Study: Youths Stopped by Police More Likely to Commit Crimes Later

Culture • August 2013 • Views: 1,571

The Think Progress link is to a Time article. Which links to the study, which is behind a $25 paywall.

Students who are stopped by police are more likely to later engage in delinquent activity, according to a new study in the journal Crime & Delinquency.

Researchers at the University of Missouri at St. Louis followed about 2,600 students participating in gang-prevention programs in seven different cities over the course of seven years. They subjected some students to random police stops, even when they hadn’t done anything wrong, some to stops and arrests, while others were not stopped

More: Study: Youths Stopped by Police More Likely to Commit Crimes Later

Kids in gang prevention programs. Who might have a parental or peer transmitted prejudice about the police and incarceration. I gotta wonder what a similar study about kids not at risk for gang membership would show. The headline distorts. It should read “at risk youths” etc. TP SOP.

Recent Pages by Rightwingconspirator:
Russia's New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Case Against Right Wing Hacks About That Flood Warning for Los Angeles? Coastal Serenity The Six Fingered Con Man

Jump to bottom

43 comments

wrenchwench Fri, Aug 2, 2013 10:15:30am

Kids in gang prevention programs. Who might have a parental transmitted prejudice about the police and incarceration. I gotta wonder what a similar study about kids not at risk for gang membership would show. The headline distorts. It should read “at risk youths” etc. TP SOP.

What is ‘a parental transmitted prejudice about the police and incarceration’? Do you mean they may have shared their experiences with their children? Does that constitute ‘transmitted prejudice’, or ‘education’?

Is the study not valid because it focused on the kids most likely to be affected by the subject matter?

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 10:26:57am

re: #1 wrenchwench

Sorry I did add an edit-Parental or peer. I refer to certain neighborhoods that have long had poor relations with the police. So the kids have been told and retold about so and so that got arrested/shot/hassled for no reason etc. The kids of gang members families for instance.

The study has a distorted headline that implies any kids from anywhere. I don’t think that implication is valid, I suspect and would like to see another study with kids that are not at particular risk of gang membership.

wrenchwench Fri, Aug 2, 2013 10:55:45am

re: #2 Political Atheist

Sorry I did add an edit-Parental or peer. I refer to certain neighborhoods that have long had poor relations with the police. So the kids have been told and retold about so and so that got arrested/shot/hassled for no reason etc. The kids of gang members families for instance.

That still does not constitute ‘prejudice’. When one person tells another person about their experiences, that’s sharing information. Are they supposed to lie?

The study has a distorted headline that implies any kids from anywhere. I don’t think that implication is valid, I suspect and would like to see another study with kids that are not at particular risk of gang membership.

What would you learn from that study that you couldn’t learn from this one?

William Barnett-Lewis Fri, Aug 2, 2013 11:14:30am

My own questions would be about how many have done anything wrong before ever being stopped - especially by something like NYC’s hideously evil stop and frisk program - thus making the stops into self fulfilling prophecies? If you teach children that the only thing you expect from them is crime, why should they even bother attempting anything else?

But no one wants to pay for things that reduce crime without these side effects - neighborhood police stations, cops _walking_ the same beat every day and so on.

SidewaysQuark Fri, Aug 2, 2013 11:15:38am

Am I the only one wondering about the ethical implications of socially experimenting on people like this?

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 11:49:00am

re: #3 Obama’s Twitter Legions

That still does not constitute ‘prejudice’. When one person tells another person about their experiences, that’s sharing information. Are they supposed to lie?

What would you learn from that study that you couldn’t learn from this one?

Okay rather than arugue that anti police prejudice (beyond actual personal experience) exists or not, (I think it does) lets just stick to real experiences, assuming all parents and peers only tell the objective truth. In a rough neighborhood with bad police relations we have one set of circumstances. In a nice middle/upper class or maybe rural circumstance where there is at least decent relations with the police we have a very different circumstance. Do that study and learn what differences the circumstances offer in this phenomenon.

Oh and see if it conforms or flies in the face of the somewhat misleading headline offered up by TP.

Am I the only person recognizing the overstatement the headline makes and how that overstatement helps promote the anti frisk/anti police stop point of view?

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 11:57:33am

re: #3 Obama’s Twitter Legions
What would you learn from that study that you couldn’t learn from this one?

I just don’t think it is smart or accurate to assume at risk of gang violence or membership kids and all the rest of the kids out there will react the same to police contact as described. looks like a big stretch given the vastly different circumstances from money, to ethnicity to population density, to geography.

wrenchwench Fri, Aug 2, 2013 12:54:16pm

re: #6 Political Atheist

Okay rather than arugue that anti police prejudice (beyond actual personal experience) exists or not, (I think it does) lets just stick to real experiences, assuming all parents and peers only tell the objective truth. In a rough neighborhood with bad police relations we have one set of circumstances. In a nice middle/upper class or maybe rural circumstance where there is at least decent relations with the police we have a very different circumstance. Do that study and learn what differences the circumstances offer in this phenomenon.

I was not arguing about the existence of prejudice against police. I was saying that actual experiences, your own or those told to you by friends and family, are not prejudice. Prejudice is an opinion held without basis in fact. If there is basis in fact, it is knowledge, not prejudice.

What exactly is ‘bad police relations’, vs ‘at least decent relations with the police’? Does it have anything to do with police behavior? Are there any ‘rough neighborhoods’ with good police relations?

Oh and see if it conforms or flies in the face of the somewhat misleading headline offered up by TP.

Am I the only person recognizing the overstatement the headline makes and how that overstatement helps promote the anti frisk/anti police stop point of view?

Do you want this other study done just to show that the headline is misleading? Do you assume that not-at-risk kids will behave differently than at-risk kids after encounters with police?

What is wrong with studying the kids who have already been determined to need help? Isn’t that where the greatest need is?

Is there anything wrong with promoting the anti frisk/anti police stop point of view?

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 2, 2013 12:54:38pm

re: #7 Political Atheist

What would you learn from that study that you couldn’t learn from this one?

I just don’t think it is smart or accurate to assume at risk of gang violence or membership kids and all the rest of the kids out there will react the same to police contact as described. looks like a big stretch given the vastly different circumstances from money, to ethnicity to population density, to geography.

I don’t really see why it’s big deal that that’s how they did the headline. The places with aggressive stop programs and the places with at-risk youth are pretty heavily overlapping.

Police stops have a highly counterproductive effect in the area where we need them the most.

wrenchwench Fri, Aug 2, 2013 12:56:45pm

re: #7 Political Atheist

What would you learn from that study that you couldn’t learn from this one?

I just don’t think it is smart or accurate to assume at risk of gang violence or membership kids and all the rest of the kids out there will react the same to police contact as described. looks like a big stretch given the vastly different circumstances from money, to ethnicity to population density, to geography.

Perhaps they don’t make that assumption. Perhaps the researchers were only interested in the at-risk group.

Those poor, neglected ‘nice middle/upper class or maybe rural circumstance’ kids…..

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 1:30:45pm

re: #10 Obama’s Twitter Legions

Perhaps they don’t make that assumption. Perhaps the researchers were only interested in the at-risk group.

Those poor, neglected ‘nice middle/upper class or maybe rural circumstance’ kids…..

I would ask them and you-What makes kids from other circumstances than at risk less worthy of understanding how police stops make them react in the future? Might another study as I describe help assure what the real cause and effect relationships are?

Is there any reason I should be less careful about this study as presented by TP than others that seek to connect the sociological and law enforcement dots?

Those poor, neglected ‘nice middle/upper class or maybe rural circumstance’ kids…..

Why this sarcasm?

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 2, 2013 1:32:31pm

re: #11 Political Atheist

I would ask them and you-What makes kids from other circumstances than at risk less worthy of understanding how police stops make them react in the future?

Because they don’t tend to be subjected to police stops.

Is there any reason I should be less careful about this study as presented by TP than others that seek to connect the sociological and law enforcement dots?

They compared like-to-like. Are you still just talking about the headline?

The study showed that among kids in the areas where we use police stops, police stops increased criminality.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 2:04:13pm

re: #12 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Because they don’t tend to be subjected to police stops.

They compared like-to-like. Are you still just talking about the headline?

The study showed that among kids in the areas where we use police stops, police stops increased criminality.

Well yes I have a problem with the headline more so than you do. I think it would be really helpful to know if this effect would carry over to those other kids. Is this an artifact of what comes with a poor rough area? Or not? My personal experience flies in the face of your contention that those other kids don’t get stopped. When I was young, had long hair and a muscle car with a killer stereo I got stopped a lot. Almost always a trunk check or quickie search to go with my traffic stop for speeding or a allged quick lane change. So that’s my experience as might contrast with the personal experiences as shown by WW above.

And again in my own experience, the rougher the neighborhood the easier the police are to deal with. The nice neighborhoods like Burbank, Beverly Hills and Glendale are where the police have a bad reputation for harassment, needless violence and ridiculous enforcement of things like a dead light bulb in the brakes or a small crack in a windshield.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 2, 2013 2:10:52pm

re: #13 Political Atheist

Well yes I have a problem with the headline more so than you do. I think it would be really helpful to know if this effect would carry over to those other kids.

Why, since there’s very little chance of us doing stop-and-frisk on affluent white kids?

Is this an artifact of what comes with a poor rough area? Or not?

It doesn’t matter. They’re comparing like to like. What the study is showing is that, among these kids, in a poor rough area, the police stops increase their criminality. That was what was shown. They compared like-to-like, so it can’t just be an artifact. All other things were equal, the only thing changed was the police stop.

And again in my own experience, the rougher the neighborhood the easier the police are to deal with. The nice neighborhoods like Burbank, Beverly Hills and Glendale are where the police have a bad reputation for harassment, needless violence and ridiculous enforcement of things like a dead light bulb in the brakes or a small crack in a windshield.

I don’t think that your own experience is at all useful here. Stop and Frisk is targeted at the ‘rougher’ neighborhoods. So are most stop programs.

You really think the cops are running the stop-and-frisk stuff in Manhattan mostly down in the Upper East Side? No, they’re up in Harlem. They specifically say that that’s where they’re doing this: In the gang areas. Because it wouldn’t make sense to do it somewhere else, the whole idea of it is to target the high-crime areas.

The study studied like-on-like.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 2:16:25pm

re: #9 Absalom, Absalom, ObdicutPolice stops have a highly counterproductive effect in the area where we need them the most.

If that is true, then the answer of halting police stops hardly makes sense. They have a job to do in high crime zones. So that does beg for a question-What to do instead of stopping vehicles and people that appear to have probable cause?

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 2, 2013 2:20:04pm

re: #15 Political Atheist

Police stops have a highly counterproductive effect in the area where we need them the most.

If that is true, then the answer of halting police stops hardly makes sense.

Er, yes it does, when it can be shown that it increases criminality.

They have a job to do in high crime zones.

If they are counterproductive, they are not doing that job. They are in fact making that job harder.

So that does beg for a question-What to do instead of stopping vehicles and people that appear to have probable cause?

Lots and lots of other shit. A combination of economic, political, and educational reforms are needed. It’s rough. There is no blueprint for certain success, we have to keep trying again in community after community until it’s eradicated, but we can learn from success.

The problem has been wildly exacerbated by the ever-steepening divide between rich and poor in this country, and social mobility is getting lower and lower. So that’s something that needs to be addressed too.

It will be incredibly difficult, so doing things that are counterproductive, like these police stops, is really a bad idea.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 2:29:32pm

re: #14 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I never claimed the study was not like on like.

Thanks (not) for dismissing my own experiences, despite the validity of other peoples experience as shown above. Stop and frisk has been written about as controversial, as used in Times square.

Boy just posting something that just appears to be a little contrary to the TP point of view and you and WW grab the microscope fast. WTH? I made a specific criticism of the study that did not question its validity among those rough neighborhoods at all.
I suggested where it should be repeated for more data, and questioned the TP headline and motive for the headline. None of this is RWNJ territory. Just a healthy skepticism about a broad conclusion headline from a narrow data set.

Is that not a common thing to do with crime/social studies around here?

Now I’m asking myself-Is it possible my moderate skepticism bout that headline is that unwelcome?

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 2, 2013 2:39:20pm

re: #17 Political Atheist

I never claimed the study was not like on like.

If you accept that, then the criticism that they didn’t study those in other circumstances is inappropriate, because the point of the study was to do like-on-like. To ask the question: What is the effect of police stops in this circumstance? And they got an answer: It increases criminality.

Thanks (not) for dismissing my own experiences, despite the validity of other peoples experience as shown above.

Validity of what other people’s experience? I don’t accept any kind of anecdote as very meaningful, sorry. The reality is that the Stop and Frisk program, and others like it, specifically target high-crime neighborhoods.

I made a specific criticism of the study that did not question its validity among those rough neighborhoods at all.

Well, yeah, and I’m pointing out that what you are criticizing it for doesn’t make sense.

I suggested where it should be repeated for more data, and questioned the TP headline and motive for the headline. None of this is RWNJ territory.

Did I miss a post where I called you a right wing nutjob? For fuck’s sake, why do you do this?

Just a healthy skepticism about a broad conclusion headline from a narrow data set.

Look, it’s completely valid to say that the headline is wrong, that it should say “Among youth in gang areas, police contact increases criminality”. That’s fine. I don’t think it’s a big deal, but it’s fine. But that the study hasn’t been applied to kids in other contexts misses the point: the study is not to determine some abstract idea about how police contact works, it’s to study the effect of police contact in gang areas.

Narrowness of scope is a good thing. It’s difficult to be correct about broad, sweeping things, it’s a lot easier to be correct on the smaller scale. Since we don’t do widespread police stops in low-crime neighborhoods, whereas we do in gang areas, it makes sense to do a narrow study focusing on the latter.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 2:44:42pm

re: #16 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Er, yes it does, when it can be shown that it increases criminality.

If they are counterproductive, they are not doing that job. They are in fact making that job harder.

Lots and lots of other shit. A combination of economic, political, and educational reforms are needed. It’s rough. There is no blueprint for certain success, we have to keep trying again in community after community until it’s eradicated, but we can learn from success.

So police stopping people or vehicles with probable cause needs to stop, pending all that social/political/economic and social change? No that can’t be what you mean. Law enforcement has to happen. gangs will eagerly further destroy lives where they can deal awful drugs and gun fight with relative ease.

The problem has been wildly exacerbated by the ever-steepening divide between rich and poor in this country, and social mobility is getting lower and lower. So that’s something that needs to be addressed too.

It will be incredibly difficult, so doing things that are counterproductive, like these police stops, is really a bad idea.

Agreed the areas need these changes. But those take time, may or may not happen with enough impact. None of those things are the job of the police. Their job is to enforce the laws as they are best able.

is it possible that the study has mislaid cause and effect? I sense that possibility. But as I did above giving the study the full benefit of competency, it outlines a catch 22, rather than made a good policy suggestion.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 2, 2013 2:45:11pm

re: #19 Political Atheist

So police stopping people or vehicles with probable cause needs to stop, pending all that social/political/economic and social change?

We’re not talking about stopping people with probable cause.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 2, 2013 2:45:38pm

re: #20 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

We’re not talking about stopping people with probable cause.

And I mean that very literally: the statistics of Stop and Frisk prove that out.

wrenchwench Fri, Aug 2, 2013 2:46:03pm

re: #17 Political Atheist

I never claimed the study was not like on like.

Thanks (not) for dismissing my own experiences, despite the validity of other peoples experience as shown above. Stop and frisk has been written about as controversial, as used in Times square.

Boy just posting something that just appears to be a little contrary to the TP point of view and you and WW grab the microscope fast. WTH? I made a specific criticism of the study that did not question its validity among those rough neighborhoods at all.
I suggested where it should be repeated for more data, and questioned the TP headline and motive for the headline. None of this is RWNJ territory. Just a healthy skepticism about a broad conclusion headline from a narrow data set.

Is that not a common thing to do with crime/social studies around here?

Now I’m asking myself-Is it possible my moderate skepticism bout that headline is that unwelcome?

If resources were limitless, and there was no prior knowledge, then every imaginable study should be done.

In this case, somebody has already devised some criteria to select kids who are ‘at-risk’. Given that, I suppose they wanted to know the difference between the at-riskers who got into the gang life and the at-riskers who did not get into gang life. One idea was to look at the difference between those who got stopped a lot, and those who did not.

Now if you go and add a bunch more kids, but this time, those who are not at-risk to begin with, I don’t see how that additional data helps those at-risk kids at all.

Do all attempts to help at-risk kids need to be matched by studies of kids not at risk so we know if there’s any overlap in the data?

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 2:55:16pm

re: #22 wrenchwench

If resources were limitless, and there was no prior knowledge, then every imaginable study should be done.

Do all attempts to help at-risk kids need to be matched by studies of kids not at risk so we know if there’s any overlap in the data?

What is it called when a question is answered with a question or inference of unreasonable conditions via exaggeration? I forget the term. Let me bring this back down a bit.

Where it comes to increasing the risk of a kid going more criminal, winding up in jail, wrecking a life that had potential, yes damn it IMO we need not exclude all but those most at risk. How about a study as I pointed out a similar study? Similar resources, similar costs, similar size….

Would it not reinforce the studies conclusion if the results were the same with kids at less risk or a ways up the social economic ladder?

WW I am getting the feeling you are deeply suspicious of my motives with this Page and I find that unfortunate and unnecessary. Hopefully I’m wrong about that.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 3:10:03pm

re: #21 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

And I mean that very literally: the statistics of Stop and Frisk prove that out.

My reading of that controversy is inadequate. I have no idea what happened to the crime rates where the stop and frisk happens, or where the smallest vehicle violation gets a stop and search. I do know from some reading the police have a very different view, they say this stuff is “safe and effective”. This is the first study I have seen to claim the opposite. Of course the older probable cause controversy and profiling controversy was already apparent. That much I get from the ACLU. Oh and have these kind of studies ever been superseded with better data and conclusions? I had thought so. First looks at a specific problem seem more likely to have errors than the tenth look at it. Whats the fix? More or quite often broader study does it.

But we are still left with this-What are the police to do to best stop crime in these places pending all those changes society and government might (or might not) come through with. They will use the tools that are needed and that are available to them. Exactly how much of that do you want to remove in the most dangerous areas?

EDIT-
When I got stopped in south central by LAPD they thought I was there to buy illlegal drugs. Well I was a well dressed white guy driving a newish car from a company shop. Because my route was blocked by a big crash on the I-10 freeway, I was going from south central to downtown on small streets. Jefferson bl was already a mess. They stopped me, got my license and asked for a search to which I reluctantly agreed. They were not nice or polite at all at first. “If you say no we’ll just get a K9” and we can be here for quite a while”. Then their search told the truth. They found my stuff from the shop I had just left. Guess what my stuff was? Golden and glittering in the briefcase. Merch for shipping later from the HQ.

Then all was good. So I asked what was up with the stop. They told me I looked like a guy that was there to buy drugs. I suggested they come by the shop for a tour sometime. Obviously I got profiled. Thing is I don’t really have a problem with their suspicions. I did fit that look all things considered.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 2, 2013 3:15:08pm

re: #24 Political Atheist

I’ve never seen a study showing stop and frisk or anything like it is effective. Can you please link to one?

wrenchwench Fri, Aug 2, 2013 3:15:40pm

re: #23 Political Atheist

What is it called when a question is answered with a question or inference of unreasonable conditions via exaggeration? I forget the term. Let me bring this back down a bit.

Where it comes to increasing the risk of a kid going more criminal, winding up in jail, wrecking a life that had potential, yes damn it IMO we need not exclude all but those most at risk. How about a study as I pointed out a similar study? Similar resources, similar costs, similar size….

Would it not reinforce the studies conclusion if the results were the same with kids at less risk or a ways up the social economic ladder?

WW I am getting the feeling you are deeply suspicious of my motives with this Page and I find that unfortunate and unnecessary. Hopefully I’m wrong about that.

I am not suspicious of your motives at all. I am engaging with your ideas to show where we disagree, with an ultimate aim of bringing you (or perhaps a non-participating observer) over to my point of view.

I think that if they have already decided that they have a group of kids they are working with who are at-risk, and they want to find out how to best help those kids, it is a wasteful distraction to worry about non-at-risk kids at the same time. Rather than reinforce the conclusion, it would just add confusion and delay.

The only thing I was kind of suspicious about at the top was your referring to knowledge among those in a community as ‘prejudice’.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 3:24:30pm

re: #25 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I don’t have a study for that. Do you need a link about what the police have said about it? I just searched up this from a judge. I’m not endorsing the piece, just filling your request as best I can quickly.

