BLUF: Hispanic and Black officers make far fewer stops and arrests and use force less than white officers, especially against Black civilians.... These effects are supportive of the efficacy of increasing diversity in police forces.
I support increased diversity as a policy matter. However, this scientific conclusion would require determining whether white officers were over-using force or minority officers were under-using force. While the former situation is more likely due to P200/N200 disparities inherent in interracial encounters, I am not convinced this study is complete enough to come to that conclusion as a matter of science.
This is not a troll, but a genuine call to question an assumption: what utility does policing have? I see no evidence that they present any kind of solution to economic or social issues of any kind. They will cage or hurt people or tear apart families to protect insured private property, never mind whatever "moral" aspersions we cast on a given instance of "crime," which is itself a wonderfully flexible and fluid term we bandy about like it has a fixed, equitable meaning.
Let's first scientifically test the wild, unproven assumption that we improve society by threatening each other with violence. I am skeptical, to put it mildly.
In Chicago especially (where the study was based and where I live), police fairly clearly have an overuse of force in general. They have paid enormous sums over many years in lawsuits for wrongful use of force. There is plenty of research to show that when confronted with complex problems police will respond with force when other tactics may have been better for all (such as cited in this book - https://www.npr.org/2019/01/02/681606995/punishment-without-... )
That is directional evidence, not the kind of evidence needed for a study like this.
Assuming we accounted for every one of those court cases, would that nudge the data? Are there 100x cases that 'never made it to court' for every case that did, or only 2?
How wide is that Gaussian distribution of assertive policing? Is it limited to a specific unit? Or a specific tactic, i.e. no-knock warrants?
What was the nature of 'over policing' in those cases, vs. the kind of issues that police face daily? Because typically, it's going to be the 'egregious' issues that go to court, probably not 'the little things' and of course the 'little things' might be the real problem, or not.
Are some police letting people off the hook for serious things aka "I saw you with that gun in your belt, son, I'm not going to ruin your life in this moment because you remind me of me when I was your age, but you need to get that thing home and put it away, if I see you on this block again I'm going to check up on you". Which FYI might actually in some ways be a rational policing tactic - or not - it's hard to know.
Or is it almost entirely a function of profiling and the likelihood for police to act given certain bits of information, whereupon the actual type of applied policing might be the same?
Maybe it's the reaction of the offenders - perhaps young men of colour are really that much more likely to not flinch when someone 'who looks like them' approaches?
Paradoxically 'more policing' in the broadest sense seems to lead to less crime, at least by some measures [1], but that doesn't take into account level of assertion.
There are too many variables to just assume that police are, in most cases under or over policing with respect to application of the law.
Ah yes let’s get bogged down in silly “rationalism” like this. Because of course before you can determine whether they under- or over-use force, you need to determine the _proper_ level of force in each circumstance. And let me tell you it’s going to depend case-by-case! And gosh since it’s so hairy to determine whether something was over- or under-use of force, let’s just broadly leave it up to the officers’ discretion.
Lol. This is exactly how white supremacy & other power structures reinforce themselves
All this presupposes race is the dominant factor. Sure, it is almost certainly a present trait, but it's rather relevant to identify it as a causative factor.
If profiling blacks is an inappropriate means to discern likelihood of criminality, so too is profiling whites as a means to discern likelihood of over-forced policing.
But everyone is so stuck on the "our side vs your side" nobody seems to remember that skin color determines literally nothing about behavior.
The following traits are almost certainly far more meaningful than skin color:
- age
- gender
- upbringing
- culture
- economic status
- social status
Of course, people will argue that members of groups with particular skin colors generalize to certain tendencies in some of these traits. But that's about as useful as saying "fat is bad for you" or "germs are bad".
Well, yeah, in some instances. But if you treat everything with the nuance of a brick hitting a fly, you're gonna miss the actually important distinctions that could lead to meaningful change.
Sorry, but all this "black vs white" garbage is a load of unscientific, unhelpful, tribalistic hogwash. How about if anyone actually cares, we stop enabling the baloney racial characterizations?
Because the genetics and generalizations are utterly idiotic and useless.
I don't even know what "under-use of force" means as a credible measure of... I don't eve know, but apparently they may have not been using enough force
This is an important point. We could use 'less force' and 'arrest less' by literally not policing at all.
It's good to have more data but like always it's just one more piece of the puzzle.
FYI One area that seems to have objective credibility apparently are 'victimization reports' i.e. when people are asked the amount of crime they face as opposed to relying on policing measures.
I support increased diversity as a policy matter. However, this scientific conclusion would require determining whether white officers were over-using force or minority officers were under-using force. While the former situation is more likely due to P200/N200 disparities inherent in interracial encounters, I am not convinced this study is complete enough to come to that conclusion as a matter of science.