A discussion of racial profiling I am momentarily hearing reminds me of some
> photographs I saw in a magazine a number of years ago. A professor of
> sociology and some students had set up a "disabled" car across from a
> building, and set up a camera in the window of a building across the street.
>
> Then they waited. People drove by, stopped, and one by one dismantled the
> car. They took the battery, the radio, the tires, anything that would come
> off. What impressed me was that they didn't look like crooks. They were
> middle class looking white guys, wearing creased slacks, sweaters with a
> shirt collar at the neck, short hair styles, horn-rimmed glasses, not an
> earring or tattoo in the lot. People you would take a check from without
> another thought.
>
> I once worked in a prison, with an inmate clerk as an assistant, who was
> very average looking. He had gone through several states writing hot
> checks, and told me his formula for looking average and honest.
>
> What does this tell us? Maybe that people who are doing profiling to catch
> criminals should stop the honest-looking ones. Those are the ones to watch
> out for.
It tells us no such thing, IMO, unless we are looking not to reduce crime as a
social problem but just to change which group we scapegoat for that problem.
Surely there may be ways to try to distinguish people who are trying to look
honest from those who are honest. So it tells us that profiling should be
sophisticated enough to include both those who are not particularly clever about
their crimes (your anecdotal indication that there are criminals who scheme to
look honest and "average" does not negate statistical knowledge that there are
also less sophisticated crimes and criminals) and also people who have formulas
for looking average. Looking honest and average is surely just one of many
criminal strategies. The identifiers for the group who practice that strategy
are bound to be more subtle, require development by a smaller group of people
with more specialized knowledge and skills, and take longer to develop. In
fact, profiling *does* address a variety of criminal motives and strategies. If
some strategies correlate to geography, specific gathering places, clothing
worn, hours of operation, should we ignore that knowledge? The focus of the
debate should be on the *use* of all profiles. If the profile can only identify
a superset of people involved in a particular criminal strategy, then *great*
care should be given not to intrude on the private lives of those who fit the
profile and are not criminals.
>
>
GENE DOUGLAS
Dirk Coburn wrote in message <38F1DE03...@earthlink.net>...
In his case, he wore slacks and a sports jacket, horn-rimmed glasses, and an
open shirt collar so it wouldn't look like he was trying too hard. He would
put kotex, infant formula, paper towels, and a lot of family stuff in his
basket. When they would ask for ID, he would reach into his coat pocket,
and say, "Oh, heck, I left it at the house. I'll be right back." They
would always say, "Oh, never mind."
So it tells us that profiling should be
>sophisticated enough to include both those who are not particularly clever
about
>their crimes (your anecdotal indication that there are criminals who
scheme to
>look honest and "average" does not negate statistical knowledge that there
are
>also less sophisticated crimes and criminals) and also people who have
formulas
>for looking average.
The radio program I was listening to said that black women were targeted for
strip searches and X-rays several times more often than white women, though
they weren't found to be carrying contraband any more frequently than the
white women.
Looking honest and average is surely just one of many
>criminal strategies.
Quite often the criminals don't try to look honest. Airline passenger
smugglers probably do, so being black is one "tip off" than one must be
guilty of something. Acting nervous or sweating or looking around might be
others.
The identifiers for the group who practice that strategy
>are bound to be more subtle, require development by a smaller group of
people
>with more specialized knowledge and skills, and take longer to develop.
You may trust the police more than I do. Quite often they just go by a gut
feeling, and that gut feeling may get mixed in with prejudice.
In
>fact, profiling *does* address a variety of criminal motives and
strategies. If
>some strategies correlate to geography, specific gathering places,
clothing
>worn, hours of operation, should we ignore that knowledge? The focus of
the
>debate should be on the *use* of all profiles.
The question is, if people who wear green shirts more often commit crimes,
then do we target all people wearing green shirts for searches, on the
theory that they are likely committing a crime?
If the profile can only identify
>a superset of people involved in a particular criminal strategy, then
*great*
>care should be given not to intrude on the private lives of those who fit
the
>profile and are not criminals.
