• 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!

Crime statistics

MaggieD

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Another poster mentioned in another thread that crime statistics collect and report crime statistics based on color. What purpose does that serve? We are told over and over again that whites are prejudiced against blacks and other minorities in this country.

What kind of example does our own government provide? What is the purpose of collecting data in this way? Why not also keep the stats by "baptized or not baptized" "Catholic" Christian or nonChristian"

See my point? What difference does color make and why, in a country that strives to be colorblind, do we collect and report crimemstats in this manner?

I thought this poster was brilliant to bring it up. Reallly got me thinking.

Your thoughts?

(I would thank that poster in this thread starter, but I'm not sure that's permitted.)
 
One of the most important reasons I can see is to help identify when and where the criminal justice system does and doesn't have bias.
 
MaggieD said:
Another poster mentioned in another thread that crime statistics collect and report crime statistics based on color. What purpose does that serve? We are told over and over again that whites are prejudiced against blacks and other minorities in this country.

What kind of example does our own government provide? What is the purpose of collecting data in this way? Why not also keep the stats by "baptized or not baptized" "Catholic" Christian or nonChristian"

See my point? What difference does color make and why, in a country that strives to be colorblind, do we collect and report crimemstats in this manner?

I thought this poster was brilliant to bring it up. Reallly got me thinking.

Your thoughts?

(I would thank that poster in this thread starter, but I'm not sure that's permitted.)
Click to expand...

The point being

Putting your (not yours Maggie) head in the sand to pretend their is no issue, does not make an issue go away. To know their might be an issue data is required.

If the police are stopping and frisking 100 times a day, it tells you nothing, if they are frisking purple people 90 times a day and green people 10 times a day despite purple people being one 10% of the population, their could be a big issue regarding police policies. One that might be causing resentment and dislike for the police. That would not be recognised as being a problem without such data.
 
MaggieD said:
Another poster mentioned in another thread that crime statistics collect and report crime statistics based on color. What purpose does that serve? We are told over and over again that whites are prejudiced against blacks and other minorities in this country.

What kind of example does our own government provide? What is the purpose of collecting data in this way? Why not also keep the stats by "baptized or not baptized" "Catholic" Christian or nonChristian"

See my point? What difference does color make and why, in a country that strives to be colorblind, do we collect and report crimemstats in this manner?

I thought this poster was brilliant to bring it up. Reallly got me thinking.

Your thoughts?

(I would thank that poster in this thread starter, but I'm not sure that's permitted.)
Click to expand...

I think as long as disparity exists based on nothing but color the statistics need to continue to be reviewed...but I'm not sure the statistics are collected just to prove disparity. The majority of these statistics are simply raw data...for example, when folks are processed by the system, a "mug shot" is taken...this is for identification purposes. Their fingerprints are taken, their height is recorded, and yes, their ethnicity is also recorded. That information is all loaded into a giant database somewhere. The only time it becomes specifically tied to race is when people are looking to understand trends, and group that data into buckets that they are looking at - so, if they are using the prison data in this example, they could determine prison population percentage by race. They could also group by height or eye color, if those properties were available in the data.

This is why statistical evidence can be powerful...the collection method is generally not biased if done correctly (honestly and consistently), and as such it's kind of difficult to refute. The interpretation can be debated, but not the numbers. The flip side is that when problems are addressed, this will show in the numbers as well - if we were truly "color blind", it would be supported by the same statistics as those that demonstrate disparity today.
 
MaggieD said:
Another poster mentioned in another thread that crime statistics collect and report crime statistics based on color. What purpose does that serve? We are told over and over again that whites are prejudiced against blacks and other minorities in this country.

What kind of example does our own government provide? What is the purpose of collecting data in this way? Why not also keep the stats by "baptized or not baptized" "Catholic" Christian or nonChristian"

See my point? What difference does color make and why, in a country that strives to be colorblind, do we collect and report crimemstats in this manner?

