Talk:Racial profiling

	Law Enforcement Unassessed
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

1. Definition does not appear to be clear, nor syntactically correct ( "Race in the profile of a persons considered ..." ) 2. Explicit Definition should be included in Contents

I removed the following:

Where disproportion is thought to exist in the number of minorities who commit certain crimes, by the very status of "minority" they usually only represent a fraction of the total number of criminals, and therefore that the concentration of enforcement on minorities reveals ulterior motives.

The argument is the result of fallacious reasoning due to its twisting of the words "minority" and "fraction". The claim made is that no group can constitute a majority in the occurence of crimes if it constitutes a minority in society as a whole. This is demonstrably false:

Suppose that society contains 100 members, and that 30 of these members constitute Group X. Now, suppose that society contains 10 members that are criminals, and that 6 of these criminals are members of Group X. While these numbers are hypothetical and perhaps extreme, here we have a situation in which Group X represents only 30% of society (a minority), but 60% of its criminals (a majority).

Also, the definition of "fraction", from Wiktionary:

1. a part of a whole [...] 3. a comparatively small part [...]

These two definitions are distinct and different, but the argument equivocates them to strengthen its claim that a minority in one sense cannot constitute a majority in another. Group X may constitute a fraction - "a part of a whole" - of the total number of criminals, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the fraction that Group X constitutes is "a comparitively small part" of the total number of criminals.

See Amphibology, Definist fallacy, and Statistical special pleading.

~

I returned to this page after contributing some time ago. I'm finding a bit of a problem conceptually and practically with the statistically significant versus never dichotomy. Much of the discourse on the term "racial profiling" in law enforcement circles, and I believe in wider society, focuses on how much of a role race can play in police\security decisions. Very few people would argue that race should never play a role, but many would argue that race should only play a role in the be on the lookout (BOLO) case.

I also find the term statistical significance confusing in this context. Two comments.

First, statistical significance really only applies to aggregate data, and many would argue only when one is attempting to generalize from a scientifcally defined sample to a universe (e.g. a clinical sample of 100 cancer patients and 100 controls to make an inference about the effect of treatment). Thus, statistical significance really has no application for assessing whether individual "A" was stopped by officer "B" based on A's race. It's a bit like asking whether or not my response to treatment is statistcally significant. Not an appropriate question for assessng.

Second, even if one were to look at aggregate measures, none of the analysts (e.g., Lamberth, Farrell, Fridell) currently looking at racial profiling in law enforcement agencies assess what is termed "statistical significance." Aggregate studies of racial profiling are descriptive studies not inferencial. There is good scientific reason for not couching this in terms of statistical significance, since persons stopped are not a scientific sample. If it is found for instance that Black drivers in a particular state are 20% more likely to be stopped for speeding than white drivers the question is not whether that difference statistically significant. This is a description of police performance (assuming accuracy and completenss in data collection) and not an inferencial problem. Even if one could establish that black and whites have similar driving behavior when it comes to speeding, the 20% is neither statistically significant or non-significant. On and aggregated level the critical questions are what role race played, if any, in that difference. That where the problems arises. Much of the statistical debate focuses on benchmarks. If blacks are 30% for the residential population are they necessarially 30% of drivers in thet jurisdiction? Are they 30% of the "speeders" (however that is defined)? It gets very complex very fast! No one has yet to conduct a case control study where statistical significance can be put to the test.

justthinking

I revised the article after realizing that there are at least 3 different meanings of racial profiling. I think opponents of "racial profiling" would agree with the definition:

the unjustified use of race as a consideration in profiling suspects

The question remains, of course, what would justify the use of race. When searching for an individual (such as the man who just robbed a liquor store), police always ask for a description. They want skin color, clothing, height, scars, and so on. I'm not sure whether there's any opposition to using race to describe individual suspects.

When making random stops, there is less agreement.

I think the major division is between those who believe:

1. race should be included when statistically significant, or
2. race should never be included

If I've left anything out, please add it. I'm hoping that my own view (that race should be included only if it's significant, and that police should be monitored closely for signs of prejudice and discrimination) has not misled me once again into confounding my own views with what is generally held, or into misrepresenting anyone's position.

User:Ed Poor

I rearranged some of the paragraphs and tried to tighten up the definition of "racial profiling". Ed Poor

Couple of suggestions from -- April:

• Include citations for the "some studies" which suggest X.
• Set off US-specific text (DEA, ACLU, etc) with "In the United States..."

