Posted: Sep 14, 2012 9:00 am
Dickens wrote:Sovereign wrote:No more like socioeconomic status. Turn of the century it was the Irish.
Even if the crime rates are a result of a socioeconomic status, this does not refute the argument that a method based on what you call bigotry and prejudice yields a better than random results. Seven times better in my example.
Next, what is the similarity with the Irish? Did they at the turn of the century commit 7-8 times more murders per capita than the WASPs?
Ignoring the significant practical and ethical issues with profiling, the problem is that the people carrying out the practice are using your irrelevant criteria (i.e. skin colour) instead of socioeconomic status. If people were targeted on the basis of their income level, then it would still be ethically horrific, but at least they'd have some justification for their action - if they target people because they're black, then their only justification is racism.
Also, going by your logic, there's no need to target blacks or SES level, as the best indicator we have of whether someone will be a criminal is whether they are male - as men, of course, are over 10 times more likely to be murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. Why did you bring up the example of black crime rates, when male crime rates are far higher and more obvious?
It's almost as if you were indicating that black people are inherently more likely to be criminals... I'm glad that you've dropped the Lombrosian notion of genetic criminality following my earlier post though.