Racial profiling

Summary of those who say YES:

·       Statistics clearly show that blacks commit more crimes than whites and so do Hispanics, but due to media distortion and politically correct speech those who mention these facts are labeled racists. Consequently, many are not fully aware of the magnitude in the differences in crime rates among blacks, whites, and Hispanics.

·       When someone does reveal the facts he/she is often faced with the claim that the minorities are disproportionate to what the study claims. However, the author does an amazing job at clearly explaining the methodology and it shows that the studies are not flawed like many think.

·       Calculations from the national crime victim survey reports the black rate for interracial robbery was 103 times that of the white rate.

·       30,000 white women were raped by a black male compared to only 5,400 black females raped by white men.

·       The authors present numerous reports from the UCR and NCVS and each time the black rate is significantly greater than the white rate.

·       The data that comes from the uniform crime report is based off crimes report to police and arrest made. The data from the NCVS is based solely on crimes people say they were victim to.

·       The article addresses the counter argument that police have discretion and misuse it, but in reality they do not when it comes to violent crimes.

·       The article also addresses the issue of some Hispanics being placed in the white category and how that could lead to misleading results.

·       The authors conclude with crime rates that include women. Also they make their main point and that is that racial profiling should be an acceptable law enforcement strategy because, as the stats show, its common sense that blacks commit more crimes than whites and so do Hispanics. It’s just like the scenario of a woman being more fearful of a group of guys than a guy being more fearful of a group of women. It’s just common sense that’s no different than looking at someone’s age or gender.

Summary of those who say NO:

·       The opposing authors make two mistakes: First their information is not valid. Second their results and conclusions are misleading and wrong

·       The other authors use prevalence rates rather than incidence rates.

·       Their use of the NCVS was wrong and thus leading them to the incorrect conclusion that black on white crimes occur more than any other.

·       The author of this article explains their mistakes and then shows us the way it is supposed to be done. Furthermore, she concluded that White on White crime occur more often.

·       She continues on to discuss the odds of victimization and how rate comparisons can be misleading.

·       She concludes that when using crime report data you must focus on all violent crime to make a general claim about a class of people. She plainly states that the NCVS shows us that in fact white people are at greater risk of victimization from other white people. Blacks are over represented in prisons so prison studies can be misleading as well. Simply white people commit crimes against other white people more than the other author’s claims that blacks commit more crimes against whites.

Reflection:

The term “racial profiling” is in itself a phrase that triggers a number of emotions in many Americans. You do not have to be a historical scholar to know that the issue of race and actions against people solely based on race has a significant place in our country’s history. Most American’s do not take the time to study the UCR or NCVS, they develop their opinions and base their arguments on what they have learned from the media. Some may also reach their conclusions about race and crime as a result of a personal experience they had, but the media is America’s primary source of knowledge and information.

            According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2010 America’s population was 308,745,538. Of that 72.4% were White (223,531,769), 12.4% where Black (38,901,937), Hispanic or Latinos made up 16.3% (50,325,522). Clearly there is a significant difference in population according to race, therefore when attempting to find if one race commits more crimes than other races you must account for the vast differences in their numerical representation in society. Numbers aside, the underlying issue is whether we should allow police to initially focus on nothing more than persons presumed race when conducting inquires.

            As I previously mentioned most American’s, including police officers, do not look at the crime reports. Nor do they study the methodology and understand the complexity of the data. If the media reports that 63% of blacks commit armed robbery and only 35% of white people commit robbery, the average citizen is probably going to think “wow black people are more violent and are more likely to rob me”. However, if this made up person were to look more into the issue they would find that the 63% of blacks that committed armed robbery total 24,236,119 compared to the 35% of whites totaling 78,236,119. This made up scenario and numbers show how easily the average person can make false assumptions. Furthermore, we must remember that police officers are also subject to making these false assumptions.

            In my opinion our society should never have any policy that is based on race, and that goes from affirmative action to racial profiling. Once we go down that road it will be nearly impossible to return. To my knowledge there is no law enforcement agency in our country that publicly claim they condone racial profiling, but the ignorance of many police officers lead them to assume the media is correct and that blacks do commit more crimes and therefore when they see a black person they naturally scrutinize their actions more so than they would a white person. Of course I am just speaking in generalities. It may very well be true that most crimes are committed by blacks in a specific officer’s beat, but that does not justify racial profiling when there is a crime committed. Let’s say there was a robbery in a officers beat, and this officer racially profiles and while on patrol he sees a black guy walking down the street. Basically the officer is going to say to themself ( I see a black guy-------à blacks commit more crimes than whites--------à without any previous reasonable suspicion the officer then looks for ways to create that suspicion in order to justify stopping the man and searching him--------àthis may very well lead to false accusations and possibly convictions at the very worst. At the very least the officer finds no probable cause for arrest and lets the man go free, but now the black guy may feel harassed, embarrassed, and/or angry. The emotions brought on by his encounter with the police may lead to a profound resentment of police and possibly lead to a future commission of crime.

            Police officers must look at other factors than just race, for example in the example above the victim says the offender was black 6’ 170lbs black hooded sweatshirt wearing jeans and white Nike tennis shoes. If the man walking down the street meets any of the above the officer is perfectly justified in stopping the man and doing what he has to in order to determine if that is the offender or not.

            I have been fortunate to go on numerous ride alongs with the EPD (much more than the department actually allows, which is only 2 times every so often, maybe even only twice a year I can’t remember) I avoid this obstacle because the officer I rode with is close friend of mine and he simply never turned in my waiver and agreement paperwork. So I would say I have been at least 10 times in the past year and half. If I have learned anything from my experiences it is this:

1.     There are many police officers who do in fact racially profile, they just do not mention it aloud when around superiors or other officers in which they are not close with.

2.     A significant amount of EPD officers, unless actively searching for an offender, will see someone of minority status and then find the most minor violation in order to justify stopping them (specifically while patrolling) when in fact the real reason the officer stopped them was based on race.

One night we saw a car with 3 black males driving around showplace cinemas on Morgan Avenue. Prior to this stop I had yet to be witness to an arrest. The officer says to me “let’s see if we can’t get an arrest for you tonight” he follows the vehicle until he notices that one of their two license plate lights are out. That was all he needed to justify his stop. Upon doing so he pulls all three black males out and begins asking multiple questions. He then asks if there are any drugs in the car because he saw the passenger move his arm to his side as if to drop something under the seat.  The driver says no and at that moment a second officer comes flying up with lights on and he hops out of the car and immediately pats down the first black guy he saw (for weapons naturally). The officer I was with asked if the driver consents to a search of his vehicle. The driver does and the search begins. It appeared to me that the officer was determined to find something that neither of us actually new existed. After about 30min and after finding nothing in the vehicle he says “thank you for your cooperation you’re free to go”. When we get back in his vehicle he looks at me and says “they had something I could tell, but I just couldn’t find it”. In conclusion, yeah they had something, a darker skin color, no more no less.