Good suggestions, April. Also, the blurring of the distinction between "race as main factor" and "any use of race as a factor" may be more significant than I at first thought.

In today's N.Y. Daily News, an article used the term racial profiling in both senses, explicitly mentioning its definition in each case. The article, notably, took no note of the shifting use of the term.

The first mention was a citizen complaint that police were using race as the "top factor" in making stops. The second mention was the wording of a proposed regulation which specifically forbids "any" use of race in making stops.

It reminds me of stories I had heard 15 years ago of citizens groups who apparently want the police to go easier on minority (esp. black) criminals -- a kind of an affirmative action applied not to students or employees but to wrong-doers.

My personal preference is the "level playing field" concept, in which all persons -- students applying to school or getting grades or diplomas; job applicants or employees seeking promotions -- would be judged solely on their ability not their race. Oddly enough, some advocates of "affirmative action" call my pet concept "racist". Go figure. Ed Poor, Tuesday, April 9, 2002

• I can explain the latter point of view to you, though my own opinions, while not contradictory, are somewhat more complex than either side of the usual dichotomy on the affirmative action issue. At any rate, the "standard" objection, if you will, to the point of view described above is that the biases are already built-in long before students are tested or applying for jobs. In other words, they argue, affirmative action is a pallative measure, designed to "level the playing field" by making up for the biases which (they presume) have been holding some groups back since childhood.

• A possible solution addressing both sides of this debate might be to pair an ending of affirmative action with a major effort to level the initial playing field; that is, seeing that minority youngsters have greater access to good nutrition, stable neighborhoods, good education, and good access to career services such as job training, et cetera. Were that done, there would then be no argument for needing measures at later stages to correct imbalances, as the imbalances would have been corrected much earlier. Further, this treatment need not be restricted to minority youngsters, but could be broad-based to anyone who might not normally have such access. -- April, Tuesday, April 9, 2002

• • To add to this, I once wrote an essay that rambled much more than April's succinct summary. My view was that in any given group of humans (black, white, etc), you probably have the same proportion of personality types. Let's assume that 50% of any given group is normally motivated, and 25% are highly motivated, and 25% are not very motivated. If Group 1 starts in poor conditions where success is not easy to gain (like a neighborhood I once had the privilege - yes, I consider it such for the empathy it helped me gain - to live in) then perhaps only those 25% who are highly motivated will be able to achieve better things. Those who are normally motivated will stay where they are, and those who are not very motivated might turn to a life of crime because it's 'easy'. Group 2 starts in better conditions.. The highly motivated group have the benefits that let them do even better than Group 2. The normally motivated group have less to worry about than Group 1, so can move ahead instead of staying where they are, etc... Obviously this is simplistic, but hopefully it helps point out some of the underlying problems of treating everyone the same if their starting conditions aren't. Rgamble

I reworked the text somewhat to make it of more international character, leaving the more general comments at the top and moving US-specific info to a section at the bottom. I copyedited a bit, and added an anti-racial-profiling (sense 2) argument I've encountered to the appropriate section.

I also checked up on the "15 mph" studies, and couldn't find said studies or anything verifing them. For instance, a Google search of police black speed white (15 or fifteen) (miles hour or mph) "racial profiling" got 42 hits, none of which discussed the statistic given above. I therefore removed the statement pending verification. -- April

It can often be difficult to determine what an advocate's position on "racial profiling" is, unless they state which definition they are using. Otherwise opposing advocates can each claim that they are against "racial profiling" while taking opposite sides regarding a particular police department's practices.

If a person's physical features look like those specific to someone of Middle Eastern descent, then they're generally more likely to be stopped and searched thoroughly than someone who has the physical features of a Caucasian person

Middle Easteners are Caucasian.

I'd really like to see some decent citations and statistics here. I know that many U.S. jurisdictions have gathered information on race of suspects stopped under certain laws; there have been many surveys on the subject, and (I imagine) quite a few academic papers. Does anyone know their way around this literature? -- Jmabel | Talk July 1, 2005 06:58 (UTC)

See:

• http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/
• http://www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/OCJRC/OCJRC94/940650k.htm
• http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

Dd2 2 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)

Currently there are as many blacks who have served time in prison as there are whites who have served time in prison.[1] Caution must be used with even these statistics, because unless examined critically, by department and state, they might lend credence to an overzealous police practices that have let whites and Hispanics go free while harassing young black males.

If there are almost as many black males as white males, that clearly showcases an imbalance in incarceration. African-Americans are only about 13% of the U.S. population, while white people make up 69% of the U.S. population. Using statistics from Demographics of the United States and the link provided in the removed text, the percentage of the black population that has been incarcerated (5.6%) is five times that of the percentage of the white population that has been incarcerated (1.1%):

• 2,203,000/(296,000,000 x .691) = 0.0107
• 2,166,000/(296,000,000 x .129) = 0.0567

This removed paragraph, as it stands now, shows a point-of-view in favor of the police system, and lacks some factual accuracy in its presentation. It should be restructured (possibly using the calculations I have provided) --FuriousFreddy 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"If there are almost as many black males as white males, that clearly showcases an imbalance in incarceration."

No, it "clearly showcases an imbalance in" criminal behavior. Your POV is clearly in favor of black criminals, and against the police. "You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."

Maybe it's because this is the first article I've been focused on for a long period of time, but I've noticed a high level of vandalism in this article, a few which I'v fixed myself. Is there any explanation beyond this being a controversial topic?

Including race as one of several factors in suspect profiling is generally supported by the law enforcement community globally, though there are many notable exceptions. Can you please list some of these "notable exceptions" if not i think this should removed.

In my opinion, this article is written from the standpoint of someone who is firmly in support of Racial Profiling and does little to offer the contrasting point of view.

The 'Critics' section does an incomplete job of listing some of the most relevant (and moderate) critique of Racial Profiling and in addition, even within it, the article's author interprets statistics in a manner commensurate with the opinion of being pro Racial Profiling (eg: higher black v. lower white homicide rates justifies racial profiling, a matter which there is much debate about).

I would suggest the following as a thorough argument for your 'critics' section on Racial Profiling, one that you'll find adequately presents a moderate and logical viewpoint and argument opposed to Racial Profiling not contingent on the 'political correctness' perspective of organizations such as the ACLU and its ilk.

At its base, Racial Profiling relies on the premise that members of one ethnic or racial group are significantly more likely to commit crimes of a specific type, and thus should receive increased scrutiny by law enforcement authorities.

This conclusion may initially seem logical, however critics of profiling argue that because more persons of a specific ethnic group are arrested or convicted of a crime, more of them are actually committing a crime in the first place. It is quite possible that the increased scrutiny is partially responsible for some of the drastically differing rates for arrests and convictions among whites and minorities. It has been estimated by studies, such as this one at A&M university [2] that only slightly less than 5% of (non-violent) crimes result in a successful conviction. Other studies suggest 10-20% of crimes result in a conviction. Regardless of the exact figure, it is clear that a large number and possibly even a majority of crimes do not result in a successful conviction.

The low conviction rate throws the underlying premise of racial profiling into question; if such miniscule percentages of committed crimes are being successfully prosecuted, what races are those criminals who aren't being caught? What assurances do citizens have that increased scrutiny on specific races isn't primarily or at least partially responsible for the drastic difference in rates of arrest and conviction?

Critics of Profiling may beg the question; What if a majority of the 80-95% of criminals who successfully evade conviction are white, while because of increased scrutiny minorities are captured and thus jailed at a higher rate? Given the fact that blacks are reported to receive as much as 5 times as much scrutiny as whites, even if they committed the same number of offenses as whites, they would be more likely to be tried and convicted because of increased scrutiny.

Lest proponents of Racial Profiling dismiss the above question as conspiracy theory fluff, real world law enforcement officials have given it credence, some even stating it outright.

Charles Ramsey, head of the narcotics division of the Chicago Police Department summed it up succinctly:

"There’s as much cocaine in the Sears Tower or the stock exchange as there is in the black community, but those guys are harder to catch.”

Yale University also found in a 1995 study [3] that in six California counties 100 percent of those sent to trial on drug charges were minorities, while the drug-using population in these same counties (as self reported by drug users and reported by police) was more than 60 percent white, with the whites relatively untouched by law enforcement, receiving less that one arrest per 100 admitted drug users and no trials or convictions.

The Journal of Drug Issues and many other non-political scientific studies published from 1996 to 2004 such as the following [4] have also noted a little spoken of and generally unknown fact: black teenagers and young adults use and buy less illegal drugs than whites (and also sell). Whites generally exceed all other races in consumption and sales of these drugs, in studies taken by law enforcement, school supervisors and self report. However, black teens and young adult drug users are scrutinized, arrested and jailed at a rate of over 500% more than corresponding age white drug users.