I thought this poster was brilliant to bring it up. Reallly got me thinking.

Your thoughts?

(I would thank that poster in this thread starter, but I'm not sure that's permitted.)
Click to expand...

I've suggested the same thing before. All I ever got in response was that doing so would allow abuses to continue and that being a colorblind society is a racist view. BS imo since those stats are more often than not used to perpetuate racism.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I've suggested the same thing before. All I ever got in response was that doing so would allow abuses to continue and that being a colorblind society is a racist view. BS imo since those stats are more often than not used to perpetuate racism.
Click to expand...

I had never thought about it before this morning from that other post. I agree with you.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I've suggested the same thing before. All I ever got in response was that doing so would allow abuses to continue and that being a colorblind society is a racist view. BS imo since those stats are more often than not used to perpetuate racism.
Click to expand...



That is a BS view

France is not a multicultural society. The government views French citizens as being French. It does not have hyphenated people and barely collects data on different religions, ethnicities etc. Yet racism, and bigotry in France still exists. It did not go away with the government not collecting data to be used to perpetuate racism

Overall, just because a person or society (larger portion) does not know about something does not mean it does not exist, it just means they are ignorant and as such blissful as
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
That is a BS view

France is not a multicultural society. The government views French citizens as being French. It does not have hyphenated people and barely collects data on different religions, ethnicities etc. Yet racism, and bigotry in France still exists. It did not go away with the government not collecting data to be used to perpetuate racism

Overall, just because a person or society (larger portion) does not know about something does not mean it does not exist, it just means they are ignorant and as such blissful as
Click to expand...

No where did I suggest that those are the only things that racists or non-racists use to perpetuate racism. :shrug: But getting rid of race in stats would most certainly take away their ability to use such as "justification" for their racist views.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
That is a BS view

France is not a multicultural society. The government views French citizens as being French. It does not have hyphenated people and barely collects data on different religions, ethnicities etc. Yet racism, and bigotry in France still exists. It did not go away with the government not collecting data to be used to perpetuate racism

Overall, just because a person or society (larger portion) does not know about something does not mean it does not exist, it just means they are ignorant and as such blissful as
Click to expand...

Hyphenating doesn't make racism go away either, it just puts everyone in a nice box. These superficial bandages don't serve to oust bigotry. Education, finding commonalities, communication does.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No where did I suggest that those are the only things that racists or non-racists use to perpetuate racism. :shrug: But getting rid of race in stats would most certainly take away their ability to use such as "justification" for their racist views.
Click to expand...

Certainly not

Justification is not required by stats. They will use whatever they can

My cousin told me that group x was involved in beating his sister, group X needs to be punished they are untrustworthy, they are criminals (group X could be the police, blacks, jews, Indians, etc) stats or no stats a justification will be found by people to support their views. But a responsible government needs the stats to make policies to make society better.
 
The reason is that it is useful for research purposes.
 
MaggieD said:
Another poster mentioned in another thread that crime statistics collect and report crime statistics based on color. What purpose does that serve? We are told over and over again that whites are prejudiced against blacks and other minorities in this country.
Click to expand...

How would we know if there was systemic bias without collection of these statistics?

MaggieD said:
What kind of example does our own government provide? What is the purpose of collecting data in this way? Why not also keep the stats by "baptized or not baptized" "Catholic" Christian or nonChristian"
Click to expand...

How can the police tell someone's religion by looking at them?

MaggieD said:
See my point? What difference does color make and why, in a country that strives to be colorblind, do we collect and report crimemstats in this manner?

I thought this poster was brilliant to bring it up. Reallly got me thinking.

Your thoughts?

(I would thank that poster in this thread starter, but I'm not sure that's permitted.)
Click to expand...

Racism exists. It always will. People are tribal. Despite our best efforts, bias does exist in law enforcement and the justice system. Show me the black equivalent of Brock Turner (rapist).
 
