• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

HPD won't screen for immigration

Well, ok, yeah, you can't get in trouble for racial profiling if you are pulling over more people of a certain race just because there are more of them around. ;)

There are two statistical models I've seen used for measuring racial profiling. One says that you look at the percentage of the population in a precinct and that the number of traffic stops, questioning on the street, etc, should roughly match those percentages.

The one that I've been seeing used more often lately is that you look at the percentage of crime committed by each racial group and measure whether traffic stops and whatnot roughly match up with those percentages.

If your goal is individual liberty and equal rights then the first standard makes more sense- it isn't fair that somebody gets pulled over more often than somebody else just because of the color of their skin. If your goal is the most effective law enforcement possible, the second standard makes more sense. Generally speaking, more liberal sources will use the first standard when they study racial profiling and conservative sources will use the second standard.

The sad thing is that some police precincts are racially profiling by both standards, meaning they are profiling so agressively that they're actually becoming less effective and they're totally obliterating any sense of individual liberty.

And yeah, of course, whites could sue for racial profiling as well, although I haven't personally seen any studies that indicated that any police departments were profiling whites. It's a big country though. I'm sure it's happening somewhere.

Those two models look odd to me. Basically the reasoning is that traffic stop rates should equal crime rates. (or close to) Making bad traffic decisions often has to do with inattention and no retained knowledge of traffic laws. Not due to any reason to purposely break the law...like most regular crime is.

The other one could be swayed for many reasons also. For example for some odd reason a particular racial group could be teaching their kids better on how to drive than another. There are lots of variables so using any kind of model like this would be extremely suspect imo.
 
Those two models look odd to me.

I'm no expert on it, I'm just relaying the methodologies some of the studies I've seen have used. Generally they pick specific types of incidents to Analise. For example, maybe they'll look at the number of times people of various races were pulled over for 'suspicion of stolen vehicle', but where it was not actually stolen. Then if they use the more liberal approach, they'll say something like "30% of the precinct's population is black, but 55% of the times cars were pulled over due to a false suspicion that the car was stolen the driver was black". If they use the more conservative approach, they'll say something like "40% of people convicted of vehicle theft in the precinct are black, but 55% of the times cars were pulled..."

If you're interested in learning more about the various approaches the studies take and whatnot, these links can tell you more than I can:

American Civil Liberties Union : Racial Justice : Racial Profiling
Racial profiling: issues, data, and ... - Google Books
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom