One of the issues with following a crime rate is that it perpetuates discrimination.
Even if two groups have the exact same probability of, for example, carrying illegal substances, racist targeting will mean your crime rate will continue to reflect that one group “seems worse”.
You don’t spot crime where you dont look for it.
That’s why it’s important to tackle these issues and make sure there is no racial targeting.
Black and Latino people are “much less likely to get arrested because the stops are bogus from the get-go,”
so, no. the disproportionate number of stops is not because of differences in crime rates. but also, it should be pretty obvious that white people (who are around 30% of the NYC population) should account for more than just 5% of crimes, even considering that more crime will be committed by poor people, and that poor people will be disproportionately non-white.
Skin color has nothing to do with crime rates. You can tell if a system is racist by looking at its rates compared to demographics. Only stopping 5% white people when their population in the area is 60% is a red flag. Essential being a white criminal in that area was like being invisible.
We’re not talking about arrests we’re talking about stops of pedestrians, so none of what you said after the first sentence is relevant.
The NYPD has stopped tens of thousands of pedestrians since Mayor Eric Adams took office – claiming someone “fit a relevant description” or citing a vague reason like “other.” Just 5% of them were white, revealing racial disparities even starker than at the height of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” era.
Is that disproportionate to the crime rate? If not, then I’m not sure how this is Mayor Adams’ fault.
One of the issues with following a crime rate is that it perpetuates discrimination.
Even if two groups have the exact same probability of, for example, carrying illegal substances, racist targeting will mean your crime rate will continue to reflect that one group “seems worse”.
You don’t spot crime where you dont look for it.
That’s why it’s important to tackle these issues and make sure there is no racial targeting.
Removed by mod
Don’t even need to imagine it when every study shows that is an accurate description.
Sure, but a lot of people need it very clearly spelled out for them.
What a wonderful, easy to understand example. Thank you for this
from the article:
so, no. the disproportionate number of stops is not because of differences in crime rates. but also, it should be pretty obvious that white people (who are around 30% of the NYC population) should account for more than just 5% of crimes, even considering that more crime will be committed by poor people, and that poor people will be disproportionately non-white.
Removed by mod
I was coming here to post that certain people will use this statistic to claim 95% of crime is committed by non-whites.
But I think you just saved me the trouble by demonstrating my point
Skin color has nothing to do with crime rates. You can tell if a system is racist by looking at its rates compared to demographics. Only stopping 5% white people when their population in the area is 60% is a red flag. Essential being a white criminal in that area was like being invisible.
Yes. Most studies show blacks commit a majority of the crimes but not 95% https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year-end-2022-enforcement-report.pdf
The arrest rate is around 43% for black people. White is about 17%.
The issue, though, is this is stop and frisk. It is just an excuse to stop people. It isn’t effective law enforcement.
deleted by creator
We’re not talking about arrests we’re talking about stops of pedestrians, so none of what you said after the first sentence is relevant.