http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...rug-possession
I can think of at least one possible explanation that doesn't have to do with racism and prejudice but i haven't yet gone through the report or the relevant laws to test that hunch
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...rug-possession
I can think of at least one possible explanation that doesn't have to do with racism and prejudice but i haven't yet gone through the report or the relevant laws to test that hunch
There's nothing about prior convictions there. Surely that would have a huge role to play in what punishment someone gets...
It also refers to cautions/warnings and getting charged. There's data about the percentage getting warned vs charged but no data on whether those charged had prior warnings (so would be due to get charged this time).
Sloppy reporting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Sure, but if you are between 6 and 17 times as likely to be searched, guess who will most likely have previous warnings/convictions for exactly the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Those who've been caught breaking the law, cautioned and continued to break it?
black peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The lesser races need a firm, guiding hand. See how over-represented blacks and hispanics are, per capita, in the incarceration rates in the United States, arguably the leader of the free world? Correlation doesn't prove causation, I will grant you that, but let us also remember that handling the negroids and other inferiors has been a dilemma for the civilization in the United States for centuries now. As Dread argued in the frisking thread, surely the police only detain and investigate those who warrant detaining and investigating? If members of the lesser races keep over-representing themselves in crime statistics, it's simple reasoning to see that keeping a closer eye on them is a stabilizing factor in civil society.
Which means that it is less legal for black people to smoke weed? Or, rather, just as illegal, but it's enforced a lot harsher against them. I mean, if anyone can smoke it until you get cautioned, it seems a bit unfair considering blacks are between 6 and 17 times as likely to be stopped in the first place. That doesn't sound very much like justice to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Say, do you understand statistics or not? And the basic mechanisms behind them?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So, you have this new, more sensitive test for a dormant illness. And voilá, the part of the populace infected with said illness just increased by a hundredfold.
Does that now mean that this illness has somehow become more infectuous?
I don't deny that police discrimination is a problem. However, the solution is not to expect police stops/arrests to evenly conform to the racial makeup of society at large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
The reality is that black Brits are 6 times more likely to break the law than are white Brits (at least as of 2000); this includes crimes the police isn't picky about investigating, like murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I'm curious why Indians (not native Americans) have a lower incarceration rate then Hispanics. Everything the media tells me is that the only reason they are being arrested more is because of police and societal racism! It doesn't make sense!
Hang on a second there, Dexter; has anyone proven actual discrimination happens? Sure, some activist judges have opined that just because non-whites are over-represented, per capita, in incarceration and inspection rates, this must somehow mean discrimination happens. But that whole 'correlation isn't causation' goes both ways; why is the assumption that police are in the wrong and that negroids must be as law-abiding as actual people? Assuming the other way round: If you have wild Negro bucks running wild, they're liable to mug, rape and violate property rights, and little nigresses prostitute themselves (thus spreading diseases) to feed the useless mouths they've brought into this world ever since they were teenagers. If the police and the justice system have the temerity to at least attempt to combat their bacillus, I say good for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Nessie, is your post heavy sarcasm, or do you really feel that way? :confused:
That's the fortunate thing about numbers, they do not elicit feelings.
Is that what you think about non-whites, or as you say-- negroids?
If the US justice system says so, who am I to disagree?
What kind of punt is that? Do you believe in "white supremacy", or doubt??Quote:
negroids must be as law-abiding as actual people
If you're going to make that kind of comment, don't be coy and shy away when asked to explain.
It is illegal in the UK. As it is not a major crime the first step upon getting caught breaking the law is to receive a caution - if you continue to break the law then you get charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Personally my solution would be to not break the law. Or at least if cautioned to stop repeatedly breaking the law. But what do I know, that's unreasonable apparently? :rolleyes:
This question is retarded for at least two reasons, the most important being your retarded conception of racism and negative discrimination that lumps all non-whites into the same category regardless of context. I don't if you do this because you're stupid, ignorant or just racist. Which is it? My bet is on all three.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
No he makes a good point. Unless you think simultaneously that there is racism towards Hispanics but that there is no racism towards Indians etc (which I don't agree) then the entirely valid question he is asking what are the underlying reasons why there are differences? One possibility is targetted racism. Another possibility is that there are different levels of criminality and that is reflected. Or do you believe there are no different levels of criminality involved? Do you believe that solely targeted racism against one particular race is involved?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
A huge part of profiling is learning to overcome the cross-race effect. At least I'm assuming thats what Lewk is attempting here, claiming that mexicans and indians appear to similar to him.
