What separates racial profiling from econ?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-10 05:39pm

Economics is built around the goal of doing the most good with the fewest resources possible. In other words, it's all about efficiency. Now, let's say that there's an airplane with a White man, a Black man, an Arab, and a Buddhist monk on board. A credible source informs the security for that plane that one of the men has a bomb on the plane. Which should be searched first?

Frankly, I think that this comes down to economics and the prior distribution curve. We know from prior experience that Arabs are more likely to carry bombs onto aircraft than the other racial groups mentioned above. We know that, after that, Whites carry more bombs on aircraft proportionately, and then Blacks. Finally, the Buddhists carry bombs onto aircraft so rarely that the incidents are virtually statistically insignificant (if they've ever done something like that). I would say that you should search the men in the order of: Arab, White, Black, Buddhist. Did I racially profile them? Well, yes, but I don't see what was wrong with what I did. The fact is that there are only so many security agents, and only so much time in airports, and there are a LOT of travellers to check. Thus, there are limited security resources and they should be spent in such a way to maximize the efficiency of the searches.

Now, let's change the scenario. Let's say that instead of saying that the man had a bomb, he had a gun. This changes the order in which I think the passengers should be searched. For some reason, white men take more guns onto aircraft more than any other group, so the white man should be searched. Then the Arab, then the Black, and finally the Buddhist. If it were a knife, instead, I would search the Black man first, then the White man, then the Arab, and then the Buddhist.

I am racially profiling these people, but I don't see what is so objectionable about this. To me, it seems like a way to more efficiently allocate resources to help keep people alive.

Obviously this should not be taken to extremes. I don't think that all the Buddhists should be able to bypass security, even though they are the least likely to carry weapons on board planes of the groups I mentioned above, but I also can't help shake the feeling that this is a reasonable way of protecting lives.

Am I racist for believing this? What do you guys think? Where do you draw the line?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-10 05:51pm

Racism is based on illogical prejudices. Youre simply using statistics.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-01-10 06:28pm

Buddhism isn't a race. But that's just a minor nitpick.

The case you used for racial profiling is where there is a known correlation between race and the crime. Thus those of that race are being searched. Statistics not racism as has been said. It is racism when there is no established link and still some are singled out. It is also racism when people think because a person is Arab, he is also a terrorist.

Your same process can be seen like this. A person in a blue car commits a crime. Cars are searched. What is smarter to search, the blue cars or the red cars? Barring any switch by the criminal. Is it then colorism to search more blue cars?

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-10 06:45pm

I don't want to seem very prejudiced, but which is the more likely terrorist? A 80 year old granny, or a 30 year old Arab man? Most terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda, etc are Arab. It just makes more sense to search them.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-10 09:00pm

It makes sense in light of 9/11, but it wouldn't on 9/10. On 9/10, I would have searched the white man first, the Arab second, and after that the black and Buddhist. But as it's after 9/11, its a different story.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-01-10 09:20pm

there´s one problem remaining though. if people know that you rarely get searched if you´re a bhuddist monk, what should keep them from dressing up as a bhuddist monk and walk through the security checks with a bomb under their shirt?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-10 09:26pm

Lets shift this to have a look at another example of race profiling....say for example....insurance.....

Now, lets say an insurance company has statistics that show the chance of a break in occuring to a black person are 15% higher than to a white person....stastically speaking...lets say that hispanic people are 12% more likely and arab people are 10% more likely (these are all made up numbers).

Is it right for people from these racial groups to be charged higher insurance premiums based on the statistical evidence?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-01-10 09:31pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Lets shift this to have a look at another example of race profiling....say for example....insurance.....

Now, lets say an insurance company has statistics that show the chance of a break in occuring to a black person are 15% higher than to a white person....stastically speaking...lets say that hispanic people are 12% more likely and arab people are 10% more likely (these are all made up numbers).

Is it right for people from these racial groups to be charged higher insurance premiums based on the statistical evidence?

they do that with gender, age, county, education and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-10 09:33pm

salm wrote:they do that with gender, age, county, education and a whole bunch of other stuff.

I'm asking if it would be right if it was purely race, if all the other factors were unimportant.....

i.e. you are black you have to pay 20% more than a white person who is otherwise identical purely based on statistics....

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-01-10 11:29pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
salm wrote:they do that with gender, age, county, education and a whole bunch of other stuff.
I'm asking if it would be right if it was purely race, if all the other factors were unimportant.....

i.e. you are black you have to pay 20% more than a white person who is otherwise identical purely based on statistics....