Kal'Stang said:
No where did I suggest that those are the only things that racists or non-racists use to perpetuate racism. :shrug: But getting rid of race in stats would most certainly take away their ability to use such as "justification" for their racist views.
Click to expand...

Racists will find a way to rationalize their bigotry. Suggesting we don't track these statistics because racists will twist them to support their views is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 
MaggieD said:
Another poster mentioned in another thread that crime statistics collect and report crime statistics based on color. What purpose does that serve? We are told over and over again that whites are prejudiced against blacks and other minorities in this country.

What kind of example does our own government provide? What is the purpose of collecting data in this way? Why not also keep the stats by "baptized or not baptized" "Catholic" Christian or nonChristian"

See my point? What difference does color make and why, in a country that strives to be colorblind, do we collect and report crimemstats in this manner?

I thought this poster was brilliant to bring it up. Reallly got me thinking.

Your thoughts?

(I would thank that poster in this thread starter, but I'm not sure that's permitted.)
Click to expand...



Well, when there ceases to be a vast disparity in criminality between different groups, then we start ignoring race in compiling statistics.


And what about statistics on....

poverty
education
unemployment

.... if we should ignore race in crime stats, shouldn't we ignore race in those too?

Ah HA.....


:coffeepap
 
MaggieD said:
Another poster mentioned in another thread that crime statistics collect and report crime statistics based on color. What purpose does that serve? We are told over and over again that whites are prejudiced against blacks and other minorities in this country.

What kind of example does our own government provide? What is the purpose of collecting data in this way? Why not also keep the stats by "baptized or not baptized" "Catholic" Christian or nonChristian"

See my point? What difference does color make and why, in a country that strives to be colorblind, do we collect and report crimemstats in this manner?

I thought this poster was brilliant to bring it up. Reallly got me thinking.

Your thoughts?

(I would thank that poster in this thread starter, but I'm not sure that's permitted.)
Click to expand...

Its simply another data point, whats the harm of having more data on what you're looking to understand in order to curtail?

Also, do we strive to be colorblind? I certainly don't, especially when I'm looking for authentic ethnic foods. Differences can be celebrated.
 
MaggieD said:
See my point? What difference does color make and why, in a country that strives to be colorblind, do we collect and report crimemstats in this manner?
Click to expand...

To measure how close we're coming to actually getting color blind. (hint still a long way to go)
 
MaggieD said:
Another poster mentioned in another thread that crime statistics collect and report crime statistics based on color. What purpose does that serve?
Click to expand...
It serves an educational purpose.
We are told over and over again that whites are prejudiced against blacks and other minorities in this country.
Click to expand...
No, we're not. Perhaps that is what you wish to believe, but we're not.

We're told over and over again some demographic has a problem with another demographic because they are different. Rich vs. Poor, Protestants against Catholics, Straights vs. Gays, Whites vs. Blacks vs. Hispanics, etc. This is nothing new in our country or in society in general.

So what purpose does data collection serve? It serves the purpose of having data which we can use to educate ourselves on how our society is currently working.

What kind of example does our own government provide? What is the purpose of collecting data in this way?
Click to expand...
To measure the myriad of data based on who falls under a specific metric.

Why not also keep the stats by "baptized or not baptized" "Catholic" Christian or nonChristian"
Click to expand...
Because religious beliefs can be changed. One can start as a Baptist, become an atheist and then be baptized into the Catholic faith, all within a 5 year span. It's different from race or gender, which is essentially static.

See my point? What difference does color make
Click to expand...
It makes a lot of differences. If you're arguing theoretically, it should make none. But we don't live in a theoretical world, we live in this world.

and why, in a country that strives to be colorblind, do we collect and report crimemstats in this manner?
Click to expand...
The simple answer to this would be simply to measure progress. We may strive to be a colorblind society, but we are not one at this point.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I've suggested the same thing before. All I ever got in response was that doing so would allow abuses to continue and that being a colorblind society is a racist view.
Click to expand...
No reasonable person would suggest being a colorblind society is a racist view. However, no reasonable person would claim we are a colorblind society. Since race, unfortunately, does play a role in our society, and since race is used as justification for actions, then race needs to be considered as a factor in statistics.
BS imo since those stats are more often than not used to perpetuate racism...
...