A View From the Bench: Leave ‘Stop and Frisk’ Alone
The practice is as old as law enforcement itself. Train cops, but then let them get to work.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 2, 2013 3:29:00pm

re: #27 Political Atheist

Okay, I’m not really interested in opinion articles, I’m really more interested in studies. I’m aware that reasonable people support stop and frisk. I don’t think they’re bad people. I think they’re wrong.

You said this:

Oh and have these kind of studies ever been superseded with better data and conclusions? I had thought so. First looks at a specific problem seem more likely to have errors than the tenth look at it. Whats the fix? More or quite often broader study does it.

I can’t really pick this apart. Are you still not getting why a narrow study is completely appropriate? We use stop and frisk programs in gang areas. We don’t use them in affluent areas. There isn’t really any reason to wonder about the efficacy of them in areas we don’t use them, unless you think we should start stopping and frisking people everywhere at the same rate.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 3:32:24pm

re: #26 wrenchwench

Okay, cool and thanks. +1

There are those who have a prejudice about the police. I have an acquaintance who was a real jerk about minorities. A bigot. He became a cop. Then over some time he saw how many people reacted ti him in uniform with fear, anger or outright hate before anything had happened between them. He says this taught him how wrong he was to be a bigot. That experience day after day with anti police or anti authority prejudice forced him to see how shitty is is to judge a person by appearance like skin color or uniform or job description. Sure that’s just one man, one anecdote. But it’s had a sincerity about it when I heard it in person.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 3:35:15pm

re: #28 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I get the validity of the study as claimed. But you are seemingly ignoring what I pointed out about narrow studies, and first studies. And the possible benefit of the data from other kids. Repeat-What if nice rich kids (maybe counterculture kids, which draws police attention) are similarly effected by police stops? Would that not help validate the study above?

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 3:39:04pm

re: #21 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

And I mean that very literally: the statistics of Stop and Frisk prove that out.

Is there a study of how well stop and frisk works absent racial profiling? I can’t find one of those either. What if that’s the problem, not the stop and frisk itself?

EDIT
Racial profiling makes a mess of almost any law or policy.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 3:41:40pm

Meh. Thread fades away….

Next? Moving on.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 2, 2013 3:41:44pm

re: #30 Political Atheist

I get the validity of the study as claimed. But you are seemingly ignoring what I pointed out about narrow studies, and first studies.

No, I’m saying that you’re wrong about narrow studies— narrow studies are better than broad studies in many ways— and sure, we can get some more studies, but is there any reason to believe this one isn’t accurate?

And the possible benefit of the data from other kids. Repeat-What if nice rich kids (maybe counterculture kids, which draws police attention) are similarly effected by police stops? Would that not help validate the study above?

It wouldn’t help nearly as much as repeating the same study on the same population would. That would be repeating it.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 2, 2013 3:42:11pm

re: #31 Political Atheist

Is there a study of how well stop and frisk works absent racial profiling? I can’t find one of those either. What if that’s the problem, not the stop and frisk itself?

EDIT
Racial profiling makes a mess of almost any law or policy.

I’m asking for any study showing that stop and frisk reduces criminality in a population.

wrenchwench Fri, Aug 2, 2013 3:46:39pm

re: #29 Political Atheist

Okay, cool and thanks.

There are those who have a prejudice about the police. I have an acquaintance who was a real jerk about minorities. A bigot. He became a cop. Then over some time he saw how many people reacted ti him in uniform with fear, anger or outright hate before anything had happened between them. He says this taught him how wrong he was to be a bigot. That experience day after day with anti police or anti authority prejudice forced him to see how shitty is is to judge a person by appearance like skin color or uniform or job description. Sure that’s just one man, one anecdote. But it’s had a sincerity about it when I heard it in person.

That man may have learned that it was wrong to be a bigot, but there are two things he may not have learned.

He may not have learned what it’s like to be on the receiving end of bigotry. Those people’s reactions to him were reactions to his uniform, not the color of his skin or an indicator of his religion or ethnicity. It was his job they reacted to. Uniforms and jobs represent everyone who wears them and works them. Skin color is different. You can’t quit it. You can’t take it off. It doesn’t represent anyone else.

People reacted to him before having interaction with him, but not before they had interaction with that uniform and others who worked his job. His disappointment should have been with those who wore that uniform before him, because those are the ones who caused the fear, anger, and outright hate he saw in the people he served on the job.

