RACIAL PROFILING: WHO IS STEREOTYPING WHOM?
Submitted by Fred McQuiggan Jr.
02-02-2000
"Old Faithful," the geyser in Yellowstone National Park, draws thousands of visitors each year. Apparently, there is a market for predictable, hot, venting gas. This is a fact not lost on the liberal media, who can be counted on periodically spew hot air about various issues just to jumpstart the masses out of their collective coma. One of their favorite targets—because it is a particularly easy one—is law enforcement. The latest spurt from "Old Faithful" concerning law enforcement is racial profiling. If the media and academics took the time to research a little, rather than instinctively jumping onto the political correctness bandwagon, the entire racial proofing controversy would evaporate quicker than one of the hourly blasts from the real "Old Faithful."
Put simply, racial profiling is when law enforcement agencies, or officers within agencies, focus their attention and enforcement onto particular racial or ethnic groups. For example, if a Police Chief were to instruct his/her officers to stop "Hispanic males driving cars with Florida tags" because they fit his/her "drug courier" profile, this would clearly be racial profiling. Using similar rationalization, individual officers, or groups of officers, may enact their own "unofficial policy" of stopping "young black males driving expensive cars." Do these types of actions occur in law enforcement? Absolutely. There is no denying that police officers and law enforcement agencies—like every other facet of society--have biases that occasionally cloud their judgment. Clearly, it is the responsibility of modern law enforcement agencies to purge bias from their policy, as well as from their ranks. There are not many people who would argue against this. The real issue here, however, is how pervasive racial profiling is across the United States. Do just a few "bad apples" on the fringes practice it, or is racial profiling "business as usual" for many police departments?
The politically correct contend that racial profiling is covertly woven into the fabric of law enforcement. The evidence of this, they suggest, can be obtained by comparing the racial/ethnic demographics of a particular area to the racial/ethnic breakdown for police contacts with the public in the same area. So, in an area with a population that is 50% black, vehicle investigations, pedestrian investigations and arrests involving blacks should also account for about one-half of the police activity. Any significant deviation from the population percentage would be indicative of racial profiling. There is additional argument that suggests that disproportionately high rates of vehicle investigations of minorities—in particular—is damning evidence of police bias, since there has never been a study that demonstrates that minorities are inherently worse drivers than whites.
Since virtually every study of police activity has shown that minorities are investigated and arrested at higher rates than whites, at first glance many would conclude that American law enforcement is biased to the core. Apparently, the streets are filled with racist officers just looking for minorities to stop, harass and arrest. Every other rap song makes the same claim, so it must be true. Could be--but I don’t think so. Well—how can anyone possibly explain why so many minorities get stopped without blaming the cops? It’s easy. It just doesn’t make good copy.
Two semesters in social statistics at La Salle University hardly qualify me as an expert on the subject; however, there were some fundamental statistical principals that I somehow managed to absorb. One idea I latched onto was the notion that you can’t prove cause by simply showing an effect. Yes, as race varies so does police activity. This does not prove bias though. Police activity also varies according to age and sex. How many 80 year-old grandmothers are arrested for trafficking in crack? Using the flawed logic that "proves" that racial profiling is pervasive, if Grandmothers over 60 years-old are 2% of the population, then they should also be 2% of the arrests, vehicle investigations and pedestrian investigations. Any significant variance over or under this figure would indicate that cops are either pro or anti Granny. Well—here is a news flash: Grannies account for virtually none of the arrests for crack dealing, and a disproportionately low share of vehicle and pedestrian investigations. So, the cops must be pro Granny, right? Wrong! You see there are other reasons that easily explain the variance. Many, grandmothers don’t drive as much as the general population. Grandmothers may stay off the street at night. Also, for some inexplicable reason, Grandmothers may not be a drug dealer’s first choice for enforcer or drug runner. Am I stereotyping grandmothers here? Of course! But, the point is that there are many social causes that explain the action of the police that have nothing to do with bias. The simple fact is that grandmothers don’t commit as many street crimes as young people do.
So, why do the police stop and arrest more minorities than whites? What can explain this besides racism? The answer is simple: The police stop the offenders who are described to them by victims. The unfortunate truth, according to Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and crime victimization survey data, is that blacks commit a disproportionately higher amount of crime. Social scientists have been arguing the cause of this forever. But, the most obvious reason for the disparity is that poverty is also not distributed evenly through society. Blacks are poorer and less educated than their white
counterparts. Therefore, like their Irish and Italian immigrant predecessors, they commit more crime than the general population. The most stunning statistic is that blacks commit a majority (over 50%) of homicides and robberies in the United States. This is significant because when police officers respond to crimes, they look for the offenders who are described to them by witnesses. Who is being described to the police? Black males. Of the Part I crimes, the crimes that typically have witnesses involved with them are homicide, rape,
robbery and aggravated assault. On the other hand, frequently the other Part I crimes of theft, burglary and car theft have no witnesses. Cops are simply investigating the people who are being described to them as offenders.
