Heartland

Is it justifiable to stop and search:

1. More Asians on the grounds they could be terrorists?

2. More blacks if statistics show they are more likely to commit crime?

1. No. Pure prejudice.
2. That's a pretty big "if"...

neither. and stats dont show #2.

in fact i read recently (sunday telegraph, maybe?) that the police are actually targetting young white males more these days as they are "statistically more likely to commit crime".

and good on the old bill i say! lock up the burberry- & stone island-wearing pikey scum

markfiend wrote:1. No. Pure prejudice.
2. That's a pretty big "if"...

On 1:

My other half is Irish, which means that she has been triple-security-checked every day or so since coming to the UK eight years ago.

Al Qaeda now constitutes the single greatest terrorist threat to this country. Ask the Spanish.

Terrorists might not look like terrorists but the Al Qaeda ones we have seen have for the most part looked like Arabs or North Africans. Terrorists don't have a big sign slapped on their forehaeds saying I am a terrorist. Skin colour is a good indicator, and stop and search is one of the most powerful weapons we have to defend againts terrorism.

I don't think trying to protect lives (of everyone) is prejudice.

On 2:

I am a man. In my early thirties (although I look younger). I do not object to the police stopping me rather than old ladies wheeling shopping baskets. Surely we should target those sections of the population (whether by race, colour, socio-economic group, age etc) who more stastically likely to have a higher % of offenders.

This if is there for a reason: to focus the debate on what is a sensible way to proceed, rather than cloure (as it were) the debate by race issues.

Quiff Boy wrote:neither. and stats dont show #2.

in fact i read recently (sunday telegraph, maybe?) that the police are actually targetting young white males more these days as they are "statistically more likely to commit crime".

Arguably out of character, I chose criminology as one of my second year papers at Cambridge (but don't worry- Roman law II (preservation of the Patricians), Public International law (God bless America), Constitutional Law (preservation of the Monarchy) and Contract (preservation of the wealthy) were my other subjects- so our legal system is in safe hands). And so will caveat this link by telling you that no statistics are completely accurate, but page 9 is worth looking at.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/s95race2003.pdf

Tuscan Chimaera wrote:...the Al Qaeda ones we have seen have for the most part looked like Arabs or North Africans. Terrorists don't have a big sign slapped on their forehaeds saying I am a terrorist. Skin colour is a good indicator,

This is the thing though. I don't think that this is true; and I meant that prejudice was on your part for making the assumption

Even assuming it to be true, I think that for every terrorist that the police catch by random stop-and-search (which will be a very small number I would think) there will be maybe 50 young(ish) arabic/asian looking men whose antipathy to the "western way of life" will be increased by (what they would see as) a totally unwarranted stop-and-search from the police.

Net result? Maybe one of the 50 will think "fuck you then" and become a terrorist? Counter-productive.

and stop and search is one of the most powerful weapons we have to defend againts terrorism.

But is it? I would have thought that intelligence was the main thing the police have relied on in the past when finding terrorist cells. Just doing random stop-and-search is casting too large a net for very few fish.

I don't think trying to protect lives (of everyone) is prejudice.

Fair enough. It's a case of whether the moethods you propose are/would be productive or not.

On 2:

I am a man. In my early thirties (although I look younger). I do not object to the police stopping me rather than old ladies wheeling shopping baskets. Surely we should target those sections of the population (whether by race, colour, socio-economic group, age etc) who more stastically likely to have a higher % of offenders.

This if is there for a reason: to focus the debate on what is a sensible way to proceed, rather than cloure (as it were) the debate by race issues.

One crime that frequently goes not only unreported, but undetected, is "insider dealing"; fraudulent share deals which net the criminals millions of pounds. In terms of monetary value, these crimes are far more serious than a street-mugging, and have many more victims; a pensions-fund holding money for hundreds of thousands of people can lose millions due to this. Are you going to catch the perpetrators of these crimes by random stop-and-search of yuppies or "city gents"? I would imagine that if the serious fraud squad suggested this approach then there would (quite rightly) be an uproar.

you can make stats mean anything you want, for example:

An estimated 1.3 million arrests for
notifiable offences took place, of which,
9% were of Black people, 5% Asian and
1% ‘Other’ ethnic origin. Compared
with 2001/02 arrests of Black people
rose by 7%, of Asian people by 8% and
of White people by 2%. Black people
were 3 times more likely to be arrested
than White or those of ‘Other’ ethnic
origin. There were variations across
forces in the proportions of individuals
from different ethnic groups being
arrested for specific types of offence.

The police cautioned 204,900 persons
for notifiable offences, of which 7%
were Black people, 5% Asian and 1% of
‘Other’ ethnic origin. Following arrest,
16% of White people, 15% of Asian
people and 12% of Black people were
cautioned. An offender’s eligibility for a
caution depends upon a number of
factors (e.g. admission of guilt).

so if

"Black people were 3 times more likely to be arrested than White or those of ‘Other’ ethnic origin."

but

"Following arrest, 16% of White people, 15% of Asian people and 12% of Black people were cautioned."

this suggests that they end up releasing most of the non-white people they arrest.

which you could interpret as meaning that the police are more likely ot stop & arrest an innocent non-white person than an innocent white person.

Tuscan Chimaera wrote:no statistics are completely accurate, but page 9 is worth looking at.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/s95race2003.pdf

Just because the stats show that a higher proportion of ethnic minorities are going through the legal system, does not mean that they commit a higher proportion of the crimes. 90% of crime in this country (approximately) is never solved. The 10% of crimes that are solved may have higher proportions of ethnic-minority perpetrators due to inherent racism in the system.