Otherwise he is ignoring why racism is more predominant against certain groups, usually due to some social or historical event.
That's not the unreasonable part, it's the fact that it's not enforced equally. As a white person you're roughly ten times less likely to be caught in the first place.Quote:
It is illegal in the UK. As it is not a major crime the first step upon getting caught breaking the law is to receive a caution - if you continue to break the law then you get charged.
Personally my solution would be to not break the law. Or at least if cautioned to stop repeatedly breaking the law. But what do I know, that's unreasonable apparently?
Though I do actually think it is unreasonable that possession for personal use is illegal in the first place, but that's besides the point here :p
Ah, murder, that classic crime that is prevented by randomly searching people..Quote:
The reality is that black Brits are 6 times more likely to break the law than are white Brits (at least as of 2000); this includes crimes the police isn't picky about investigating, like murder.
Are you going to explain how racism plays a key role in these statistics when a large portion of the police force in the minority areas are members of the same minorities? Are they racist against themselves?
I used this example purposefully because if I used Asians as a minority example, people would say they look "white enough."Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The reason why difference 'races' have different incarceration, arrest and conviction rates has everything to do with the cultural groups. People are generally color blind these days however cultural groups do exist. And there are better and worse cultures. Cultures that worship "thug life" or believe the system is stacked against them are more likely to commit crime. Has NOTHING to do with skin color or prejudicial police and everything to do with the dominant cultural in those communities.
Why don't you explain the justice in blacks being about twice as likely to be charged for possession of marijuana or cocaine, while both have roughly the same percentage of marijuana use and whites are in fact far more likely to use cocaine?
No, you used that example because you don't know what you're talking about. If you'd mentioned "Asians" then people would have pointed out that they have other prejudices associated with them and experience racism in other ways. you may be unaware of the racism directed towards people with Oriental features but that speaks only towards your own ignorance. Similarly there are other prejudices that come into play when you're from India, provided you're not suspected of being eg. a Muslim from Pakistan or Bangladesh. If they're affected differently them that reflects the differences in specific prejudices, among other things. You might argue that the prejudices reflect some aspect of reality, but, let's face it: you believe that's a good argument because, as a Republican from Texas with an eastern European background, you're a bit of a racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And the notion that "people are generally colorblind these days" belies an extraordinary lack of insight :bulb:
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/up...t-see-race.jpg
Fits surprisingly well considering he has already slammed other cultures for being different.
I'm not sure what it is you meant, but cultures that glorify rape or call on fellow members to live off the work of other cultures certainly seem different from the one I was raised in, for example.
Cultures are better or worse on their own merits regardless of differences. Unless your putting forth the laughable assumption that all cultures are equal? If so you'll have to agree that sub cultures that think the KKK are great are just as valued and equal as cultures that support racial equality. Bottom line - culture is what causes certain ethnic groups to have different rates of arrest and incarceration NOT skin color or discrimination by the police. I'm not suggesting that racism is completely eradicated but is becoming more and more rare. (Well outside of the Democratic Party's position on AA).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I think we are talking about two different things. I'm referring to skin color being the reason for arrests and incarceration so I used an example of a very different culture with different arrest rates but still the same general skin tone as another ethnic group. The point being that people's choices (heavily influenced by culture) are FAR more likely to be the reason they are arrested or convicted then race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
What does that have to do with anything in non-idiot land?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Jesus christ man I'm talking about the fact that "race" =/= skin-color. That's why even you can easily recognize a person as being "Asian" no matter how fair their skin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Evidence for that has not been demonstrated. If you are more likely to be guilty then you are more likely to be searched - and that is not simply about profiling. Certain neighbourhoods have certain problems and in those neighbourhoods where drugs are a major problem then those that live/work in those neighbourhoods are going to be far more likely to be stopped and searched. This is not ethnic profiling, this is simple common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I live in a town where drugs are not considered a major problem. This town happens to be 95.9% White and 2.59% South Asian according to the 2011 census and all those Whites and South Asians (and any others) will be less likely to be searched for drugs than in a town or city where drugs are a major problem.