The thing is that the situation is not exactly equal. With age the link is that low age means inexperience, for the most part, so the risk of accident is greater.

Race on the other hand would have to have the same type of relationship to risk for it to be fair.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-10 11:47pm

neoolong wrote: The thing is that the situation is not exactly equal. With age the link is that low age means inexperience, for the most part, so the risk of accident is greater.

Race on the other hand would have to have the same type of relationship to risk for it to be fair.

Age isn't, actually, attributed solely to the problem of inexperience. Actually, they keep statistics on how much more likely teenagers are to get into accidents than people over 18 and 21. They charge teens proportionately greater fees for their insurance premiums to help protect the insurance form. At least in the United States, this comes back to the interpretation of the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has decided that age is subject to "Heightened Scrutiny," meaning that the burden of proof, in these cases, is actually on the defendant to prove that there is a reason to discriminate based on the said criteria (for some reason, gender discrimination lawsuits are also filed in this area). On the other hand, race issues always fall under the "Strictest Security" case, which require not only rational reason to discriminate, but the defendant must now prove that it is NECESSARY to discriminate based on this criteria, in this particular area. This criteria also applies to things like religion.

That's the legal reason why there's a contradiction here, though I have done NOTHING to talk about the morality of these decisions.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-11 03:04am

It depends on the treatment. I suppose I speak from an "immune" ivory-tower perspective, so you should take everything I say with a grain of salt (Asians have by far the lowest overall crime rates of all major identifiable ethnicities, so cops rarely give us a second glance). But I don't think a heightened suspicion is all that objectionable, provided it is mere suspicion, and they do not take some punitive action based on that prejudice.

The biggest problem with the "young black man getting harassed by police" argument (as far as I'm concerned) is that until I see a black man wearing a business suit and getting treated that way, I will always treat it with a certain cynicism. Does it occur to these young black men wearing their gang colours and bandannas and scruffy clothes that they simply look the fucking part of the criminal? Maybe if they started dressing like respectable, upstanding members of the community (a wholly voluntary choice which they cannot blame on race), I don't think they have a leg ot stand on when they complain about being singled out. If you dress like a gang member, I feel justified in treating you like a gang member.

As for Arabs, there is a certain logic to the notion that they should receive heightened scrutiny. Is this unfair? I would say it depends on the nature of this scrutiny; how intrusive and abusive is it? If it's just an extra bag check, who cares? On the other hand, if you're dragged into a back room and strip-searched at gunpoint, that's completely unreasonable and severely racist.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-11 03:08am

Personally, I think that if people are so willing to dismiss a race's rights to privacy and protection from unlawful search and seizure, they should be willing to waive their rights, as well.

"Well, if they don't have a bomb in their bag, they won't care if we search it, will they?"

Great, then you shouldn't care if we search yours for no good reason, either.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-11 03:16am

I've been searched for no good reason before (at a border crossing). It's aggravating but as long as they don't inconvenience you too much, it's no big deal.

Mind you, we already do random spot-checks here in Canada for things like alcohol on the breath. No one gets up in arms about it.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-01-11 04:44am

Darth Wong wrote:The biggest problem with the "young black man getting harassed by police" argument (as far as I'm concerned) is that until I see a black man wearing a business suit and getting treated that way, I will always treat it with a certain cynicism. Does it occur to these young black men wearing their gang colours and bandannas and scruffy clothes that they simply look the fucking part of the criminal? Maybe if they started dressing like respectable, upstanding members of the community (a wholly voluntary choice which they cannot blame on race), I don't think they have a leg ot stand on when they complain about being singled out. If you dress like a gang member, I feel justified in treating you like a gang member.

It may be closer than you think. The problem is that some of these gangbanger bastards are smart enough to have wised up to this, and changed their wardrobe. I speak from experience. We cops are starting to see a new kind of gangster, and they're dressing respectably. We've got fucking Crips and Bloods here in Norfolk now, recruiting in the goddamn middle schools! They're recruiting kids as young as eight into these fucking gangs.

And the last guy I stopped and interviewed was wearing dockers and sweater. He looked for all the world like a middle class college kid, but he was throwing gang signs before he saw I spotted him, and he turned out to have gang tattoos on his arms. Once we "made" him, he wasn't shy about admitting any of it.

