Skip to comments.Racial profiling "is not a myth"
Posted on 07/23/2007 3:08:59 AM PDT by skimbell
After three years of tracking every traffic stop and reporting each incident in detail, Illinois police have a mountain of data, a few clear trends in how drivers are treated and difficult questions.
For the third year, police in 2006 pulled over about 2.5 million drivers. And just as in the first two years, minorities were stopped in larger percentages than population numbers would suggest, and were much more likely to be searched than whites.
But it's not clear who will answer questions
(Excerpt) Read more at qconline.com ...
and they say they don't have the manpower to remove/deport illegals. oh please.
Hmmm, maybe because they commit more crimes than whites? Nah, couldn't be!
ping you again
Good points raised here.
The study is comparing apples and oranges. The proper comparison is the rate at which minorities are observed by the police violating the law vs the rate at which others are observed violating the law and then comparing that to the relative rates of stops. Two factors confound the analysis--both related to observation:
1. Your question: do minorities violate the law more frequently than others; and
2. Do police observe minority violations more frequently? This later factor could be just a factor of good policing--more cops in high crime areas mean, on average, a greater proportion of minorities will be observed every day by police. Thus, maybe non-minorities drive around with broken headlights at the same rate as minorities (that is, factor 1 for equipment violations is the same as between minorities and others). But if police are concentrated in high-crime districts, they will observe more violations by minorities than the minority proportion of the population. So if they stop minorities at the same rate as others (per observed violation), the result would be numbers like you see in the study.
It would be interesting to see if the numbers change depending on the race of the stopping officer. That would be an easy number for the legislature to require.
I'm not sure how you got that from my comment. Those pulled over certainly ARE breaking the law in the vast majority of cases.
I am just making the point that just as some types of dogs are more likely to be violent, different groups of humans are also more likely to break the law.
The study in question answers your #1 directly. Evidence is, they do. So your apples/oranges assertion is bogus.
“Minorities are also much more likely to show up on police computers as having felony convictions, outstanding arrest warrants, unpaid fines and tickets, etc, etc”
They are also less likely to carry a license, proof of insurance, etc. If cops do a random road-block, license check here, you see rows of young black male drivers pulled over. The police department here is largely black, so is that profiling?
I’m one of those!! Maybe, just maybe, these minority types are over-achievers in the traffic infraction and other categories.
Then you’re going to be stopping white kids too.
I also hear minority drivers are more likely to eat fried chicken. I hear having a greasy steering wheel makes it hard to drive and causes all of those accidents </sarc>
I'd wager if you really mine this data that speeders and drunks were hassled disproportionately more than nonspeeders and sober people. Discrimination!
Wow. Who woulda thunk pit bulls would be #1. No Goldens or cockers? This is profiling.
This does not answer the question. It ASSUMES law breaking is spread equally among the skin pigments.
I think it is more a matter of ecconomics.
Perhaps what they need to do is use people with IDENTICAL profiles.
IE a red ferrari driver, male, between 18 and 40, who earns at least 300,000 a year. You take this pool and see which skin pigments get the most speeding tickets.
Do the identical study with someone who drives a 1980’s chrystler K car with same job and age characteristics and repeat observations.
This study is preset to be a hiderance to police stopping certain minorities. (keeps the campaign contributions flowing)
or they simply don’t stop black people. This leaves the crack dealers, uninsured drivers, DUI/DWI suspects, and other fun people with the “correct” skin color free to go about their business. Crime goes up, and screams follow to tax the rich more...
I was a city police officer in the South for a few years in the 50’s, and I can assure you when I pulled a car over for a traffic violation I had no idea what the skin color of the driver was until I stepped up to his car door.
Driving behind the vehicle with blue lights does not give you a clue.
A reason right there to pull them over to begin with.
How do you know if they have a license before you pull them over?
Yes they do. For example, in Washington DC where only about 28% of the cops are white, they have the largest disparity of black/white incarceration. In white conservative areas of the country the the ratio is smaller. Blacks in D.C. are thirty times more likely to be in jail.
Another question regarding this issue: would it be more fair if police scrutiny of crime were relaxed for minorities? In other words, would the black community benefit if they did not have equal protection of the law?
I think you misunderstood my post. I was agreeing with you. That said, the study does not answer question 1. It answers who gets stopped by police. It does not answer the harder question of who is committing crimes. That's a much harder question to put numbers on because crimes are committed in private and most are not solved. You can use arrest or conviction rates as a proxy for that number; but there are a lot of confounding factors that make arrest and conviction rates by race not much more than a very rough cut at the number.
I'm not sure cross-jurisdictional comparisons are valid. Especially for DC, which has a bizarrely skewed white population. What would be interesting to see is what the differential arrest rates are for white vs black policemen in DC.