4 ms·

Sometimes it really is a thin line. In my country (The Netherlands) police sometimes check all cars passing a temporary checkpoint. They check if you have open

by neor 8y ago

Sometimes it really is a thin line. In my country (The Netherlands) police sometimes check all cars passing a temporary checkpoint. They check if you have open fines, paid your taxes etc. When really expensive cars pass those checkpoints they verify that the owner actually has a job to afford cars like these and if the owner doesn't they can impound the car on suspicion of being paid with criminal money. Statistics have shown that the highest "risk" group of those crime paid cars is with young foreign male drivers. A few years ago a (black) rap artist was stopped at the side of the road by police and they basically admitted that this was racial profiling. The artist made some fuss about it on social media, and it appeared in all news broadcasts and talk shows. People were expecting some big commotion about it; but it turns out that the majority of people actually approved of this method. It wasn't racism at work here, it was statistics and people were fine with it. It is a thin line though, because to the people on the wrong end of the statistics it really can feel like racism. So where should police draw the line?

krona 8y ago
What statistics, specifically? As a general rule, the variance within a group is almost always larger than the difference between groups. So, if there is statistical evidence of the effectiveness of racial profiling then I'd like to see it.
braythwayt 8y ago
A few years ago a (black) rap artist was stopped at the side of the road by police and they basically admitted that this was racial profiling. The artist made some fuss about it on social media, and it appeared in all news broadcasts and talk shows. People were expecting some big commotion about it; but it turns out that the majority of people actually approved of this method. It wasn't racism at work here, it was statistics and people were fine with it. Your conclusion is incorrect. Yes it is racism, and furthermore, the majority of people in a society being fine with it is not only irrelevant as to whether it's racism, it is what makes it structural racism. Something that everyone is fine with never seems questionable to members of the set of people who think it's fine. Now let's explain why it being statistics doesn't mean it can't be racism. I have used this analogy before: http://braythwayt.com/2016/03/30/racism-is-injustice.html http://braythwayt.com/2016/03/30/racism-is-injustice.html A woman is murdered in her home. Statistics tell us that when a woman is murdered in her home, it is nearly always her partner. So, why don't we merely arrest the partner and march them off to jail without gathering evidence, following pesky rules about having a lawyer involved, or examining the burden of proof? Statistics, one might say, reverse the burden of proof. Why isn't it up to the partner to prove that they're innocent? We can A/B test this application of statistics: Let's say that 9/10 times, the partner did it. In test A, we lock 100 partners up without trial. Presto, we have the right person in prison 90 times, and have an innocent person in prison 10 times, but being right 90% of the time feels pretty good, and we saved a lot of money and bother. Everybody who isn't the partner of a murdered woman feels pretty good about test A. In test B, we arrest 100 partners, but then we gather evidence and have trials, even though "everybody knows the partner did it." Good news! Of the ten partners in test B who didn't do it, nine are set free. One, alas, is wrongfully imprisoned for a crime the did not commit. But one wrongfully imprisoned person is better than ten, right? Well, it's not so simple. Of the 90 people who did do it in test B, the evidence wasn't always solid. So in ten cases, they cut a deal for a reduced sentence. In six cases, they "beat the rap in court" and were also set free, despite having done it. Three cases didn't even make it to court for some technicality or other. So test B is much better for the case where someone is innocent: There is only one person wrongfully imprisoned, instead of ten. But it's worse for the case where someone is guilty. Instead of ninety guilty people receiving the full punishment, Only 71 receive the full punishment. Then get a reduced punishment, and nine guilty people walk free! In pure, bloodless statistics, A is better than B. A is right 90% of the time, B is only right 