Folks, you would not believe how widespread these fucks are nowadays, and they're getting smarter. Mike, keep an eye on your kids in a few years, because it's not like it was when we were their age. If they don't run into some of these gangbangers by the time they're high school age, I'll be suprised. The areas with the fastest growth in gang activity these days are rural and suburban areas. The gangs are also integrated these days. Used to be the Vice Lords, for example, were all black; not anymore. The Disciples, Vice Lords, Crips, and Bloods are all integrating these days, and they're infiltrating gang members into law schools and law enforcement. They are luring all sorts of people into these fucking gangs, and the young people these days think it's cool.

You want to see what I mean? Watch the special feature documentaries on the DVD of "Attack of the Clones", and look at Hayden Christiansen. He throws a gang sign on one of them. These bastards are like fucking cockroaches - they're everywhere.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-11 06:44pm

Well, that was depressing news.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-11 06:54pm

Which is one of the reasons why I'm buying a pistol as soon as I hit 18.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-01-11 07:07pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Am I racist for believing this? What do you guys think? Where do you draw the line?

It's only racism if (un)special treatment can't be justified using a fair application of statistics. If Muslims (fr. ex) have a greater statistical chance of being terrorists then it's no no means unreasonable for the security services to pay closer attention to the activities of Allahites, or even to deny them access to high-risk areas of society such as aviation.

They are luring all sorts of people into these fucking gangs, and the young people these days think it's cool.

It really isn't any wonder why. A youth who works an honest living lining the pockets of McDonalds' shareholders has the privilage of working long hours, getting paid shit, getting shit on by his bosses, and getting shit on by the public. In contrast, a gangbanger can take in thousands of dollars a day by doing what they want when they want to do it--and have all the fun of getting to play with firearms, drugs, and all the sex they want. The truth is that crime--be it bluecollar street/gang crime or whitecollar crime in the boardroom--pays very, very well and youths are simply being good capitalists and turning towards the money.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-11 07:53pm

Perinquus wrote:
It may be closer than you think. The problem is that some of these gangbanger bastards are smart enough to have wised up to this, and changed their wardrobe. I speak from experience. We cops are starting to see a new kind of gangster, and they're dressing respectably. We've got fucking Crips and Bloods here in Norfolk now, recruiting in the goddamn middle schools! They're recruiting kids as young as eight into these fucking gangs.

Latin Kings have been recruiting as young as ten down in Orlando for years. I don't think they've started going younger than that, but most of the people I know either aren't reliable any more or got out. Most of the gangs I hear about from the North (like Bloods) are only minor annoyances down here. They exist, but the Kings and whoever their rivals are (haven't been down in that area for a few years, I'm don't even know the cant anymore, and only about a half dozen signs which may or may not still be used) seem to suppress the other gangs.

One True Spoon · Post by **One True Spoon** » 2003-01-11 08:12pm

What about white collar crime?

Not all criminals are gangsters, what about CEOs of large companies who commit fraud?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-11 08:15pm

One True Spoon wrote:What about white collar crime?

Not all criminals are gangsters, what about CEOs of large companies who commit fraud?

True, the majority of them are white, because the majority of CEOs are (still) white. Overall, I feel that the police are perfectly justified in saying "it's more likely that a 25-year-old Hispanic man will smuggle drugs than a 76-year-old Asian grandmother." As long as their assumptions are backed by unbiased statistics, I have no problem with them stopping me because I'm some young college student who looks Hispanic. It's all about who commits the crime, and focusing efforts primarily (but NOT completely) on those people.

One True Spoon · Post by **One True Spoon** » 2003-01-11 08:19pm

But would you trust Christopher Skase with your handbag?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-11 08:20pm

One True Spoon wrote:What about white collar crime?

Not all criminals are gangsters, what about CEOs of large companies who commit fraud?

You catch them through paper work, not frisking.

By the way, welcome, and *poke*

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-11 08:22pm

One True Spoon wrote:What about white collar crime?

Not all criminals are gangsters, what about CEOs of large companies who commit fraud?

The IRS probably does racial profiling against middle-aged white guys for tax evasion and fraud.

One True Spoon · Post by **One True Spoon** » 2003-01-11 08:23pm

You catch them through paper work, not frisking.

Still, most of them deserve to be violated.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What separates racial profiling from econ?

What separates racial profiling from econ?

Re: What separates racial profiling from econ?