Before those who are proponents of racial profiling argue that these statistics relate to solely to drug use, note that 66% of blacks in prison are there for crimes relating to drug use. Eradicating that problem would do much to clear up the overwhelming disproportionate representation of incarcerated blacks.

Oft-hidden data like this paint a clear picture of what Racial Profiling critics fear could be happening in small and large communities across the country. Even moderately oriented critics of Racial Profiling who concede that there may be some difference in the rates of criminal behavior between races, based on socio-economic status or other non-genetic factors, have concern that increased scrutiny on minorities accounts for a substantial portion of the disparity in white and minority arrest/conviction rates.

Additionally, increased scrutiny may also cause a secondary effect of a creating self-fulfilling prophecy. Given two ethnic groups A and B, if law enforcement authorities spend 200% more effort and time pursuing ethnicity A, they will end up with approximately 200% more arrests even if groups A and B commit crimes at similar rates per capita. Following that logic, statistical criminal data from groups A and B will indicate wrongfully that A commits more crimes, and that data could theoretically be used to further justify even more scrutiny of group A. All the while group A and B could still be committing crimes at similar rates.

In summation, critics of racial profiling do not only oppose it because it is morally offensive to those of the targeted groups, but in addition may be either wholly or partially unfounded, and may perpetuate and aggravate even further potentially undeserved scrutiny on specific populations. --Notionphil 21:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have accidentally deleted large sections of text, while trying to make small edits. Thanks to those who alertly recognized this and reverted these accidental deletions. Elabro 15:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This was my big mistake. I have no idea how I did this, and I apologize for the error and the trouble it caused. Elabro 15:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, everyone makes mistakes and reverting is not a lot of work :-) Good luck with your edits, it looks like you're doing a good job! --JoanneB 16:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Among other changes, I'm taking out the entire last paragraph of the US Debate section. Most Americans don't consider white nationalism a mainstream movement, so I don't think there's a need to describe either a white nationalist's views or how some people would counter them.

I'm also removing most of the first 9-11 paragraph and all of the second 9-11 paragraph in the same section. It gives no sources for the opinions it describes, and it sounds like raw opinion and original argument couched in "some argue..." and "they would say..." If anyone wants to add reliable sources showing who holds these opinions, feel free to add the text back in.

--Allen 02:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is tiring how so many Asian-Americans or Asians in general are just passed off as the passive, "controllable" (ie. "harmless" and "nerdy", and keep to themselves) minority. Being of Asian descent, I actually took it as a compliment- and take great pride!- that I got thoroughly checked and screened at the Dulles airport in Washington a few years back. And also, when Asians who "pass off" and get mistaken for being anything "not Asian", they end up getting screened more in airports. The nerdy, stereotypical looking Asians are almost always free to go! It certainly goes to show in the end that a lot of people are ignorant and have distorted perceptions of race. Any non-white person who does not comply to some given stereotype is "confusing" to people. And yet, it is perfectly fine when a white person does not fit a stereotype at an airport. Le Anh-Huy 07:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand the first sentence of the article...

++++ The first sentence is wrong I think. It reads:

Racial profiling is inclusion of race in the profile of a persons considered likely to commit a particular crime or type of crime

Racial profiling is not just the inclusion of race. Racial profiling is using race as the only or sole profile of persons considered likely to commit a particlar crime or type of crime.

That is more truthful anyway.

If your going to propose a suggestion, please sign your name. It makes it easier for the rest of us to discuss your opinion. I would oppose the above suggestion; it pushes a POV and at least in the first line it should be neutral and detached. Note that this definition does not exclude the possiblity that racial profiling can be used unfairly and as a primary method of profiling. On another note, it appears that there is an offhanded mention of "advacacy" and a detailed explanation of "critisism". I believe that this should be fixed to confrom to a NPOV.Tmchk | Talk 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I see one of you screaming propagandists complain that someone is "pushing a POV," I just chuckle and shake my head. The notion that this article is pro-police is an unwitting admission of the radically anti-police, pro-minority criminal views of the "editors." I noticed, as well, that until the other day, every single external link was to a group such as the ACLU promoting the racial profiling hoax.

Advocates of criminals are not of the tactics and methods of the police. What does this "sentence" mean?--87.162.40.240 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "A huge stereotype for racial profiling is a Middle Eastern person."

If that needs to be in, get a reference Ultre 20:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I noticed, as well, that until the other day, every single external link was to a group such as the ACLU promoting the racial profiling hoax."

I take that back. The article has since been vandalized, so that there are no links to articles that question the racial profiling hoax.

70.23.177.216 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]