Quote:
Originally Posted by Caltex
Profiling is not racism, it's smart policing.
|
So you're telling me (and I'm actually supposed to believe) that if it were hypothesized (NOT proven, mind you) that whites were more likely to fit the profile of a particular crime, then you would be perfectly happy in the knowledge that you were 3-5 times more likely to be stopped, detained, searched, and questioned by authorities (with probable cause or not) on the basis of your skin color alone?
I know your posts better than that, Cal. You would scream bloody murder.
Quote:
|
Obviously there should always be probably cause before making the police stop. I'm not advocating a police state where one can be pulled over for their characteristics.
|
Which is EXACTLY what the NYPD stop-and-frisk program was all about.
Quote:
|
But if probable cause exists, and a choice must be made, the person who fits the crime's demographic is probably the best bet, regardless of what those characteristics are.
|
Even when those demographic profiles are based upon erroneous assumptions?
Quote:
|
As for the crack cocaine issue, it's largely because you don't find too many whites using crack cocaine.
|
Au contrere, mon frere! The study I linked:
Quote:
|
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, between 1991 and 1993 whites were twice as likely to have used crack nationwide than blacks and Hispanics combined. Crack use was somewhat more concentrated in minority communities, but in Los Angeles, for example, whites comprised more than 50% of those who had ever used crack, and about one-third of those who could be termed "frequent users."
|
1991-1993 falls directly on point of the time frame referenced in the Sentencing study. Whites represented over 50% of the users, but 0% of the prosecutions.
Your statement is a racial stereotype based on an erroneous assumption that is not borne out by the statistics. How fair is it to base profiles on the same type of assumptions?