If you were the victim of an armed robbery and described the offenders as
two black males who fled in a red Chevy, who would you expect the Police to
investigate? The responding officers are certainly not going to randomly
stop people in the surrounding area. Instead, the Police are going to stop
people who match the general description provided to them by the victim...you. It should also be pointed out that the people who are describing the offenders to the police are also frequently minority. Blacks are also the victims of crimes more often than whites. Of course, to some people this would just be evidence that the criminals are racists.
Some liberals have conceded that, due to the aforementioned reason, the police may have limited justification for the high arrest levels of blacks, but what about vehicle investigations? Why would blacks or Latinos be stopped at higher rates than whites? They argue that whites, blacks and Latinos have roughly the same amount of driving skill. Based on my years as a Police Officer, I generally agree with this assertion. However, the disparity in vehicle investigations can be linked to the following factors:
EQUIPMENT VIOLATIONS--As stated previously, blacks and other minorities frequently don't have the economic resources that white people have. Consequently, blacks may not be able to keep their vehicles inspected, registered and roadworthy. Poor minorities are also forced to drive older cars that are more prone to breakdown--further drawing the attention of the police.
LICENSING ISSUES--For various reasons, minorities may be less likely to obtain
driver's licenses. Again, economics has an impact in this area. Minorities may not be able to afford driver training or the license itself. Additionally, due to decades of conflict, some minorities have a distrust of government and refuse to obtain licenses.
PRETEXTUAL VEHICLE INVESTIGATIONS--Police Officers often stop vehicles after observing traffic violations for the purpose of investigating something else--like a recent crime. For example, if there is a pattern of liquor store robberies in a given area involving two black males driving a blue van, you can be reasonably certain that most blue vans occupied by black males that drive through the area will be stopped. How? The Police simply follow and observe the van until it violates a traffic law. Then they stop the vehicle under the pretext and justification of the traffic violation, but they investigate the vehicle's occupants to see if they can be linked, or eliminated, in reference to the robbery pattern. Does this sound illegal? The United States Supreme Court does not think so.
WHERE THERE ARE COPS, THERE ARE VEHICLE INVESTIGATIONS--Residents in high-crime areas demand
(and deserve) a greater Police presence. When I was on patrol in North Philadelphia, there were
scores of Police Officers swarming through the area for the purpose of deterring crack sales and gun violence. These officers naturally investigated many people and vehicles during the course of a normal day. Contrast that scene with a slow district with little crime. Residents would be surprised to even see a Police Officer during a normal day there. Consequently, the minority areas, many of which are plagued with crime, have many more cops doing what cops are demanded to do by the community--maintaining order and safety. Unfortunately, this sometimes results in "over
policing."
Admittedly, "over policing" is inconvenient and annoying if you happen to be the black male who gets stopped once a week, every week, on your way to your job on the graveyard shift. However, if the officers are acting upon reasonable suspicion then they are doing nothing improper or illegal.
MORE RESEARCH
It may be impossible to convince some people that, for the most part, racial profiling is more hype than substance. I do not expect the media to ever change their spots--even if there is compelling evidence. It is boring to report that the police acted properly. I do, however, challenge academics to pursue real research into racial profiling by utilizing a methodology that is more likely to reveal patterns of bias. In order to detect racial bias a study should compare the rates of police contact regarding minorities with the demographics of the described offenders for the same time period and area. True bias is not indicated when area that is 50% black has a Police contact rate that is 80% black. But, in the same area, if victims describe 50% of the offenders as black and 70% of the Police contacts are black, then that is another story.
Unfortunately, until a comprehensive study like this is conducted, law enforcement professionals will continue to be branded (stereotyped) racist by the politically correct, who claim to abhor stereotyping. More importantly, the few "bad apples" will continue to hide among the good cops. They have no fear of exposure in an environment where everybody is a suspect. A better measuring stick for racial profiling, as described above, would enable the few "bad apples" to be easily identified and plucked from the tree--making everybody happier. Contrary to the hot air pumping regularly from "Old Faithful," more often than not the Police are only doing what we expect them to do--stopping the offenders described to them. Don't believe me? Just listen to a police scanner for a few weeks--then tell me who you would be stopping.
Additional reasonable and realistic opinions about racial profiling can be found HERE and HERE.
Send your response to feedback. You are also welcome to send us your original article on this subject for possible publication on this site.
Or, go to our message boards and tell me why I'm wrong!
Copyright © 2008 by Domelights Enterprises, LLC. All rights reserved.