4 ms·
I totally share the author's view. If those stop-and-frisk are really needed, then, in my view, they should be applied to different cohorts in the same proport
by espinchi 13y ago
I totally share the author's view.
If those stop-and-frisk are really needed, then, in my view, they should be applied to different cohorts in the same proportion as those cohorts perform crimes: maybe it's 60% for ages 18-30 and 30% for 30+, could be 90% males and 10% females. Only for population groups where crime rates change significantly, of course. (Race may or may not be one of those.)
Would that make sense?
- judk 13y ago100% of criminals commit crimes. 0% of non criminals do. There are your ratios. See the problem?
- espinchi 13y agoFair enough. However, there are statistical deviations that are significant enough that it's fair to consider them. In the US, 90% of men are incarcerated. Sure, maybe it's just because men are suspect more women, therefore are caught with higher likelihood. But, given a random citizen, is the probability that they will commit a crime not significantly higher if they are a men? (Which is of course near 0 anyway, don't get me wrong.)