No where did I suggest that those are the only things that racists or non-racists use to perpetuate racism. But getting rid of race in stats would most certainly take away their ability to use such as "justification" for their racist views.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your position. Not because I disagree racists twist stats to perpetuate their beliefs, but because (and you even acknowledge this) those people are already racists and are just looking for anything to "justify" their position. I'm sure you agree racism isn't going to start dying out if we stop monitoring race in statistics, those who are racist will merely use something else to "justify". Certainly racism existed LONG before government collected statistics by race.

There is no such thing as having too much information from which to draw a conclusion. Certainly a person can become overwhelmed by information or can miss the forest for the trees, but any quality research with a clear focus can always use information correctly. And the more information one has, the better informed their opinion can be, if they so desire.

We are not a colorblind society. The likelihood of us becoming a colorblind society in the next 100 years is extremely small. As such, it is important for us to collect information in order to ensure we have the best opportunity to educate ourselves on any potential problems which may exist, especially if we indeed strive to be a colorblind society.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Its simply another data point, whats the harm of having more data on what you're looking to understand in order to curtail?

Also, do we strive to be colorblind? I certainly don't, especially when I'm looking for authentic ethnic foods. Differences can be celebrated.
Click to expand...

Really? And what would others extrapolate from a comment you might say - "Boy!! Those blacks really know how to fry chicken.? ;)
 
MrWonka said:
To measure how close we're coming to actually getting color blind. (hint still a long way to go)
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But what we extrapolate from crime stats is that blacks commit more crimes per 100,000 than whites. Some say that's what it shows. Some say it shows bias in the judicial system. Which is it? Rhetorical question to which I don't expect an answer.
 
Goshin said:
Well, when there ceases to be a vast disparity in criminality between different groups, then we start ignoring race in compiling statistics.


And what about statistics on....

poverty
education
unemployment

.... if we should ignore race in crime stats, shouldn't we ignore race in those too?

Ah HA.....


:coffeepap
Click to expand...
Good point!

Sent from my LG-V490 using Tapatalk
 
MaggieD said:
Another poster mentioned in another thread that crime statistics collect and report crime statistics based on color. What purpose does that serve? We are told over and over again that whites are prejudiced against blacks and other minorities in this country.

What kind of example does our own government provide? What is the purpose of collecting data in this way? Why not also keep the stats by "baptized or not baptized" "Catholic" Christian or nonChristian"

See my point? What difference does color make and why, in a country that strives to be colorblind, do we collect and report crimemstats in this manner?

I thought this poster was brilliant to bring it up. Reallly got me thinking.

Your thoughts?

(I would thank that poster in this thread starter, but I'm not sure that's permitted.)
Click to expand...

Its brilliant...if you are trying to negate specific areas of concern. Collecting crime statistics based on locale, gender, race etc help to define problems. The purpose behind anything SHOULD be to better be able to help identify problems and apply resources to fix them.

Statistically...black Americans comprise approx 13% of the total US population. Yet, black Americans commit 52% of the homicides in the country. That is not just statistically significant...its stunning. But then you can also look at the victims.
27_bjs_use.jpg

Anyone that is honest will look at the facts and recognize that as a problem. Understanding that problem and being honest about it would help to work to both properly allocate law eforcement resources but also invest resources to finding solutions. So studying demographics is valuable. We just collectively dont do a very good job of finding solutions.

Facts are uncomfortable which is why people are desperate to cloud them or just outright ignore them. Portland recently destroyed their gang taskforce database. Why? Not enough white people. Seriously. Did that change anything? No...but it did eliminate a valuable tool in tracking gang activity and working to fight gang violence.

