On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 11:53:33AM -0400, Robert Haeckl wrote:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 10:35:35PM -0400, Robert Haeckl wrote:
> >
> > >
<snip>
> > 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.
>
I was thinking about this last night. It occurs to me that what we're
calling "profiling" is really inductive or deductive reasoning
(depending on the circumstances). Sherlock Holmes was the master of
this. Scientific inquiry is pulled along by this as well. In the absence
of plain and clear facts, one must rely on probabilities and tendencies.
> > 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'm simply saying that what we're calling "profiling" has a legitimate
use. It helps track and catch criminals, white, black or otherwise.
> > 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.
>
You are correct. After Oklahoma, either one should raise suspicions.
<snip>
> > 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.
>
Agreed. But the _truth_ is that registered gun owners almost never
commit gun crimes.
However, my point is this: in most cases where there are criminals,
there are also non-criminals who know of but ignore the acts of the
criminals. If they acted, the crimes would not be committed. Yet people
don't act, and thereby become accomplices.
> > 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.
>
It's true that statistics _can_ be twisted, but they aren't always. Like
anything else, one has to ferret out the reality. You mentioned the gun
issue earlier, which is a favorite of statistical twisting by the
gun-control crowd. But if you really listen to their statistics, you can
see the holes. Unfortunately, this does require a sense of logic that is
missing in a lot of people today. They want their facts neatly packaged
and spoon fed to them.
> I don't know, Paul. The inflection in your voice is just kind of scary.
>
Actually, I don't know what to do about the terrorists in this country.
It could be that we had all the info we needed to capture them, and that
if governmental agencies had shared what they knew, we would have
prevented the disaster. If I could be reasonably sure that our intel and
information sharing would prevent future occurrences, I'd say don't
change a thing. I simply don't have enough information.
Though I see little merit in the arguments I've heard so far, I'll go so
far as to reverse my original statement that we should track Arabs in
this country. But I would like to hear something else that soothes my
sense of insecurity in this environment.
Understand something: my first reaction to situations like this is
militaristic-- action and justice, swift and merciless. This works
extremely well on the battlefield, but is a little savage for civilian
life. As a result, I have to mediate my reactions to a lot of
situations, including this one. I just didn't do it fast enough here.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:41:14 EDT