>
There are some interesting patterns of stupid criminals. Near the Rio
Grande in Texas, there are roads that may have no cars for a hundred miles
for hours at a time. One pattern for smugglers is to travel late at night,
at a high rate of speed, with two cars connected by CB radios. The one a
couple of miles back is a van or camper truck. Though they think they are
being clever, they don't know that they stand out like a neon light.
Sensors in the roads detect them, and the officers have time to get out of
bed, drive to the location, and set up a roadblock. They have a CB radio
turned on, and may hear a call like "Cops!" said in Spanish. Another clue
is when the second car makes a U-turn (already predicted.) An additional
element is the cover story given by the driver, which doesn't jibe with
observations. This provides "probable cause" justifying a search.
In one case, a driver said he had been asleep at a roadside park for several
hours on a cold night. The officer removed his glove and put it between the
grill to feel the radiator. A court ruled that the grill and radiator were
considered outside the car, and the officer had a right to test it.
--
Portal to un-mod UU group at: http://www.deja.com/~soc_religion_uu/
Remember: (current list) Rich Puchalski / Richard Kulisz / --------- /
(Your name here)
New Un-Moderated group at alt.religion.unitarian-univ, or use URL to
go there.
-
"I quoted Rich Puchalski."
--
To err is human, to forgive... unlikely.
--
"Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by
crime feel as indignant as those who are." - King Solomon
--
Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety.
Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation.
In between lies survival and progress.
--
You know, you could have been prevented for a quarter.
--
Age and knowledge don't always come together. Sometimes you
just get the age...
--
Dirk Coburn
GENE DOUGLAS wrote:
>
>
> In his case, he wore slacks and a sports jacket, horn-rimmed glasses, and an
> open shirt collar so it wouldn't look like he was trying too hard. He would
> put kotex, infant formula, paper towels, and a lot of family stuff in his
> basket. When they would ask for ID, he would reach into his coat pocket,
> and say, "Oh, heck, I left it at the house. I'll be right back." They
> would always say, "Oh, never mind."
1. No one is saying that every criminal strategy can be successfully profiled,
and 2. this one can be.
>
>
> So it tells us that profiling should be
> >sophisticated enough to include both those who are not particularly clever
> about
> >their crimes (your anecdotal indication that there are criminals who
> scheme to
> >look honest and "average" does not negate statistical knowledge that there
> are
> >also less sophisticated crimes and criminals) and also people who have
> formulas
> >for looking average.
>
> The radio program I was listening to said that black women were targeted for
> strip searches and X-rays several times more often than white women, though
> they weren't found to be carrying contraband any more frequently than the
> white women.
Heard the same news story, except the one I heard did not mention the frequency
of contraband. Black women were reported to be nearly twice as likely to be
searched as white women. The story did not say whether the black women searched
were more or less likely to share significant behaviors or attires or other
non-racial visible attributes with women who did have contraband. The story
also did not say whether the decision to stop the women was based on race or
whether the racial skew was a by-product of correlation with other attributes or
behaviors that do correlate to crime. But that would be a relevant
consideration.
>
>
>
>
> Looking honest and average is surely just one of many
> >criminal strategies.
>
> Quite often the criminals don't try to look honest. Airline passenger
> smugglers probably do, so being black is one "tip off" than one must be
> guilty of something. Acting nervous or sweating or looking around might be
> others.
I am not saying that there is not ham-handed racial profiling. But it requires
more proof than simply people of one race being searched or stopped more than
people of another.
>
>
> The identifiers for the group who practice that strategy
> >are bound to be more subtle, require development by a smaller group of
> people
> >with more specialized knowledge and skills, and take longer to develop.
>
> You may trust the police more than I do. Quite often they just go by a gut
> feeling, and that gut feeling may get mixed in with prejudice.
I don't harbor illusions that the police are without fault. But they also have
a serious job to do that we have in modern times loaded solely onto them. As
little as 80 years ago it was much more the responsibility of the average
citizen to deter and fight crime. If we are to continue to enjoy our lives
relatively free of that responsibility, then we cannot respond to the faults of
the police by petulantly taking away effective tools against crime. We must
instead look for corrective solution that ensure that the problems really are
problems, and then prescribe solutions that re-direct the police toward methods
that are both right and effective.