Instead the local Policing priorities appear to be alcohol and driving. I have been stopped and breathalysed repeatedly - had I been guilty of drinking and driving I would have been charged and lost my licence and gone to prison - would that be ethnic profiling or not?
I have been caught by a mobile speed trap once - for which I was charged a fine and given points on my licence. I have driven through mobile speed traps probably hundreds of other times - because of not breaking the law on those occassions nothing has come from it.
I would definitely like to see the evidence here which was categorically not in the OP. So you are claiming just to be clear that whites have a higher drug use than blacks, so I imagine in your opinion it'd be reasonable for whites to have a higher arrest/charge rate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I find your idea of idiot disclusionary and racistQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I looked it up before posting to be sure, but am at my parents now, will post the source after the weekend. It was about the US, not UK,I admit. IIRC total substance abuse (all types of drugs and alcohol), native Americans did by far the worst (mostly alcoholism), blacks a bit worse than whites, and Asians best overall. But for weed, blacks only did slightly worse, and use far less cocaine.
But come on, it's a well known fact that cocaine users are mostly white. And I also think you underestimate the prevalence of cocaine use in your area, granted, it's less easy to notice.
I'm only going on what Cheshire Police themselves have said are their local priorities (specifically told "alcohol not drugs") and personal experience. Go 20 miles away from my town and into the cities of Liverpool and Manchester and then drugs become a concern.
I'm also fairly liberal/libertarian on drugs. I don't care what people take so long as it doesn't affect others. If it does affect others - eg dirty used needles being left for people to step on, secondary crimes etc then I'm concerned.
I was talking the other day to a friend who works sometimes as a second job as a bouncer in Manchester. He says he's been shot at once but the real danger they need to look out for is getting threatened with dirty needles. People have taken to using needles as a weapon as if you get cut with a knife you can get First Aid and continue, if you get jabbed with a needle you need to leave immediately to get urgent medical assistance. Sick. :eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
This says nothing for the prevalence of hard (or more casual) drugs in established white neighborhoods.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No it but it does say something (not everything as anecdotal) about the prevalence of Police priorities (based on local needs) in certain neighbourhoods. This is an anecdotal case but not remotely unusual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
It is "well known" as Flixy put it that the major drug problems are in 'inner city' neighbourhoods. The ethnic mix of 'inner city' neighbourhoods is different to that in suburban and rural ones.
Even without racism factors those where there are problems are more likely to be subject to random stops than those outside those areas. If the Police are legitimately taking local needs into account and there is an ethnic disparity between areas with certain problems and areas without then that will - without racism - result in a disparity in such random stops.
As such I - in a town where the big Police concerns are alcohol and driving - am much more likely to be stopped to be searched for drink driving than for drugs. And I have been, as I've said previously I've been breathalysed (and passed of course) multiple times. Not once did I prescribe that to racism though.
Lets look at why there are problems in certain inner city neighbourhoods and what can be done to fix them rather than knee-jerk react to dodgy nationalised statistics and cry "racism" then feel smug and move on doing nothing. :rolleyes:
PS Its worth noting that we don't have a proclaimed "War on Drugs" - drugs are illegal not as much as in the USA a priority just for their own sake. Where drug abuse becomes a menace to society then that becomes a local concern and dealt with. Where drugs are taken discretely and without causing crimes or nuisance then its less of a priority. So it makes sense for eg Merseyside Police or Greater Manchester Police 20 miles each way from here to use their limited resources in their Inner Cities where it is a major problem, but for Cheshire Police to use their limited resources tackling local issues. Or do you disagree?
There seem to be 3 options for the Police:
1: Zero tolerance war on drugs across the entire nation superceding what could be otherwise more problematic crimes.
2: Dealing with crimes that happen based on the damage done and the local priorities.
3: Totally ignore one subset of crime.
I fail to see why we should go to either extreme and why what's happening now is a "bad thing". Ethnic profiling is bad, localised targetting is good.