There are other areas where it is obvious. Male homosexuals, while representing a slight percentage of the overall popluation in the US once accounted for over 90% of all HIV victims. Thats a very telling statistic...something that the Gay Rights grops identified and used to promote safe sex campaigns. But...its a bad graphic...so...we have to eliminate the facts (and the life saving campaigns) because it makes the population look bad.

The vast majority of serial killers studied have been middle aged white males. Wait...thats OK. We can profile them and use those profiles in law enforcement. Not a problem.

At the end of the day, the value of tracking problems by demographics should be used to HELP solve problems by identifying obvious areas of concern.
 
VanceMack said:
Its brilliant...if you are trying to negate specific areas of concern. Collecting crime statistics based on locale, gender, race etc help to define problems. The purpose behind anything SHOULD be to better be able to help identify problems and apply resources to fix them.

Statistically...black Americans comprise approx 13% of the total US population. Yet, black Americans commit 52% of the homicides in the country. That is not just statistically significant...its stunning. But then you can also look at the victims.
View attachment 67223032

Anyone that is honest will look at the facts and recognize that as a problem. Understanding that problem and being honest about it would help to work to both properly allocate law eforcement resources but also invest resources to finding solutions. So studying demographics is valuable. We just collectively dont do a very good job of finding solutions.

Facts are uncomfortable which is why people are desperate to cloud them or just outright ignore them. Portland recently destroyed their gang taskforce database. Why? Not enough white people. Seriously. Did that change anything? No...but it did eliminate a valuable tool in tracking gang activity and working to fight gang violence.

There are other areas where it is obvious. Male homosexuals, while representing a slight percentage of the overall popluation in the US once accounted for over 90% of all HIV victims. Thats a very telling statistic...something that the Gay Rights grops identified and used to promote safe sex campaigns. But...its a bad graphic...so...we have to eliminate the facts (and the life saving campaigns) because it makes the population look bad.

The vast majority of serial killers studied have been middle aged white males. Wait...thats OK. We can profile them and use those profiles in law enforcement. Not a problem.

At the end of the day, the value of tracking problems by demographics should be used to HELP solve problems by identifying obvious areas of concern.
Click to expand...

Not one thing Indisagree with here. Including that we have them but do little to solve the problems they highlight. It's not stats that are wrong. It's too often the ways we interpret them.
 
MaggieD said:
Not one thing Indisagree with here. Including that we have them but do little to solve the problems they highlight. It's not stats that are wrong. It's too often the ways we interpret them.
Click to expand...

I think it would be awesome if we were able to recognize...huh...this ajor city has a massive crime problem> It also has a problem with poverty, illiteracy, teen pregnancy, adequate housing, etc. OK...so lets come together and put together a plan.

Step 1-Community agrees the violence has to stop and supports the law enforcment efforts. We tell those involved...you **** up...you are going to prison or worse and we dont give a damn.
Step 2-We put together teams to start renovating old properties to create housing. This will put people to work (and this will increase potential for drug and gang involvement so...see step 1).
Step 2a-This is going to require governemtn and private sector resources so lets work together to find the funding for materials, supplies, training, etc.
Step 3-while this is going on, see what we can do to entice manufacturing efforts...even if it is something like a 501C3 that makes coats and clothing for the homeless
Step 4-Put together adequate resources to support the intiative incuding vetting personnel and opening child care centers.
and on and on...its not that complicated. We do that with project management all the time.

Instead,we cant get past step 1.
 
Thorgasm said:
Racists will find a way to rationalize their bigotry. Suggesting we don't track these statistics because racists will twist them to support their views is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...

The stats are not just used by racists. It's also about those that will use the stats to try and push an agenda. For example: "X proves all republicans are racists! vote for democrats instead!" and visa versa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom