Paul M Foster wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 10:35:35PM -0400, Robert Haeckl wrote:
>
> >
> > > Really, though, this gets into the issue of profiling. I believe in
> > > profiling. Police and the FBI can't really do their jobs without
> > > profiling. It's difficult to track serial killers without profiling. The
> > > only people who bitch about profiling are people who are the "victims"
> > > of it. And those people, as a group, are the ones who commit the most
> > > crimes. Which is the reason why they are profiled in the first place.
> > >
> > > By all means, track Arabs coming into this country. Of course, they are
> > > not all guilty. But by the same token, you don't detain every person who
> > > fits the profile. You simply track them as much as practicable.
> >
> > Paul, I agree with many things that you advocate on this board, but
> > racial profiling is not one of them.
>
> I didn't specifically mention racial profiling by name, but on occasion
> it works. Serial killers are overwhelmingly white, male, and of a
> certain age bracket. That's the profile. (If I were single, that profile
> would probably include me.) Stick to that, generally, and you catch more
> serial killers. Most crimes are committed by blacks against blacks.
> That's the profile. It may be true that sometimes crimes are committed
> by "out-of-profile" individuals, but it's the rarity.
>
> I'm not trying to make a case for racism. But statistics bear out the
> fact that certain sexes, races, income levels, etc. are known to commit
> certain types of crimes under certain circumstances. As an example,
> people with concealed carry licenses almost never commit gun crimes. So
> the profile for gun crimes would most likely not include concealed
> carriers. To fail to act on known statistical likelihoods it ludicrous
> and dangerous.
I sense that this will be a "pissing into the wind" rebuttal, but here
goes. Profiling is a statistical tool, completely empirical. Empirical
analysis is an appropriate scientific tool for generating hypotheses,
and in the absence of proof, lends itself to judiciously-applied
conclusions. Relying on it in the lab is one thing and risky at best,
but to apply it in a law enforcement setting is "ludicrous and
dangerous". I'm sorry, I have been taught to seek out empirical
thinking and always question the arguments and individuals who rely on
it.
> It's true that _racial_ profiling wouldn't have prevented Oklahoma City.
> But I'm not sure that some other type of profile wouldn't have prevented
> the perpetrators from getting to the point of committing the act.
> Another example. There are a fair number of anthrax cases being reported
> currently. They may or may not be terrorist-related. But if they're not,
> do you think it's a man or woman committing the crimes? White or black?
> Rich or low income? Dollars to donuts, it's a white male, a loner of low
> to middle income. This type of crime is unheard of for females, blacks,
> or rich people. Profile.
I think you just underscored the point of my last message. Thank you.
No Arab in the entire statement. So are you defending yourself against
racism or making a case?
> I don't think you can effectively argue that a profile is not a wise
> tool in the law enforcement arsenal. Can you honestly say that a
> youngish Arab gentleman trying to buy ten cubic yards of fertilizer from
> you doesn't raise red flags? If it doesn't, you're a liability to the
> rest of us.
Two scenarios:
1) A youngish white male with no lawnmower tries to buy ten cubic yards
of fertilizer.
2) A youngish mid-eastern male with no lawnmower tries to buy ten cubic
yards of fertilizer.
If you see a difference, your a liability to the rest of us
freedom-lovers.
> Your argument seems to revolve around some injustice or loss of liberty
> attached to profiles. I fail to see the injustice or loss of liberty
> involved, though. It isn't the profile, but the use of it that can be
> problematic. Do we cease to employ a useful tool simply to avoid its
> abuse?
Do I have to answer this?
> But let me make a _really_ inflammatory argument. This is the same one I
> made about the Arabs. The black community gets picked on the most about
> crime, and rightly so, since blacks statistically commit most crimes.
> Are all blacks bad? Absolutely not. Do the statistics mean that your
> black neighbor is a criminal? No way. But crime exists in the black
> community because the black community does not police itself (the same
> is true of the white community). Black families and friends look the
> other way when their family members or friends become gang members and
> commit crimes. In doing so, they give their whole community a bad name,
> and bring profiling and such upon themselves. It is up to us to police
> ourselves, whatever community we live in. Because allowing criminals to
> run loose only costs us in the long run, and will eventually bring crime
> down upon our heads. In a sense, that's why Sept 11 was allowed to
> happen. We as a society didn't put 2 and 2 together individually, when
> faced with circumstances that should have been very fishy.
I really have trouble with the number of applied generalities here; I
don't know where to start. Maybe I can appeal to an issue that both of
us distain. Some people blame gun owners for crime committed with guns.
These people not only generalize to the point of being wrong, but they
forsake the future in the process. You know as well as me the trouble
with this.
> Let me make one last point. At various times in my life, particularly
> when I was young, I spent a lot of time among blacks. I found them to be
> very friendly, spiritual, affectionate, and intelligent. I grew up in
> the South, but my mother was very careful to avoid racism in our house.
> And my experience with blacks since I was a child (the 60's) has been
> pretty much the same as anyone else's: some good, some bad. So I don't
> have a particular bias either way. Likewise with women: I've known some
> saints and some bitches. Same with men: some heroes and some assholes.
> But I'm not foolish enough to think that statistics don't matter. The
> next time a serial killer is running around my neighborhood, I'll be on
> the lookout for a white, 25 - 35, middle-to-low income male who's a
> loner.
You put a lot of faith in statistics and the application of them. I
question the impartiality of data collection and I question the
impartiality of its application. Hatred is the root of racism but
partiality is its lifeblood.
I don't know, Paul. The inflection in your voice is just kind of scary.
-Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:40:55 EDT