Crime Stats, by Race.
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Good question.
I don't know really, should we keep any stats by race, or by gender, or by anything else that some people use in a way in which it's not initially intended? Isn't data just information? Is it not what is done with information the important part?
I don't know really, should we keep any stats by race, or by gender, or by anything else that some people use in a way in which it's not initially intended? Isn't data just information? Is it not what is done with information the important part?
It could be useful, if used in the right way. For example, if most of a certain type of crime are committed by one particular group, it could help to put efforts into finding out why, and then help reduce it.
Not to target members of that race, but to get to the cause and work at that.
Not to target members of that race, but to get to the cause and work at that.
I feel much the same but this is an issue that bears a lot of careful consideration. While such stats can be used to target and help eliminate specific behaviours in demographics that stand out, they could also be turned and used to justify discriminatory behaviour against those demographics. Very much a double edged blade.
Would there be much to gain? First of all, there are very few people now who are descended from one race. Race, as it is, is generally recorded according to the race of the father, so any conclusions would be drawn from the male blood line.
There may be one tiny aspect where it could be useful...........................machete murders! :lol:
No, you cannot use crime statistics based upon racial overtones. It's effect will only fire up those who are racial bigots and bring them out of the closet. The consequences of doing it will far out weight anything positive your trying to get out of it. You cannot say your not targeting members of a particular race, you are targeting them. They won't trust your motives, there is no right way.
Last edited:
The guy who looks white but with a slight tanned complexion, do we classify him as Caucasian or mixed? And what about the brown guy with an arabesque nose and hazel eyes? Mixed or black? And the fair-skinned guy with oriental eyes, Asiatic or mixed?
It could get ugly trying to decipher what category one falls under.
It could get ugly trying to decipher what category one falls under.
Good question mate!
On one hand yes because it would affirm a few ideas about how crime, especially violent crime and poverty are associated and what would make a positive difference in reducing the harm done.
On the other, the races are already mixing and will soon be to the point where it is difficult to say what race or mixture someone is and where a person actually came from. Getting the broad brush out and saying white black asian and aboriginal doesn't really say anything. All those labels mean less and less as the population of pure blooded people is reduced.
Few even know what races are in their own ancestry that it's not exactly accurate to say who is what without a detailed examination of that person.
So, while I think it would help if it was used as a tool to better understand the issues, but I despair in that it wouldn't be but rather a stick to beat poor people up with.
On one hand yes because it would affirm a few ideas about how crime, especially violent crime and poverty are associated and what would make a positive difference in reducing the harm done.
On the other, the races are already mixing and will soon be to the point where it is difficult to say what race or mixture someone is and where a person actually came from. Getting the broad brush out and saying white black asian and aboriginal doesn't really say anything. All those labels mean less and less as the population of pure blooded people is reduced.
Few even know what races are in their own ancestry that it's not exactly accurate to say who is what without a detailed examination of that person.
So, while I think it would help if it was used as a tool to better understand the issues, but I despair in that it wouldn't be but rather a stick to beat poor people up with.
Many excellent replies, thanx...
Lets address one small issue though.
Police do not determine what race a person in their custody is. They ask the alleged perp, what race they are. Sometimes, right down to what band/tribe, nation of origin.
Witnesses/victims, may say they saw a "insert race here" person, commit the crime. But that's not the stat that I would be referring to.
Lets address one small issue though.
Police do not determine what race a person in their custody is. They ask the alleged perp, what race they are. Sometimes, right down to what band/tribe, nation of origin.
Witnesses/victims, may say they saw a "insert race here" person, commit the crime. But that's not the stat that I would be referring to.
Yes, police do that including down to what gang they run with, Sometimes if done correctly it helps solve a crime. It is not targeting a race though, just a individual or group of individuals suspected of committing crimes and the police are just doing what we pay them to do, solve crime.
I think it's easy to see the negative aspect of this type of statistical information (continued stereotyping and discrimination) but what are the positive uses for this type of information, if any? Who is using this information and why?
I agree. But then we need to identify the group correctly. for instance, let's suppose statistically members of race X are poorer than those of other races, and they also have the highest crime rate, then is the reason because of race or poverty? Should the issue be with poverty, then we ought to target the poor, not those fo a particular race. Or maybe race X is poorer owing to racial discrimination in the workforce, in which case we need to be able to focus on fighting racism in an effective way. There are many issues involved.
Also, who's likely to be more successful between a child from a wealthy family that abuses or neglects him compared to one from a poor family that cares for and supports him.
Which is exactly my point.
If used to help find the root cause, it can be a useful tool. Otherwise, it's not.
actually, the question in the Op reminds me of a kindergarten study from the US I'd read about some time ago in a linguistics book. It went like this:
At two ends of the kindergarten classroom they had two boxes with a gift in each. Both boxes were identical, with a recording playing in each telling the kids that the gift in that box was the better one. The wording in each tape was identical except for the accent, one being stereotyped as being 'white', the other 'black'. All of the white kids in the class and most of the black kids went to the 'white' box because they thought it would have a nicer gift in it. Among the black kids, even many of those who'd gone to the 'white' box thought the man in the 'black' box sounded friendlier, though they still went to the 'white' box thinking it would have a nicer prize. The white kids generally considered the man in the 'white' box to be more trustworthy.
It's pretty sad that such linguistic stereotypes are so entrenched even at kindergarten age!
I'd found similar among kindergarten kids in China. I'd got one to tell me things that definitely made his mother blush, as the kid was telling me that blacks are bad thieves, and that Uighurs are thieves too. The mother tried to explain that it was because of American TV stereotyping blacks and because in that local town many Uighur were generally poor and many did turn to shoplifting and pickpocketing.
But of course if Uighurs are believed to be thieves by kindergarten kids, then who'll hire them, right.
It's shocking that these ideas already permeate the kindergarten mind.
At two ends of the kindergarten classroom they had two boxes with a gift in each. Both boxes were identical, with a recording playing in each telling the kids that the gift in that box was the better one. The wording in each tape was identical except for the accent, one being stereotyped as being 'white', the other 'black'. All of the white kids in the class and most of the black kids went to the 'white' box because they thought it would have a nicer gift in it. Among the black kids, even many of those who'd gone to the 'white' box thought the man in the 'black' box sounded friendlier, though they still went to the 'white' box thinking it would have a nicer prize. The white kids generally considered the man in the 'white' box to be more trustworthy.
It's pretty sad that such linguistic stereotypes are so entrenched even at kindergarten age!
I'd found similar among kindergarten kids in China. I'd got one to tell me things that definitely made his mother blush, as the kid was telling me that blacks are bad thieves, and that Uighurs are thieves too. The mother tried to explain that it was because of American TV stereotyping blacks and because in that local town many Uighur were generally poor and many did turn to shoplifting and pickpocketing.
But of course if Uighurs are believed to be thieves by kindergarten kids, then who'll hire them, right.
It's shocking that these ideas already permeate the kindergarten mind.
The problem in a country like Canada is defining "race". Am I white or native? Depends on your perspective even though I am quite pale. Or like on person I worked with was half Chinese and half Native. WHich is not that uncommon on the coast.
You hit the nail on the head - Now membership in gangs, age, type of crime, single parenting, education levels and a number of other would provide all the data that is needed.
Crime can be broken down even to neighborhoods for example. Cities do that all the time.
Now, wait a minute. If breaking down crime by race is wrong, doing it by age is definitely wrong.