I’m saying to you once more, because you have not acknowledged that we disagree here: The reaction those people had was not bigotry. They reacted based on knowledge. That’s not prejudice.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 4:14:06pm

re: #35 wrenchwench

Well, we are both right-. Real experience is not bigotry it is a legit learned response. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Surely we have both (?) seen those who have that anti authority thing as big and bold going on as strong as a racial bigot in the KKK. I saw some of that at OccupyLA where things went pretty well with the police as compared to other cities and OWS. Anti police prejudice is just a more specific form of that attitude or prejudice.

They can even overlap. A person robbed a couple times at his store by the same ethnicity might regards more people that are just customers of that color with unfounded fear or anger. Another person who takes a beat down from a cop for no reason may well regard all police at all times with fear and anger.

That shop owner would be an interesting fellow to show this study to! I’d also love to chat with a NYC cop about it. Then review the ACLU numbers.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 2, 2013 4:21:06pm

re: #36 Political Atheist

Why would the shop owner be an interesting person to show this study to?

wrenchwench Fri, Aug 2, 2013 4:21:48pm

re: #36 Political Atheist

Well, we are both right-. Real experience is not bigotry it is a legit learned response. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Surely we have both (?) seen those who have that anti authority thing as big and bold going on as strong as a racial bigot in the KKK. I saw some of that at OccupyLA where things went pretty well with the police as compared to other cities and OWS. Anti police prejudice is just a more specific form of that attitude or prejudice.

They can even overlap. A person robbed a couple times at his store by the same ethnicity might regards more people that are just customers of that color with unfounded fear or anger. Another person who takes a beat down from a cop for no reason may well regard all police at all times with fear and anger.

That shop owner would be an interesting fellow to show this study to! I’d also love to chat with a NYC cop about it. Then review the ACLU numbers.

So you would like to speak to ‘a person robbed a couple times at his store by the same ethnicity’ and a cop. What about those kids in the study? Or the person who got the beating from a cop?

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 4:24:26pm

re: #34 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I’m asking for any study showing that stop and frisk reduces criminality in a population.

I don’t have anything like that. I did not mean to imply I did. I just mentioned the police like it as per some statements made. then I found that opinion piece from a judge. Which to me carries some (albeit limited) weight given the law school, the experience at the bench and their contacts among both defense and prosecutors.

Have you seen this?
I that Cohen is, on one hand, way too quick to dismiss the numbers with his blanket statement that “young black males are your shooters” and on the other hand may be way too quick to describe police work as racial profiling.

hey I gotta go and do some work, then commute home. Prolly gotta take a break for all that, but later in the evening I’ll sit down again and discuss further. ‘kay?

wrenchwench Fri, Aug 2, 2013 4:27:38pm

This is from the WSJ editorial you linked to:

It is a fraught business, both for officers whose safety is on the line and for the innocent citizens subjected to the stops, mostly young black men who may be justly aggrieved by police aggression.

She says young black men ‘may be’ justly aggrieved, but that’s no reason to stop the tactic.

Easy for her to say. Also, she opposes outside monitoring of cops:

The variables in street encounters are too great and too fraught. They ought not be dictated by external forces, whether by current public passions, a panel of experts or political pandering.

She uses the word ‘fraught’ a lot. It’s too difficult to change the thing that may or may not be working. But it’s young black men who bear the brunt, so it’s not important to her.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 4:28:52pm

re: #38 wrenchwench

I already know rough kids and talked about cops & stops. Yes, I’d like to chat with the full spectrum of people that have an interest in this study. I figure to learn an interesting thing or two. Might not but real discussion can be enlightening. Surprises welcome.
re: #38 wrenchwench

So you would like to speak to ‘a person robbed a couple times at his store by the same ethnicity’ and a cop. What about those kids in the study? Or the person who got the beating from a cop?

The study might have a positive effect on the shop owner. Might help him understand what is going on. Right maybe no point in talking to a Rodney king kind of person, and so withdrawn.

Okay out for a bit.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 6:41:14pm

re: #40 wrenchwench

I have not read that carefully. But what you write sounds like a symptom is stop and frisk and the problem is racist cops.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 2, 2013 7:19:12pm

re: #20 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut