Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 19:28:20 GMT
Aug 30, 2016 19:22:15 GMT @pjones said:
An Analysis of the New York City Police Department's “Stop-and-Frisk” Policy in the Context of Claims of Racial Bias
Andrew Gelman, Jeffrey Fagan & Alex Kiss
Page 813-823 | Published online: 01 Jan 2012
Download citation dx.doi.org/10.1198/016214506000001040
Select Language▼
Translator disclaimer
Abstract Citations Metrics Reprints & Permissions PDF
Abstract
Recent studies by police departments and researchers confirm that police stop persons of racial and ethnic minority groups more often than whites relative to their proportions in the population. However, it has been argued that stop rates more accurately reflect rates of crimes committed by each ethnic group, or that stop rates reflect elevated rates in specific social areas, such as neighborhoods or precincts. Most of the research on stop rates and police–citizen interactions has focused on traffic stops, and analyses of pedestrian stops are rare. In this article we analyze data from 125,000 pedestrian stops by the New York Police Department over a 15-month period. We disaggregate stops by police precinct and compare stop rates by racial and ethnic group, controlling for previous race-specific arrest rates. We use hierarchical multilevel models to adjust for precinct-level variability, thus directly addressing the question of geographic heterogeneity that arises in the analysis of pedestrian stops. We find that persons of African and Hispanic descent were stopped more frequently than whites, even after controlling for precinct variability and race-specific estimates of crime participation.
Lets have a look at the article and see if it proves what the authors think it proves
In the period for which we have data, 1 in 7.9 whites stopped were arrested, as comparedto approximately 1 in 8.8 hispanics and 1 in 9.5 blacks. These data are consistent with our general conclusion that the police are disproportionately stopping minorities: the stops of whites are more “efficient” and are more likely to lead to arrests, whereas for blacks andhispanics, the police are stopping more indiscriminately, and fewer of the people stopped inthese broader sweeps are actually arrested. It is perfectly reasonable for the police to make many stops that do not lead to arrests; the issue here is the comparison between ethnic groups.
However, this “hit rate” analysis can be criticized as unfair to the police, who are“damned if they do, damned if they don’t”: relatively few of the stops of minorities led to arrests, and thus we conclude that police were more willing to stop minority group members with less reason. But we could also make the argument the other way around: a relatively high rate of whites stopped were arrested, so we could conclude that the police are biased against whites in the sense of arresting them too often. Analyses that examined the validity of arrests by race — that is, the proportion of arrests that lead to convictions – would help to clarify this question. Unfortunately, such data are not readily available. We do not believe this latter interpretation, but it is hard to rule it out from these data alone
i/ police were more willing to stop minority group members with less reason
or
ii/ a relatively high rate of whites stopped were arrested, so we could conclude that the police are biased against whites in the sense of arresting them too often
Now the authors say that they believe that the reason is i/ not ii/ but they admit that there is nothing in this data that indicates this and they give no other reason here for this belief. they admit that this is simply secondary evidence. What is the Primary evidence
Perhaps a more relevant comparison, however, is to the number of crimes committed by members of each ethnic group. For example, then-New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir stated (Safir, 1999),
“The racial/ethnic distribution of the subjects of ‘stop’ and frisk reports reflects the demographics of known violent crime suspects as reported by crime victims.Similarly, the demographics of arrestees in violent crimes also correspond with the demographics of known violent crime suspects.”
Data on actual crimes are not available, of course, so as a proxy we use the number of arrests within New York City in the previous year, 1997, as recorded by the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) of New York State, as categorized by ethnic group and crime type. These were deemed to be the best available measure of local crime rates categorized by ethnicity, and they directly address concerns such as Safir’s that stop rates be related to the ethnicity of crime suspects. We use the previous year’s DCJS arrest rates to represent the frequency of crimes that the police might suspect were committed by members of each ethnic group. When compared in that way, the ratio of stops to DCJS arrests was 1.24 for whites, 1.54 for blacks, and 1.72 for hispanics: based on this comparison, blacks are stopped 23% and hispanics 39% more often than whites.
“The racial/ethnic distribution of the subjects of ‘stop’ and frisk reports reflects the demographics of known violent crime suspects as reported by crime victims.Similarly, the demographics of arrestees in violent crimes also correspond with the demographics of known violent crime suspects.”
Data on actual crimes are not available, of course, so as a proxy we use the number of arrests within New York City in the previous year, 1997, as recorded by the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) of New York State, as categorized by ethnic group and crime type. These were deemed to be the best available measure of local crime rates categorized by ethnicity, and they directly address concerns such as Safir’s that stop rates be related to the ethnicity of crime suspects. We use the previous year’s DCJS arrest rates to represent the frequency of crimes that the police might suspect were committed by members of each ethnic group. When compared in that way, the ratio of stops to DCJS arrests was 1.24 for whites, 1.54 for blacks, and 1.72 for hispanics: based on this comparison, blacks are stopped 23% and hispanics 39% more often than whites.
First of all, you claimed that racial profiling doesn't exist. You now MUST admit that it at least appears to on the basis of the above.
You then skip this admission and jump immediately to justify something that you previously claimed did not exist.
You're right that the data do not prove i or ii. But you appear to read scientific explanations of the limitations of data to prove that your preconceptions are tenable, which is just a tad unscientific.
