Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

more arrests =/= that group is using the most

Hence, the profiling argument.

When the numbers are what they are with black crack users arrests vs. white cocaine users arrests, it's hard to imagine that racial profiling is the difference maker there. In 2006, blacks consisted of 82% of crack cocaine arrests. In that same year, whites accounted for 72% of powder cocaine arrests.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

When the numbers are what they are with black crack users arrests vs. white cocaine users arrests, it's hard to imagine that racial profiling is the difference maker there. In 2006, blacks consisted of 82% of crack cocaine arrests. In that same year, whites accounted for 72% of powder cocaine arrests.

And yet, the penalties against crack cocaine are ridiculously higher than those for powder cocaine.

There's pretty much a documented issue in Illinois with racial profiling among police officers when it comes to traffic stops and searches folowing those stops. Even though they searched something like 8x more minorities than whites they found drugs in the cars of whites 2x more often. Yet they keep pulling over the minorities at a much higher rate. It's not as simple as "someone gets paid and retraining happens and it's all ok now."

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And yet, the penalties against crack cocaine are ridiculously higher than those for powder cocaine.

this is a issue in the sentencing, not a flaw in the arrest and detaining.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by starang21

this is a issue in the sentencing, not a flaw in the arrest and detaining.

Flaw with the legislation (one that suggests a bias) which relates back to this case here. I only mentioned it since Kevin felt it important to bring up.

Perhaps it's simply cynicism, but here's my thought process:

Racial profiling happens now.
Law is passed that requires police to make a judgments about legal status.
The law has to be clarified to state that race is not allowed to be the "reasonable suspicion."
There appears to be a complete lack of data on what actually is a way to identify someone with reasonable suspicion of being illegal. No studies have been cited, and in fact the first comments involved things like "the way they dress."

Based on all of that, yes I'm coming to the conclusion that racial profiling will continue to occur, is encouraged by this law, and will be covered up by referencing alternative 'reasons' for probable cause. Which makes this a bad law IMO. (Also the whole 'passing a law to make a point' thing makes this a bad law.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Flaw with the legislation (one that suggests a bias) which relates back to this case here. I only mentioned it since Kevin felt it important to bring up.

Perhaps it's simply cynicism, but here's my thought process:

Racial profiling happens now.
Law is passed that requires police to make a judgments about legal status.
The law has to be clarified to state that race is not allowed to be the "reasonable suspicion."
There appears to be a complete lack of data on what actually is a way to identify someone with reasonable suspicion of being illegal. No studies have been cited, and in fact the first comments involved things like "the way they dress."

Based on all of that, yes I'm coming to the conclusion that racial profiling will continue to occur, is encouraged by this law, and will be covered up by referencing alternative 'reasons' for probable cause. Which makes this a bad law IMO. (Also the whole 'passing a law to make a point' thing makes this a bad law.

how do you know it's a cover up? quite possibly (and very strongly) there are a bevy of other reasons to reference.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by starang21

how do you know it's a cover up? quite possibly (and very strongly) there are a bevy of other reasons to reference.

Because it occurs now and is outright denied by the individuals who do it. It's been documented as having happened in the past and it is reasonable to assume it will continue to be the same in the future.

I see this law as encouraging it even when it says that you can't use race.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Because it occurs now and is outright denied by the individuals who do it. It's been documented as having happened in the past and it is reasonable to assume it will continue to be the same in the future.

I see this law as encouraging it even when it says that you can't use race.

ok, then all laws are unconstitutional. however, i'm not disputing what you're saying.