NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I'll admit. I was surprised by one thing in this story. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18383182/) Whites, blacks and Hispanics are equally likely to be pulled over by cops. But that's where the similarity ends.
Black, Hispanic and white motorists were equally likely to be pulled over by police — between 8 percent and 9 percent of each group. The slight decline in blacks pulled over — from 9.2 percent in 2002 to 8.1 percent in 2005 — was not statistically significant, Durose said, and could be the result of random differences.

The racial disparities showed up after that point:

* Blacks (9.5 percent) and Hispanics (8.8 percent) were much more likely to be searched than whites (3.6 percent). There were slight but statistically insignificant declines compared with the 2002 report in the percentages of blacks and Hispanics searched.
* Blacks (4.5 percent) were more than twice as likely as whites (2.1 percent) to be arrested. Hispanic drivers were arrested 3.1 percent of the time.
* Among all police-public contacts, force was used 1.6 percent of the time. But blacks (4.4 percent) and Hispanics (2.3 percent) were more likely than whites (1.2 percent) to be subjected to force or the threat of force by police officers.

People interviewed described police hitting, kicking, pushing, grabbing, pointing a gun or spraying pepper spray at them or threatening to do so. More than four of five felt the force used was excessive, but there were no statistically significant racial disparities among the people who felt that way.

As much as many people would like to believe otherwise, racism is still a major problem in the US, especially when it comes to law enforcement, and it starts at this level, because if a cop if more likely to arrest a member of a group, more members of that group are likely to go to jail, which severely limits their future educational and employment options, which affects their group's ability to make substantive movement out of poverty.

LOLz the US gov always makes no duh surveys and studies on their freetime. It's like the gov plays Nationstates. *looks around and puts on foil hat*

Studies suggest that the sky is blue and that the moon is absolutely lifeless, tomarrow we'll study whether or not southeners are American Nazis :D

Well, obviously.
They likely don't even know that it's a young black male until they actually pull him over, and the "proper steps" can be taken.

If there isn't a finish line, it isn't a race.

If there isn't a finish line, it isn't a race.

*cough* "Ethnic group" *caugh

I'm sure there is a problem to a certain extent, but is 4% of 8% over 2% of 8% a significant number?

I'd like to propose another possible explanation.

Since as far as I can tell, no location is given for the study, I'm going to assume that it covers a wide area. It's possible that higher crime rates, or higher drug use/possession rates are in the areas where there are more black people. If that's the case, then maybe the policemen in those areas just do more searches.

I'm sure there is a problem to a certain extent, but is 4% of 8% over 2% of 8% a significant number?

When you consider that we're talking about significantly different population sizes, yes it's a major problem.

Okay, I resisted the urge to post an Onion article.

(If you're wondering, it was "Reality TV, Reality Unfair to Blacks")

Here's a question, though:

Are blacks and hispanics more likely to be searched and subjected to force because they commit proportionally more crimes than whites? If that's the case, a greater share of the times they are pulled over will have searches/force because more of them are due to criminal problems.

I'm just wondering if there is specifically a racial motivation behind it or if it is due to the fact that blacks and Hispanics simply have higher proportional crime rates than whites for the kinds of crimes that would result in searches/arrest.

As much as many people would like to believe otherwise, racism is still a major problem in the US,
Thomas Sowell likes to call statistics such as these "Aha!" statistics, because they superficially appear to support one obvious conclusion (the "Aha!")--however, further analysis reveals that that's not necessarily the case.

That proportionally more members of one given racial group than another are more likely to be searched or detained during traffic stops is not evidence of "racism", and I shudder at the fact that the intellectual disingenuousness needed to claim with a straight face that it is has become so widespread.

Is it not conceivable that the reason proportionally more blacks and Hispanics than whites are being searched and detained during traffic stops is that, rather than "cops being racist pigs", instead that for whatever reason blacks and Hispanics are actually committing proportionally more crimes than whites?

And guess what? Off the top of my head I can recall several studies that show that that is indeed the case. I don't expect you to believe me on this particular point, since I'm afraid I can't provide specific citations, but the greater error is yours since you uncritically accepted one particular, superficially obvious conclusion from a statistic without engaging in further analysis. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, and it's disheartening that after 100+ views I'm the first to point that out.

EDIT: OK, I'm not the first...Vetalia posted while I was composing this.

Here's a question, though:

Are blacks and hispanics more likely to be searched and subjected to force because they commit proportionally more crimes than whites? If that's the case, a greater share of the times they are pulled over will have searches/force because more of them are due to criminal problems.

I'm just wondering if there is specifically a racial motivation behind it or if it is due to the fact that blacks and Hispanics simply have higher proportional crime rates than whites for the kinds of crimes that would result in searches/arrest.

Now you're getting into the question of cause and effect. Are blacks and hispanics really committing more crimes or are the laws simply being enforced to a greater extent against them? The latter seems to be the case when you look at the disparity in terms of convictions, the kinds of plea agreements, and the sentences handed out to white criminals as compared to blacks and hispanics. Let's just say that if you get charged with something, you're way better off if you're white.

That does not address the points Vetalia or I have raised--it is simply a circular argument.

That blacks and Hispanics are arrested more often, or convicted more often, is not prima facie evidence of racism. It could be the case that blacks and Hispanics do indeed commit more crimes.

To simply and uncritically assert that statistical disparities among racial groups is "clear evidence" of racism is a sign of either intellectual dishonesty or poor critical thinking skills.

When you consider that we're talking about significantly different population sizes, yes it's a major problem.

But the statistics quoted are of each group, not of the population at large, so the different population sizes shouldn't affect it?

Plus what Vetalia said.

Plus if you click the "Police Stop White, Black and Hispanic Motorists at Similar Rates According to Department of Justice Report" link on the right, you see that being young and male also increases your chances of being searched, too (in fact the age disparity was greater than the race disparity, and - if you look at the full report - so was the sex disparity).
Also, it implies that the violence stat is for all "contacts with the police", not just being pulled over.

The full report can be seen here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cpp05.htm).

What? Racism in the U.S.? No way, we stopped segregation a long time ago, there is no way that can still affect people today.

To simply and uncritically assert that statistical disparities among racial groups are never "clear evidence" of racism is a sign of either intellectual dishonesty or poor critical thinking skills.

Fixed for accuracy.

That does not address the points Vetalia or I have raised--it is simply a circular argument.

That blacks and Hispanics are arrested more often, or convicted more often, is not prima facie evidence of racism. It could be the case that blacks and Hispanics do indeed commit more crimes.

To simply and uncritically assert that statistical disparities among racial groups is "clear evidence" of racism is a sign of either intellectual dishonesty or poor critical thinking skills.

For your case to actually fit, that would mean that not only would blacks and Hispanics have to commit more crimes, but the disproportionate number of those crimes would be mindbogglingly high. Blacks and Hispanics make up, at best, a quarter of the population--and yet they commit that many more crimes? Occam's razor, man--what's more fucking likely? That the justice system is biased against them, factoring in that it has been run almost exclusively by whites for the entire history of the country, or that there's some inherent racism in the system?

Fixed for accuracy.

Very cute.

It's disingenuousness and cheap tricks such as this one that remind me why I stopped posting on General a few months ago.

Especially since I never, explicitly or implicitly, made the assertion you implicitly assert I made. I was simply pointing out the errors in The Nazz's thinking, and asking him to do a better job of analyzing statistics in the future.

As a point of fact, it is the case that the reasons for the numbers The Nazz cited is that blacks and Hispanics do indeed commit more crimes, rather than simple racism--which is the conclusion that The Nazz's poor critical thinking skills have led him to believe.

But that's not the point, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop pretending I said what I in fact didn't say.

For your case to actually fit, that would mean that not only would blacks and Hispanics have to commit more crimes, but the disproportionate number of those crimes would be mindbogglingly high. Blacks and Hispanics make up, at best, a quarter of the population--and yet they commit that many more crimes?
Well, they do.
Occam's razor, man--what's more fucking likely?
That's only relevant when there is no specific evidence favoring one possible conclusion over another. When you do have specific evidence favoring one particular conclusion, then it doesn't matter if it's more complex than the other possibilities.

As I said earlier, I am unable to cite this evidence for you--I'm afraid I don't keep track of where precisely I found every bit of knowledge I hold--so I don't expect to be able to convince you that the statistical disparities you mention are not the product of racism, but as I note below, my objection is not to your conclusion but your methodology. I worry that you have missed the forest for the trees.

That the justice system is biased against them, factoring in that it has been run almost exclusively by whites for the entire history of the country, or that there's some inherent racism in the system?

Actually, there's another circular argument.

Anyway, you're missing the point.

What I objected to is not your conclusion itself (although I believe them to be wrong) but rather the uncritical, simplistic, intellectually lazy manner in which you reached it. You simply went with the superficially obvious conclusion without performing any further analysis--without wondering if there were other conclusions that may follow from the same statistics, without trying to find specific evidence that explicitly supported any of these possible conclusions, without trying to find any errors in your initial line of thinking.

If that's the case, a greater share of the times they are pulled over will have searches/force because more of them are due to criminal problems.

Yes, part of disparity is due to the greater number of offenses.

But not all of it. If I recall correctly, the rate of searches to arrests for Blacks is higher than the same for Whites.