6 ms·

“encounters with the police, especially for people of color.” Huh? How is enforcing people not dart out into streets and hit by cars racist or biased?

yummypaint 6y ago
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-jaywalking-tickets-continues-into-2020/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-...
rootusrootus 6y ago
I assume because of selective enforcement. The more that we make normal everyday events technically illegal, the more likely the police will have to pick and choose what they enforce and what they let slide. Then you have ample opportunity for that discretion to be applied in a discriminatory way.
- ravenstine 6y ago
  Sure, but why make a specific point about that with jaywalking? Can't that argument be made for just about any crime? Just seems like a useless red herring to make it about race when it doesn't need to be; it's a related but separate issue to whether jaywalking should be a crime in the first place.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    I think "is this something that often reinforces racial discrepancies" is a useful thing to know when evaluating should it be a crime in the first place. I think it's another point in the "con" column of having harsher treatment for it.
  - maxmorlocke 6y ago
    Because jaywalking is very frequently used by police to target communities of color. As an example, 90% of the jaywalking citations given in NYC in 2019 were issued to people of color.
    - dragontamer 6y ago
      Furthermore: Police use the jaywalking as an excuse to perform more invasive searching. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/versace-shoe-designer-says-he-was-racially-profiled-in-beverly-hills-video-shows-him-frisked-searched-police-say-its-for-jaywalking/ https://ktla.com/news/local-news/versace-shoe-designer-says-... "You were Jaywalking, so I'm going to check you for Weapons / Weed / etc. etc." ---------- I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it. I recognize that racial profiling happens, even in urban centers where Police are given plenty of anti-racism training. I don't know what to do about that however, aside from making people at least aware of the issue. Police need some leeway to do their job correctly. But whenever its because "I smell weed" or "You were Jaywalking", that just makes people angry and is counterproductive.
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        > I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it. why exactly? it's hard for me to imagine a situation where a cop reasonably needs to detain someone but can't come up with even one possible charge.
        dragontamer 6y ago
        We all agree with random DUI checks, right? They're pretty effective at scaring off DUI-attempts.
        leetcrew 6y ago
        not quite sure if you're being sarcastic, as this is a fairly controversial topic. just for the record, my personal position is that the police should not be stopping or detaining anyone without at least reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or about to be committed. "effective at scaring people off from doing X" is not a sufficient justification.
  - mcherm 6y ago
    > Can't that argument be made for just about any crime? No. The argument is only effective for crimes that a large percentage of people do frequently but which is only seldomly enforced with criminal sanctions. And I am hard pressed to find any crime fitting that description that I would not be in favor of eliminating. I'm perfectly happy to start with jaywalking.
  - IshKebab 6y ago
    No, the argument only applies to "crimes" that are very commonly committed. It isn't a racist law in itself but it allows racism to flourish.
    - ravenstine 6y ago
      This, I don't get. It's quite common to point out the systemic racism in law enforcement when it comes to many common crimes. Why is it that people in this thread are speaking as if this can only be applied to jaywalking? It comes off as very dishonest. At some point, it made sense to enough people that jaywalking have a penalty that it was written into law, and it wasn't because a bunch of people agreed that it would allow cops to punish more black people. Doesn't mean they were right, but it's hardly different from an intent perspective than any other crime on the books. The only difference between jaywalking and speeding(another common way to be pulled over while black/brown) is that far fewer people consider it reasonable. Is it just because jaywalking is hardly a crime, thus its only conceivable utility is in discrimination? I'm just trying to understand what you're getting at.