>
>
> In
> >fact, profiling *does* address a variety of criminal motives and
> strategies. If
> >some strategies correlate to geography, specific gathering places,
> clothing
> >worn, hours of operation, should we ignore that knowledge? The focus of
> the
> >debate should be on the *use* of all profiles.
>
> The question is, if people who wear green shirts more often commit crimes,
> then do we target all people wearing green shirts for searches, on the
> theory that they are likely committing a crime?
Not if they likely are not committing a crime. It may be that .02% of the
population commits the crime in question and .05% of those with green shirts
commit it. With just one observation like that, there would be unacceptable
intrusion into many non-criminals lives. But if 80% of the persons wearing
green shirts with a particular logo and driving minivans alone in districts
zoned for light industrial use are known to be drug dealers, then yes I would
stop every one (even if all but one were of the same race).
--Dirk
GENE DOUGLAS
Dirk Coburn wrote in message <38F3F5BE...@earthlink.net>...
>> The radio program I was listening to said that black women were targeted
for
>> strip searches and X-rays several times more often than white women,
though
>> they weren't found to be carrying contraband any more frequently than
the
>> white women.
>
>Heard the same news story, except the one I heard did not mention the
frequency
>of contraband. Black women were reported to be nearly twice as likely to
be
>searched as white women. The story did not say whether the black women
searched
>were more or less likely to share significant behaviors or attires or
other
>non-racial visible attributes with women who did have contraband. The
story
>also did not say whether the decision to stop the women was based on race
or
>whether the racial skew was a by-product of correlation with other
attributes or
>behaviors that do correlate to crime. But that would be a relevant
>consideration.
>
Even if the stops were based on nervously looking about, being overdressed,
or whatever, apparently the criteria were unreliable, and instead just
leaned toward black women.
>
>>
>
>>
>>
>> Looking honest and average is surely just one of many
>> >criminal strategies.
>>
>> Quite often the criminals don't try to look honest. Airline passenger
>> smugglers probably do, so being black is one "tip off" than one must be
>> guilty of something. Acting nervous or sweating or looking around might
be
>> others.
>
>I am not saying that there is not ham-handed racial profiling. But it
requires
>more proof than simply people of one race being searched or stopped more
than
>people of another.
>
Yes, I know. Police in one city were having good success with having a cop
pretend to be a drunk in a place where a lot of muggings occurred. Despite
the fact that they were catching a lot of real muggers, local race groups
criticized them for targeting a black area. Apparently the politically
correct thing to do would be to pretend to be a drunk in a middle class
white neighborhood, where no muggings have been reported.
Greg Shenaut
> Yes, I know. Police in one city were having good success with having a cop
> pretend to be a drunk in a place where a lot of muggings occurred. Despite
> the fact that they were catching a lot of real muggers, local race groups
> criticized them for targeting a black area. Apparently the politically
> correct thing to do would be to pretend to be a drunk in a middle class
> white neighborhood, where no muggings have been reported.
One thing I'm curious about. Due in part to affirmative action,
but also to general marketplace trends, a fairly high percentage
of police officers these days is Black. I imagine that there are
many Black officers in command positions who make decisions about
things such as the use of racial profiling. The question is, are
there differences between Black commanders and other commanders
with respect to their use of racial profiling. If there are, then
I would agree that it is potentially due to racism. However, if
there are no differences, then it could still conceivably be
inaccurate and based on society-wide racial stereotyping, but it
would be difficult for me to consider it as racist per se.
This is not to say that society-wide racial stereotyping, if it is
what underlies racial profiling, isn't a problem that we must
confront and eliminate, but it is not really the same as saying
"the police [department] are racist".
Greg Shenaut
Lynn Calvin
wrote:
>
>The radio program I was listening to said that black women were targeted for
>strip searches and X-rays several times more often than white women, though
>they weren't found to be carrying contraband any more frequently than the
>white women.
Actually it is worse than that. They were found to carrying contraband
less frequently, by almost any statistical method.
Lynn Calvin
lca...@interaccess.com
UU Discussion also available on:
news://alt.religion.unitarian-univ for unmoderated discussion
UU-Community email list for moderated discussion on uua.org
UUS-L mailing list
Holding Lisa Hadler, Rich Puchalsky, and Richard Kulisz in my thoughts.