Oh. That's more-or-less what QB said

markfiend wrote: Even assuming it to be true, I think that for every terrorist that the police catch by random stop-and-search (which will be a very small number I would think) there will be maybe 50 young(ish) arabic/asian looking men whose antipathy to the "western way of life" will be increased by (what they would see as) a totally unwarranted stop-and-search from the police.

I agree with this. And I'm not sure how that weighs against the deterrent / success of stop and search.

I don't agree with the rest.

1. Yes, if you forget the racist overtones and concentrate on the simple fact that right now whites are not the number one terrorist threat. If they were, then they should be stopped too. With reduced resource and limited budget any deterrent is a good deterrent. Is it effective? Doubt it, wrong context, chance of a direct hit must be many to one.

2. I also read this over the weekend; no, not for me. A vicious circle gone wrong' if stop and search were random white middleclass, I'm sure the stats would be equally biased. Now if it were by postcode, that might be a different thing altogether.

Interesting questions though; on the face of it the same: to further prejudice the minority for the common good. But I guess not everything is purely black and white.

Mrs PIB did criminology at Bristol. She turned down Cambridge. Does this make her any better placed to comment? Probably but then this is an ethical rather than a legal debate isn't it? Good topic TC

Tuscan Chimaera wrote:Is it justifiable to stop and search:

1. More Asians on the grounds they could be terrorists?

2. More blacks if statistics show they are more likely to commit crime?

1. No. Firstly, Stop & Search is a ridiculous way to try to stop terrorism. Most terrorists don't carry a bomb or signed photos of Osama around with them. Intelligence and undercover work is the only way to stop terrorism. S&S only works if the criminal is likely to be carrying on their person some evidence of their crime - it can catch people in possession of drugs, and that's about it.

2. No. Black people are not more likely to have committed a crime, although they are (because of the racism inherent in the criminal justice system, highlighted in the recent exposé on TV) more likely to be arrested, accused or charged.

On both counts there is the issue, mentioned by others here, of "secondary deviance" - a sociological term which means people are more like to engage in criminal activity if they are constantly accused or represented as being criminals anyway.

By concentrating on stopping and searching Black & Asian people (in effect, accusing them of being criminals) you are more likely to turn some of them to crime because you've already labelled them as criminals. It's not part of the solution - it's part of the problem.

i was going to post here


i had typed out loads...but it sounded like a rant...


so i deleted it...

In both instances it really depends on the efficacy of stop and search as a means of detecting and preventing crime.

A mate of mine works for a police force. I'll see if he can tell me anything useful about this, but my instinct is to suggest that it creates as many problems as it solves.

Maybe someone can enlighten me as to what exactly the police will find when they stop and search a criminal (regardless of race, gender, age etc) that will confirm his or her criminality? I assume they don't carry union membership cards confirming their involvement in illegal activity, so without wishing to be fatuous, what are we looking for?

andymackem wrote:In both instances it really depends on the efficacy of stop and search as a means of detecting and preventing crime.

A mate of mine works for a police force. I'll see if he can tell me anything useful about this, but my instinct is to suggest that it creates as many problems as it solves.

Maybe someone can enlighten me as to what exactly the police will find when they stop and search a criminal (regardless of race, gender, age etc) that will confirm his or her criminality? I assume they don't carry union membership cards confirming their involvement in illegal activity, so without wishing to be fatuous, what are we looking for?

maybe they should all be forced to carry "evil henchmen" id cards?

@AM

Non-suspicious behaviour would be a guess, if the person acts unusually defensively or coyly when giving out name/address (which they are obliged to do) that would, I would have thought, be fair grounds for concern. I guess there's a cross-reference to the database too?

@ PIB: define "unusually defensive". If I'm asked for my details I would want to know why before I gave them, simply so I'm happy about who is getting that information and what they want it for.

Is that defensive? Or just common sense? A police officer is required to give his name and number to a member of the public on request, but they don't like to be asked. Try it when you're being frisked outside South Bermondsey Station on a matchday - they hate it!

paint it black wrote:@AM

Non-suspicious behaviour would be a guess, if the person acts unusually defensively or coyly when giving out name/address (which they are obliged to do) that would, I would have thought, be fair grounds for concern. I guess there's a cross-reference to the database too?

Just on a point on law (in the UK), you're not obliged to give out your name and address if asked by a police officer. You're only obliged to give your name and address if you've actually been arrested, and then you are only obliged to give them (along with your date of birth) to the custody officer at the police station, not to the arresting officer.

Bit of a moot point really; if you refuse they'll probably arrest you!

markfiend wrote:Bit of a moot point really; if you refuse they'll probably arrest you!

They usually don't as it happens - I've refused several times - once you indicate that you're aware of your rights, they tend to back off a bit.

andymackem wrote:In both instances it really depends on the efficacy of stop and search as a means of detecting and preventing crime.

Bang on with your here, fish face.

lazarus corporation wrote:

markfiend wrote:Bit of a moot point really; if you refuse they'll probably arrest you!

They usually don't as it happens - I've refused several times - once you indicate that you're aware of your rights, they tend to back off a bit.

Well that's very grown up.

Tuscan Chimaera wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:

markfiend wrote:Bit of a moot point really; if you refuse they'll probably arrest you!

They usually don't as it happens - I've refused several times - once you indicate that you're aware of your rights, they tend to back off a bit.

Well that's very grown up.

That's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, since you don't know the circumstances.

I know.

Feels good, don't it?

Tuscan Chimaera wrote:I know.

Feels good, don't it?

Ah, so you're a Conservative voter.