      - IshKebab 6y ago
        I think you're getting a bit confused. Nobody is saying that crimes like jaywalking were created for racists. The racism is an unexpected side effect.
  - lwhi 6y ago
    It's an example of a minor infraction, and police are most likely able to use their discretion with this type of lawbreaking. Other more serious crimes will almost definitely require a charge. The fact that their discretion overwhelmingly leads to the racial bias described, shows a situation where police behaviour needs to change. It's important to highlight it for this reason.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Yes, the argument can be made for any rarely-enforced law on the books. But if the people fighting injustice are inspired to do so based on injustice against a specific group, then you should examine your own motivations before discouraging them. I'm generally opposed to such racism, but it's not like there is a good alternative in these times. It's unfortunate that the campaign against police unaccountability has crystallized around "Black Lives Matter", but it's hard to dispute that Blacks have been feeling most of the pain. If "All Lives Matter" were an alternative non-racist campaign against police unaccountability then we could debate the merits of each. Alas it's just a reactionary stand to maintain the status quo.
art0rz 6y ago
Selective enforcement?
rafram 6y ago
It’s a minor crime which people of color tend to be disproportionately cited for.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  Isn’t the real causation here that they’re lower class? I would imagine high-class blacks don’t often get ticketed for jaywalking. Lower-class people tend to walk more for reasons related to expensive car maintenance. Are blacks more often lower-class? Sure, but that’s a different issue entirely.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    While that's interesting conjecture, it doesn't bear out in reality in this case. From an article linked elsewhere in this chain[1]: >From Jan. 1 to March 31, the NYPD wrote 80 tickets for illegal crossing — less than one a day in a city of more than eight million people — and only one went to a person identified in police logs as “white.” So unless you think the "lower class" is 98% people of color, it's clear that the bias here is race-based, not inherent in the population. [1] https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-jaywalking-tickets-continues-into-2020/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-...
    - jimbob45 6y ago
      Right but we have no way of knowing how many walkers were blacks, how many black and white walkers actually jaywalked, and how many walkers of each race got let off on warnings. It’s a nice talking point, I’ll grant you, but it won’t hold up to scrutiny on HN.
      - LordDragonfang 6y ago
        >how many black and white walkers actually jaywalked Are you seriously proposing that 98% people of color could be a representative sample of jaywalkers, or are you a bad troll? That pretty clearly shows a bias in the level of policing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AlexandrB 6y ago
Creating laws that almost everyone breaks and then enforcing them selectively is a great way to hide bias and racism. Edit: See also - loitering.
- kerng 6y ago
  Unfortunately this is very correct.
- pengaru 6y ago
  Yep, or hell even ridiculously low highway speed limits in some states, where everyone goes 10+ over. But I think it's also just ensuring a ready and plentiful supply of fines for fundraising.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
LordDragonfang 6y ago
Same reason enforcing random pat-downs for illicit substances, or traffic stops for speeding, racist or biased. Because the people enforcing it are biased, and often racist. That's exactly why it's phrased as reducing encounters with police, because police encounters are disproportionately negative (or hostile) for people of color. Has nothing to do with the actual infraction. Of course, you'd know this if you'd paid any attention to the news, considering it's currently the third most major political issue US.
standardUser 6y ago
That's the problem with criminalizing basic activities like walking. Law enforcement becomes the entity that decides who gets in trouble for breaking the law.

yummypaint 6y ago

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-jaywalking-tickets-continues-into-2020/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-...

rootusrootus 6y ago

I assume because of selective enforcement. The more that we make normal everyday events technically illegal, the more likely the police will have to pick and choose what they enforce and what they let slide. Then you have ample opportunity for that discretion to be applied in a discriminatory way.

ravenstine 6y ago
Sure, but why make a specific point about that with jaywalking? Can't that argument be made for just about any crime? Just seems like a useless red herring to make it about race when it doesn't need to be; it's a related but separate issue to whether jaywalking should be a crime in the first place.
- majormajor 6y ago
  I think "is this something that often reinforces racial discrepancies" is a useful thing to know when evaluating should it be a crime in the first place. I think it's another point in the "con" column of having harsher treatment for it.
- maxmorlocke 6y ago
  Because jaywalking is very frequently used by police to target communities of color. As an example, 90% of the jaywalking citations given in NYC in 2019 were issued to people of color.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    Furthermore: Police use the jaywalking as an excuse to perform more invasive searching. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/versace-shoe-designer-says-he-was-racially-profiled-in-beverly-hills-video-shows-him-frisked-searched-police-say-its-for-jaywalking/ https://ktla.com/news/local-news/versace-shoe-designer-says-... "You were Jaywalking, so I'm going to check you for Weapons / Weed / etc. etc." ---------- I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it. I recognize that racial profiling happens, even in urban centers where Police are given plenty of anti-racism training. I don't know what to do about that however, aside from making people at least aware of the issue. Police need some leeway to do their job correctly. But whenever its because "I smell weed" or "You were Jaywalking", that just makes people angry and is counterproductive.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      > I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it. why exactly? it's hard for me to imagine a situation where a cop reasonably needs to detain someone but can't come up with even one possible charge.
      - dragontamer 6y ago
        We all agree with random DUI checks, right? They're pretty effective at scaring off DUI-attempts.
        leetcrew 6y ago
        not quite sure if you're being sarcastic, as this is a fairly controversial topic. just for the record, my personal position is that the police should not be stopping or detaining anyone without at least reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or about to be committed. "effective at scaring people off from doing X" is not a sufficient justification.
- mcherm 6y ago
  > Can't that argument be made for just about any crime? No. The argument is only effective for crimes that a large percentage of people do frequently but which is only seldomly enforced with criminal sanctions. And I am hard pressed to find any crime fitting that description that I would not be in favor of eliminating. I'm perfectly happy to start with jaywalking.
- IshKebab 6y ago
  No, the argument only applies to "crimes" that are very commonly committed. It isn't a racist law in itself but it allows racism to flourish.
  - ravenstine 6y ago
    This, I don't get. It's quite common to point out the systemic racism in law enforcement when it comes to many common crimes. Why is it that people in this thread are speaking as if this can only be applied to jaywalking? It comes off as very dishonest. At some point, it made sense to enough people that jaywalking have a penalty that it was written into law, and it wasn't because a bunch of people agreed that it would allow cops to punish more black people. Doesn't mean they were right, but it's hardly different from an intent perspective than any other crime on the books. The only difference between jaywalking and speeding(another common way to be pulled over while black/brown) is that far fewer people consider it reasonable. Is it just because jaywalking is hardly a crime, thus its only conceivable utility is in discrimination? I'm just trying to understand what you're getting at.
    - IshKebab 6y ago
      I think you're getting a bit confused. Nobody is saying that crimes like jaywalking were created for racists. The racism is an unexpected side effect.
- lwhi 6y ago
  It's an example of a minor infraction, and police are most likely able to use their discretion with this type of lawbreaking. Other more serious crimes will almost definitely require a charge. The fact that their discretion overwhelmingly leads to the racial bias described, shows a situation where police behaviour needs to change. It's important to highlight it for this reason.
- mindslight 6y ago
  Yes, the argument can be made for any rarely-enforced law on the books. But if the people fighting injustice are inspired to do so based on injustice against a specific group, then you should examine your own motivations before discouraging them. I'm generally opposed to such racism, but it's not like there is a good alternative in these times. It's unfortunate that the campaign against police unaccountability has crystallized around "Black Lives Matter", but it's hard to dispute that Blacks have been feeling most of the pain. If "All Lives Matter" were an alternative non-racist campaign against police unaccountability then we could debate the merits of each. Alas it's just a reactionary stand to maintain the status quo.

art0rz 6y ago

Selective enforcement?

rafram 6y ago

It’s a minor crime which people of color tend to be disproportionately cited for.

jimbob45 6y ago
Isn’t the real causation here that they’re lower class? I would imagine high-class blacks don’t often get ticketed for jaywalking. Lower-class people tend to walk more for reasons related to expensive car maintenance. Are blacks more often lower-class? Sure, but that’s a different issue entirely.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  While that's interesting conjecture, it doesn't bear out in reality in this case. From an article linked elsewhere in this chain[1]: >From Jan. 1 to March 31, the NYPD wrote 80 tickets for illegal crossing — less than one a day in a city of more than eight million people — and only one went to a person identified in police logs as “white.” So unless you think the "lower class" is 98% people of color, it's clear that the bias here is race-based, not inherent in the population. [1] https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-jaywalking-tickets-continues-into-2020/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-...
  - jimbob45 6y ago
    Right but we have no way of knowing how many walkers were blacks, how many black and white walkers actually jaywalked, and how many walkers of each race got let off on warnings. It’s a nice talking point, I’ll grant you, but it won’t hold up to scrutiny on HN.
    - LordDragonfang 6y ago
      >how many black and white walkers actually jaywalked Are you seriously proposing that 98% people of color could be a representative sample of jaywalkers, or are you a bad troll? That pretty clearly shows a bias in the level of policing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AlexandrB 6y ago

Creating laws that almost everyone breaks and then enforcing them selectively is a great way to hide bias and racism. Edit: See also - loitering.

kerng 6y ago
Unfortunately this is very correct.
pengaru 6y ago
Yep, or hell even ridiculously low highway speed limits in some states, where everyone goes 10+ over. But I think it's also just ensuring a ready and plentiful supply of fines for fundraising.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

LordDragonfang 6y ago

Same reason enforcing random pat-downs for illicit substances, or traffic stops for speeding, racist or biased. Because the people enforcing it are biased, and often racist. That's exactly why it's phrased as reducing encounters with police, because police encounters are disproportionately negative (or hostile) for people of color. Has nothing to do with the actual infraction. Of course, you'd know this if you'd paid any attention to the news, considering it's currently the third most major political issue US.

standardUser 6y ago

That's the problem with criminalizing basic activities like walking. Law enforcement becomes the entity that decides who gets in trouble for breaking the law.