80% of the time. But if we want to talk about justice, B is better than A. In terms of justice, one person wrongfully imprisoned is worse than 100 guilty people set free. False positives are abhorrent to a just society, and false negatives (not to mention costly trials) are the price society is willing to pay to ensure justice. So back to statistics and stopping cars. If statistics tell you that black men are more likely to be illegal immigrants, or have unpaid fines, or whatever, and you use that to stop every black man driving a car, but you don't stop white men, that is unjust for the same reason as locking up the partners without trial. You have imposed a consequence--not being able to drive without being stopped by police--on some number of innocent black men--because they belong to a class of people who statistically are more likely to have done something wrong. One can argue that being stopped is not the same thing as being jailed without trial. But it is. When travelling, you might be asked if you have ever been detained by police. Same when applying for a job. In some countries (cough, USA, cough) this perspective on statistics starts with stopping cars, and ends in gunfire. Even in civilised countries, people reason that if it's ok for the police to stop every black man because black men have statistically committed more crimes, it is ok to not rent to black men, or not employ black men. And if asked, they will say, "I'm not a racist, I'm a statistician.". Law enforcement choices send a strong message about "what everyone thinks is ok." At some point, though, it comes down to justice. Justice is not imposing consequences upon someone without actual, inspectable evidence. Injustice is imposing consequences upon someone because somebody else who has something in common with them broke the law. And racism is using statistics to impose injustice on someone because of their race. It's that simple.
- diddid 8y ago
  The partners are always the first SUSPECT and the police do their due diligence to RULE THEM OUT. Even on the 1/10 where the weren't the murderer, the police still intrude on them to try to find the truth. Being a SUSPECT != SENT TO JAIL. The rapper in the story was a SUSPECT, they weren't SENT TO JAIL which makes your analogy not an analogy at all, because well, they aren't anologous. If anything I feel your arguement argues for pulling the rap artist over.
  - braythwayt 8y ago
    Ah, you are correct that there is a missing element to the analogy, and this is it: The woman lies dead in the murder case. When the rapper was pulled over, there was no case of a Ferrari stolen by a dark-skinned man. The police were not acting on a tip that the rapper was smuggling narcotics in his car. They stopped him for driving while black. If we want to add the missing link, we then say that the police, knowing the statistics of men who assault and/or murder their partners, stop men at random in society and ask them to provide evidence that their partners are safe and sound. When put that way, the case is even stronger against stopping the rapper on a "fishing expedition." If men were stopped at random to check whether they had assaulted their partners, nobody would be shouting that "SUSPECT != SENT TO JAIL." Society would not stand for the notion that all men are suspect for the actions of a few, whether or not the statistics show that men are disproportionally more likely to kill their partners than women, or that the leading cause of violent death amongst women is men. The very notion of all men being permanent suspects of a crime would rightly be considered abhorrent. And so it is here with people of colour.
    - runako 8y ago
      > The very notion of all men being permanent suspects of a crime would rightly be considered abhorrent. And so it is here with people of colour. Thank you for these extremely well-reasoned comments.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > The very notion of all men being permanent suspects of a crime would rightly be considered abhorrent Maybe so, but it's default policy. For instance, in any domestic disturbance or abuse case, the man gets removed from the situation.
yosito 8y ago
> It wasn't racism at work here, it was statistics and people were fine with it. Don't use statistics as an excuse for racism. Eliminate racism everywhere you find it. There is no excuse. > So where should police draw the line? There should be a line drawn at racial profiling; it is never an acceptable way to predict who might be a criminal.

by neor 8y ago

krona 8y ago

What statistics, specifically? As a general rule, the variance within a group is almost always larger than the difference between groups. So, if there is statistical evidence of the effectiveness of racial profiling then I'd like to see it.

braythwayt 8y ago

A few years ago a (black) rap artist was stopped at the side of the road by police and they basically admitted that this was racial profiling. The artist made some fuss about it on social media, and it appeared in all news broadcasts and talk shows. People were expecting some big commotion about it; but it turns out that the majority of people actually approved of this method. It wasn't racism at work here, it was statistics and people were fine with it. Your conclusion is incorrect. Yes it is racism, and furthermore, the majority of people in a society being fine with it is not only irrelevant as to whether it's racism, it is what makes it structural racism. Something that everyone is fine with never seems questionable to members of the set of people who think it's fine. Now let's explain why it being statistics doesn't mean it can't be racism. I have used this analogy before: http://braythwayt.com/2016/03/30/racism-is-injustice.html http://braythwayt.com/2016/03/30/racism-is-injustice.html A woman is murdered in her home. Statistics tell us that when a woman is murdered in her home, it is nearly always her partner. So, why don't we merely arrest the partner and march them off to jail without gathering evidence, following pesky rules about having a lawyer involved, or examining the burden of proof? Statistics, one might say, reverse the burden of proof. Why isn't it up to the partner to prove that they're innocent? We can A/B test this application of statistics: Let's say that 9/10 times, the partner did it. In test A, we lock 100 partners up without trial. Presto, we have the right person in prison 90 times, and have an innocent person in prison 10 times, but being right 90% of the time feels pretty good, and we saved a lot of money and bother. Everybody who isn't the partner of a murdered woman feels pretty good about test A. In test B, we arrest 100 partners, but then we gather evidence and have trials, even though "everybody knows the partner did it." Good news! Of the ten partners in test B who didn't do it, nine are set free. One, alas, is wrongfully imprisoned for a crime the did not commit. But one wrongfully imprisoned person is better than ten, right? Well, it's not so simple. Of the 90 people who did do it in test B, the evidence wasn't always solid. So in ten cases, they cut a deal for a reduced sentence. In six cases, they "beat the rap in court" and were also set free, despite having done it. Three cases didn't even make it to court for some technicality or other. So test B is much better for the case where someone is innocent: There is only one person wrongfully imprisoned, instead of ten. But it's worse for the case where someone is guilty. Instead of ninety guilty people receiving the full punishment, Only 71 receive the full punishment. Then get a reduced punishment, and nine guilty people walk free! In pure, bloodless statistics, A is better than B. A is right 90% of the time, B is only right 80% of the time. But if we want to talk about justice, B is better than A. In terms of justice, one person wrongfully imprisoned is worse than 100 guilty people set free. False positives are abhorrent to a just society, and false negatives (not to mention costly trials) are the price society is willing to pay to ensure justice. So back to statistics and stopping cars. If statistics tell you that black men are more likely to be illegal immigrants, or have unpaid fines, or whatever, and you use that to stop every black man driving a car, but you don't stop white men, that is unjust for the same reason as locking up the partners without trial. You have imposed a consequence--not being able to drive without being stopped by police--on some number of innocent black men--because they belong to a class of people who statistically are more likely to have done something wrong. One can argue that being stopped is not the same thing as being jailed without trial. But it is. When travelling, you might be asked if you have ever been detained by police. Same when applying for a job. In some countries (cough, USA, cough) this perspective on statistics starts with stopping cars, and ends in gunfire. Even in civilised countries, people reason that if it's ok for the police to stop every black man because black men have statistically committed more crimes, it is ok to not rent to black men, or not employ black men. And if asked, they will say, "I'm not a racist, I'm a statistician.". Law enforcement choices send a strong message about "what everyone thinks is ok." At some point, though, it comes down to justice. Justice is not imposing consequences upon someone without actual, inspectable evidence. Injustice is imposing consequences upon someone because somebody else who has something in common with them broke the law. And racism is using statistics to impose injustice on someone because of their race. It's that simple.

diddid 8y ago
The partners are always the first SUSPECT and the police do their due diligence to RULE THEM OUT. Even on the 1/10 where the weren't the murderer, the police still intrude on them to try to find the truth. Being a SUSPECT != SENT TO JAIL. The rapper in the story was a SUSPECT, they weren't SENT TO JAIL which makes your analogy not an analogy at all, because well, they aren't anologous. If anything I feel your arguement argues for pulling the rap artist over.
- braythwayt 8y ago
  Ah, you are correct that there is a missing element to the analogy, and this is it: The woman lies dead in the murder case. When the rapper was pulled over, there was no case of a Ferrari stolen by a dark-skinned man. The police were not acting on a tip that the rapper was smuggling narcotics in his car. They stopped him for driving while black. If we want to add the missing link, we then say that the police, knowing the statistics of men who assault and/or murder their partners, stop men at random in society and ask them to provide evidence that their partners are safe and sound. When put that way, the case is even stronger against stopping the rapper on a "fishing expedition." If men were stopped at random to check whether they had assaulted their partners, nobody would be shouting that "SUSPECT != SENT TO JAIL." Society would not stand for the notion that all men are suspect for the actions of a few, whether or not the statistics show that men are disproportionally more likely to kill their partners than women, or that the leading cause of violent death amongst women is men. The very notion of all men being permanent suspects of a crime would rightly be considered abhorrent. And so it is here with people of colour.
  - runako 8y ago
    > The very notion of all men being permanent suspects of a crime would rightly be considered abhorrent. And so it is here with people of colour. Thank you for these extremely well-reasoned comments.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > The very notion of all men being permanent suspects of a crime would rightly be considered abhorrent Maybe so, but it's default policy. For instance, in any domestic disturbance or abuse case, the man gets removed from the situation.

yosito 8y ago

> It wasn't racism at work here, it was statistics and people were fine with it. Don't use statistics as an excuse for racism. Eliminate racism everywhere you find it. There is no excuse. > So where should police draw the line? There should be a line drawn at racial profiling; it is never an acceptable way to predict who might be a criminal.