Everything when is taken into an extreme will have negative consequence. “Too much of a good thing is a bad thing”. Racial profiling can be efficient because it is based upon the statistical discrimination between variables in a given population, in which that particular variable have higher tendencies towards a certain behavior. Therefore the efficiency concept is utilized when law enforcements use racial profiling to target certain groups within the population using the statistical discrimination data to save time and resources because other groups have lower tendencies to commit certain crime. However if racial profiling is taking into an extreme case, it will tend to generate stereotype and racial discrimination (racism) that will tend to create more social unjust and problems, rather than becoming an efficient method of carrying out justice.
I feel like Racial profiling can be efficient, but still is very prejudicial. So I would argue, that it is really a bit of both. Many stereotypes, and the concept of statistical discrimination, both may have a bit of truth to them. As humans, we naturally have biases, feed intro serotypes, and have different feeling or opnions of other races. In addition, these law enforcement agencies may single out a certain group because statistics or the “norm” For example, statistical discrimination may show that a young Latino or Black male may be more likely to be in possession of weapons, drugs,etc. As far as stereotypes and profiling, this may be efficient for different agencies because it saves time and scarce resources. I agree that,racial profiling may be “wrong” but from an efficiency standpoint, it may help law enforcement find and locate criminals easier because they may have “hunch” or suspicion(s) . Even if it is prejudicial and may affect good/hardworking people, is there really a way to eliminate these type of prejudices? I’m confident that the racial profiling done by the police, probably does prevent SOME additional crimes,or helps catch blatant offenders (because of what may seem suspicious due to their race, skin color, tattoos, etc.).
Profiling is both prejudicial and efficient. We will live a society that is concerned about reducing spending in government and the services that they offer. This puts enormous pressure on elected officials and when they have to make budget cuts, they expect and want that their personnel to be able to maintain the same stats as before. It is important if they want to get re-elected. In the case of crime, this requires them to expect that their police officers be efficient with the resources (time) that they have. If a certain subset of society is more likely to be committing crimes, it is efficient for them to single them out. It is their goal and #1 priority to successfully prevent a crime, or to arrest someone that is committing a crime. If statistical discrimination can help them, that is just something that will have to be tolerated by society despite it being prejudicial.
i believed that profiling is more efficient than prejudicial. profile is based on statistical discrimination. we have talked about in class about statistical discrimination. for example, when we look up the data of speeding ticket, people who are age 18 to 30 have more possibilities to get more ticket than people who are over 30 old age. profiling is based on the data so that it is more accurate than prejudicial. prejudicial is just based on their own judgement and their feeling so that it can not be more efficient. it might be reduce the cost of criminal justice and spending more money on education.
I don't want to sound rude, but I think that profiling is good under the condition that who uses it is not corrupted or using it in a corrupted way. How profiling, prejudicial, or stereotyping came about is that there is truth in it. I know when I was pulled over a cop he asked if I was on drugs because my eyes were all blood-shot. It was just that my contacts were in too long. But he did the profiling on blood-shot eyes to drugs. I have the belief that if you are not in the wrong, then you have nothing to fear.
I think profiling can be both. Statistical discrimination is efficient in that it is based on trends in certain groups' behavior that is actually observed statistically. Given limited resources, it makes sense to focus more on these groups given their increased likelihood of committing a crime - it's a way to get more "bang for your buck." Prejudicial discrimination can be inefficient since it is based on feeling or emotion rather than statistical data. Cops who are prejudiced might put more effort towards pulling over the group they are prejudiced against (and who probably are not actually breaking the law) and miss out on apprehending those people who are breaking the law.
I think do not think racial profiling can be efficient since everybody does not fit the statistical discrimination. For instance, every Latino is not in the drug cratel or every African Americans does not sell drugs. Statistial discrimination is prejudical. People have premonition on how different people act by statistial discrimination, that why some people are prejudice towards other groups.
This is such a fun question to answer, because it truly is a mix of both, prejudicial and beneficial. I want to completely agree with Grant and say that if you're not in the wrong, you don't have to worry,but for a lot of minorities, especially men, that is NOT the case. I also want to agree with Tyneshia completely, but profiling is beneficial, because chances are that statistical data support the profiling, and that helps us save resources when we're not spending most of our time and energy on people that most likely are not doing anything. Not saying that all minorities are doing something either, it's just... A smaller pool. Allow more police (uncorrupted), like Grant proposed, to patrol specifically for what statistical data supports,and the others for the "unlikely".
I believe profiling is efficient. Profiling is a learned behavior and the longer the police been on the force he/she may know which is scenario or characteristic is most likely hinting some hidden agenda and by profiling they're are able to act with a certain level of certainty; if they're wrong then you get to go free, so no harm done.
Gotta agree with most of my peers and say both as well. Profiling can be prejudicial and occur because of an unfounded bias, but profiling may also occur because of actual trends. In the latter case, profiling is merely playing to favorable odds. While this may not be entirely efficient, it would statistically be more efficient on average compared to randomly stopping people.
Racial profiling can be both efficent and prejudicial. In the case that statistical profiling can probably apprehend more criminals, because that profiling is based on historical statistical measures. On the other hand, if police or detectives are simply stopping someone because of the color of their skin or ethnicity, thats not fair or right. All people are different, and though we would like to live in a color blind society, that's not possible. So while statistical profiling can be efficient, prejudicial can be inefficient due to just making stops due to a personal bias.
I think racial profiling can be both efficient and prejudicial. If statistical discrimination shows that the average individual of a specific group was committing crimes, then that group should be targeted more than other groups. This may seem prejudicial, and it is. If you stop 10 people of one group and 10 people of another group and the average of the 2nd group has 5 criminals in it compared to 1 in the first group, then you are going to stop the 2nd group more often then the first group. It makes sense to stop the 2nd group more, because, statistically speaking, you will arrest more criminals by going after that 2nd group. This is as apposed to going after group 1 getting 1 criminal and letting 5 go. It can be portrayed as both efficient and prejudicial.
Profiling is both efficient and prejudicial. It is efficient in the way that statistics revealed that when profiling is used to stop people, most of the results are favorable. On the other hand, is prejudicial because by being biased and judge people based on their race, innocent people may be harmed. People can see the system as being racist and start having feelings of hatred over their nation.
I am going to agree with what most people here have argued about profiling and also say that it is both, prejudicial and efficient. For example, many of us (I am including myself) fear pitbulls. We always hear or see in the news how these animals retaliate in one way or another. Does this mean that if you own a pitbull you are going to get bitten? Probability is that you have a higher chance; therefore, if it was up to me I would probably not own one given the statistics that most dogs that bite and retaliate are pitbulls. I would do this for my own safety and here I am being prejudicial against this breed of dogs. Now, this would be a good thing for me to do, or “efficient” in a way for my own safety, and at the same time I am being prejudicial against this type of dog because many people might own one that perhaps is very noble. So, I think that if we profile certain people it can be both efficient, beneficial for society, and prejudicial. For example, we can profile an individual who fits the criteria of a gangster and be more cautious when around them, but this does not mean that all are gangsters. In the end, you probably will be better off looking behind your back when you encounter a “gangster” in the street, for your own safety.
I think that racial profiling is ultimately prejudicial although I can see why it can be viewed as efficient. It makes sense from an efficiency perspective that law enforcement would focus on those groups that statistically create crimes more often. It seems that they would have a higher probability of actually catching by doing this than if they focused on groups that commit crimes less often. However, there are obviously many downsides to this practice, both morally and practically. I think that by racially profiling you actually make it more likely that individuals within those groups commit more crimes. Certain groups are not inherently wired to commit more crimes than others. It just happens that certain groups are more likely to be raised in environments where crime runs more rampant. I feel that racial profiling would make some people actually commit more crimes because they are automatically treated like criminals anyways. If you are already treated like a criminal even if you are innocent, that might motivate you to commit a crime you wouldn’t have before because it seems that you have less to lose.
I feel that racial profile is prejudiced and in the long run ineffective. Some of my peers have argued that racial profiling is efficient due to the volume of people apprehended when considering a large number of people being stopped by police. However, I feel that racial profiling is a crutch that law enforcement uses to reinforce prejudice practiced within law enforcement and allows cops preform their job lazily. The resources that go into stopping and apprehended a relatively small group of people when compared to the large group of people can be alternatively used to pursue more innovative apprehension strategies that would deliver higher success rates per instance of stopping in comparison. Now I don't exactly know what those would be but its just a thought...
Racial profiling is both efficient and bad if taken into extremes. As human beings, we naturally determine in our mind if we suspect we are in danger and have the “fight or flight reaction”. I bring this up because yes we may come to the conclusion that racial profiling is not good, but if we know we are in danger most likely we will do the impossible in order to avoid a situation. For example: if we are walking through a hallway and have only two exits to leave from a building, in one exit we have a Hispanic individual wearing baggy pants to his knees, shaved head, tatted up, with chains falling off his neck, a grill, and a partly shaved eyebrow approaching. From the other end, a Caucasian individual, polo shirted with Ralph Lauren shoes, a decent hand watch, and hair partly slicked to the side. What exit would we prefer to exit from? Obviously, we will choose the exit of the polo-shirted individual because we feel the safest. Can we then say that we are taking part of racial profiling? Not to discriminate against the ghetto looking one, but from first impression and instinct, depicting on how a typical criminal would look like, we won’t feel safe, even though the Caucasian individual may be part of a mob and the other simply following a trend that’s on San Bernardino E street for example. Statiscal discrimination may be useful because it is based in past behavior. Another comparison can be made with credit scores. If you defaulted to give payments on your credit cards, this will be reflected in your credit score. So when the time comes that you finally decided to purchase a dream home and the bank doesn’t approve your loan, in reality they are simply discriminating against you because of your bad record. A consumer with a low credit score most likely won’t pay that loan either. Nothing less is to be expected from people who do not pay their bills!!!Another comparison can be taken from the anecdote “Once a cheater always a cheater”. If a man marries a woman that has had a 3 divorce history related with her being unfaithful, would it surprise him if she did the same to him? My point is, that yes we should not fall into this if we want to be righteous and such, but truth is we all do it unconsciously and with reason.
Racial profiling is an action committed everyday all the time. To some extent its just a natural vibe people get. It is efficient in terms of watching out for yourself and as well as locking up bad guys. For example, I am always on the look for that one person(s)who may jump me or steal from me. I am always on my toes watching my back, yes I racial profile, big deal, everyone does it and its a sense of protection. Now, if comes to a point where your actions are offending other people than it needs to stop. That holds true if you a police officer as well. Making arrest based on color is not politically correct but it works, once a police officer oversteps his boundary using racial profiling it becomes inefficient because he is doing more harm than good. In conclusion, a little bit of racial profiling is natural and we should just leave it at that.
Prejudice is a “taste and preference” to use economic terms. Preferences change because people change and gain new information as it becomes available. It isn’t something that can be controlled or regulated. A government cannot throw money at the police and make them not racist; this only makes them act not racist. When tastes and preferences change, it shifts the demand curve. Considering the economics of crime, this means if police are increasingly prejudice toward a certain group, then the demand curve shifts out, increasing price. This means racial profiling increases the cost to police a society. This is inefficient. Eventually, targeting specific groups increases costs so high that something will be done to bring price back down.
Everything when is taken into an extreme will have negative consequence. “Too much of a good thing is a bad thing”. Racial profiling can be efficient because it is based upon the statistical discrimination between variables in a given population, in which that particular variable have higher tendencies towards a certain behavior. Therefore the efficiency concept is utilized when law enforcements use racial profiling to target certain groups within the population using the statistical discrimination data to save time and resources because other groups have lower tendencies to commit certain crime. However if racial profiling is taking into an extreme case, it will tend to generate stereotype and racial discrimination (racism) that will tend to create more social unjust and problems, rather than becoming an efficient method of carrying out justice.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel like Racial profiling can be efficient, but still is very prejudicial. So I would argue, that it is really a bit of both. Many stereotypes, and the concept of statistical discrimination, both may have a bit of truth to them. As humans, we naturally have biases, feed intro serotypes, and have different feeling or opnions of other races. In addition, these law enforcement agencies may single out a certain group because statistics or the “norm” For example, statistical discrimination may show that a young Latino or Black male may be more likely to be in possession of weapons, drugs,etc. As far as stereotypes and profiling, this may be efficient for different agencies because it saves time and scarce resources. I agree that,racial profiling may be “wrong” but from an efficiency standpoint, it may help law enforcement find and locate criminals easier because they may have “hunch” or suspicion(s) . Even if it is prejudicial and may affect good/hardworking people, is there really a way to eliminate these type of prejudices? I’m confident that the racial profiling done by the police, probably does prevent SOME additional crimes,or helps catch blatant offenders (because of what may seem suspicious due to their race, skin color, tattoos, etc.).
ReplyDeleteProfiling is both prejudicial and efficient. We will live a society that is concerned about reducing spending in government and the services that they offer. This puts enormous pressure on elected officials and when they have to make budget cuts, they expect and want that their personnel to be able to maintain the same stats as before. It is important if they want to get re-elected. In the case of crime, this requires them to expect that their police officers be efficient with the resources (time) that they have. If a certain subset of society is more likely to be committing crimes, it is efficient for them to single them out. It is their goal and #1 priority to successfully prevent a crime, or to arrest someone that is committing a crime. If statistical discrimination can help them, that is just something that will have to be tolerated by society despite it being prejudicial.
ReplyDeletei believed that profiling is more efficient than prejudicial. profile is based on statistical discrimination. we have talked about in class about statistical discrimination. for example, when we look up the data of speeding ticket, people who are age 18 to 30 have more possibilities to get more ticket than people who are over 30 old age. profiling is based on the data so that it is more accurate than prejudicial. prejudicial is just based on their own judgement and their feeling so that it can not be more efficient. it might be reduce the cost of criminal justice and spending more money on education.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to sound rude, but I think that profiling is good under the condition that who uses it is not corrupted or using it in a corrupted way. How profiling, prejudicial, or stereotyping came about is that there is truth in it. I know when I was pulled over a cop he asked if I was on drugs because my eyes were all blood-shot. It was just that my contacts were in too long. But he did the profiling on blood-shot eyes to drugs. I have the belief that if you are not in the wrong, then you have nothing to fear.
ReplyDeleteI think profiling can be both. Statistical discrimination is efficient in that it is based on trends in certain groups' behavior that is actually observed statistically. Given limited resources, it makes sense to focus more on these groups given their increased likelihood of committing a crime - it's a way to get more "bang for your buck." Prejudicial discrimination can be inefficient since it is based on feeling or emotion rather than statistical data. Cops who are prejudiced might put more effort towards pulling over the group they are prejudiced against (and who probably are not actually breaking the law) and miss out on apprehending those people who are breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteI think do not think racial profiling can be efficient since everybody does not fit the statistical discrimination. For instance, every Latino is not in the drug cratel or every African Americans does not sell drugs. Statistial discrimination is prejudical. People have premonition on how different people act by statistial discrimination, that why some people are prejudice towards other groups.
ReplyDeleteThis is such a fun question to answer, because it truly is a mix of both, prejudicial and beneficial. I want to completely agree with Grant and say that if you're not in the wrong, you don't have to worry,but for a lot of minorities, especially men, that is NOT the case. I also want to agree with Tyneshia completely, but profiling is beneficial, because chances are that statistical data support the profiling, and that helps us save resources when we're not spending most of our time and energy on people that most likely are not doing anything. Not saying that all minorities are doing something either, it's just... A smaller pool. Allow more police (uncorrupted), like Grant proposed, to patrol specifically for what statistical data supports,and the others for the "unlikely".
ReplyDeleteI believe profiling is efficient. Profiling is a learned behavior and the longer the police been on the force he/she may know which is scenario or characteristic is most likely hinting some hidden agenda and by profiling they're are able to act with a certain level of certainty; if they're wrong then you get to go free, so no harm done.
ReplyDeleteGotta agree with most of my peers and say both as well. Profiling can be prejudicial and occur because of an unfounded bias, but profiling may also occur because of actual trends. In the latter case, profiling is merely playing to favorable odds. While this may not be entirely efficient, it would statistically be more efficient on average compared to randomly stopping people.
ReplyDeleteRacial profiling can be both efficent and prejudicial. In the case that statistical profiling can probably apprehend more criminals, because that profiling is based on historical statistical measures. On the other hand, if police or detectives are simply stopping someone because of the color of their skin or ethnicity, thats not fair or right. All people are different, and though we would like to live in a color blind society, that's not possible. So while statistical profiling can be efficient, prejudicial can be inefficient due to just making stops due to a personal bias.
ReplyDeleteI think racial profiling can be both efficient and prejudicial. If statistical discrimination shows that the average individual of a specific group was committing crimes, then that group should be targeted more than other groups. This may seem prejudicial, and it is. If you stop 10 people of one group and 10 people of another group and the average of the 2nd group has 5 criminals in it compared to 1 in the first group, then you are going to stop the 2nd group more often then the first group. It makes sense to stop the 2nd group more, because, statistically speaking, you will arrest more criminals by going after that 2nd group. This is as apposed to going after group 1 getting 1 criminal and letting 5 go. It can be portrayed as both efficient and prejudicial.
ReplyDeleteProfiling is both efficient and prejudicial. It is efficient in the way that statistics revealed that when profiling is used to stop people, most of the results are favorable. On the other hand, is prejudicial because by being biased and judge people based on their race, innocent people may be harmed. People can see the system as being racist and start having feelings of hatred over their nation.
ReplyDeleteI am going to agree with what most people here have argued about profiling and also say that it is both, prejudicial and efficient. For example, many of us (I am including myself) fear pitbulls. We always hear or see in the news how these animals retaliate in one way or another. Does this mean that if you own a pitbull you are going to get bitten? Probability is that you have a higher chance; therefore, if it was up to me I would probably not own one given the statistics that most dogs that bite and retaliate are pitbulls. I would do this for my own safety and here I am being prejudicial against this breed of dogs. Now, this would be a good thing for me to do, or “efficient” in a way for my own safety, and at the same time I am being prejudicial against this type of dog because many people might own one that perhaps is very noble. So, I think that if we profile certain people it can be both efficient, beneficial for society, and prejudicial. For example, we can profile an individual who fits the criteria of a gangster and be more cautious when around them, but this does not mean that all are gangsters. In the end, you probably will be better off looking behind your back when you encounter a “gangster” in the street, for your own safety.
ReplyDeleteI think that racial profiling is ultimately prejudicial although I can see why it can be viewed as efficient. It makes sense from an efficiency perspective that law enforcement would focus on those groups that statistically create crimes more often. It seems that they would have a higher probability of actually catching by doing this than if they focused on groups that commit crimes less often. However, there are obviously many downsides to this practice, both morally and practically. I think that by racially profiling you actually make it more likely that individuals within those groups commit more crimes. Certain groups are not inherently wired to commit more crimes than others. It just happens that certain groups are more likely to be raised in environments where crime runs more rampant. I feel that racial profiling would make some people actually commit more crimes because they are automatically treated like criminals anyways. If you are already treated like a criminal even if you are innocent, that might motivate you to commit a crime you wouldn’t have before because it seems that you have less to lose.
ReplyDeleteI feel that racial profile is prejudiced and in the long run ineffective. Some of my peers have argued that racial profiling is efficient due to the volume of people apprehended when considering a large number of people being stopped by police. However, I feel that racial profiling is a crutch that law enforcement uses to reinforce prejudice practiced within law enforcement and allows cops preform their job lazily. The resources that go into stopping and apprehended a relatively small group of people when compared to the large group of people can be alternatively used to pursue more innovative apprehension strategies that would deliver higher success rates per instance of stopping in comparison. Now I don't exactly know what those would be but its just a thought...
ReplyDeleteRacial profiling is both efficient and bad if taken into extremes. As human beings, we naturally determine in our mind if we suspect we are in danger and have the “fight or flight reaction”. I bring this up because yes we may come to the conclusion that racial profiling is not good, but if we know we are in danger most likely we will do the impossible in order to avoid a situation. For example: if we are walking through a hallway and have only two exits to leave from a building, in one exit we have a Hispanic individual wearing baggy pants to his knees, shaved head, tatted up, with chains falling off his neck, a grill, and a partly shaved eyebrow approaching. From the other end, a Caucasian individual, polo shirted with Ralph Lauren shoes, a decent hand watch, and hair partly slicked to the side. What exit would we prefer to exit from? Obviously, we will choose the exit of the polo-shirted individual because we feel the safest. Can we then say that we are taking part of racial profiling? Not to discriminate against the ghetto looking one, but from first impression and instinct, depicting on how a typical criminal would look like, we won’t feel safe, even though the Caucasian individual may be part of a mob and the other simply following a trend that’s on San Bernardino E street for example. Statiscal discrimination may be useful because it is based in past behavior. Another comparison can be made with credit scores. If you defaulted to give payments on your credit cards, this will be reflected in your credit score. So when the time comes that you finally decided to purchase a dream home and the bank doesn’t approve your loan, in reality they are simply discriminating against you because of your bad record. A consumer with a low credit score most likely won’t pay that loan either. Nothing less is to be expected from people who do not pay their bills!!!Another comparison can be taken from the anecdote “Once a cheater always a cheater”. If a man marries a woman that has had a 3 divorce history related with her being unfaithful, would it surprise him if she did the same to him? My point is, that yes we should not fall into this if we want to be righteous and such, but truth is we all do it unconsciously and with reason.
ReplyDeleteRacial profiling is an action committed everyday all the time. To some extent its just a natural vibe people get. It is efficient in terms of watching out for yourself and as well as locking up bad guys. For example, I am always on the look for that one person(s)who may jump me or steal from me. I am always on my toes watching my back, yes I racial profile, big deal, everyone does it and its a sense of protection. Now, if comes to a point where your actions are offending other people than it needs to stop. That holds true if you a police officer as well. Making arrest based on color is not politically correct but it works, once a police officer oversteps his boundary using racial profiling it becomes inefficient because he is doing more harm than good. In conclusion, a little bit of racial profiling is natural and we should just leave it at that.
ReplyDeletePrejudice is a “taste and preference” to use economic terms. Preferences change because people change and gain new information as it becomes available. It isn’t something that can be controlled or regulated. A government cannot throw money at the police and make them not racist; this only makes them act not racist.
ReplyDeleteWhen tastes and preferences change, it shifts the demand curve. Considering the economics of crime, this means if police are increasingly prejudice toward a certain group, then the demand curve shifts out, increasing price. This means racial profiling increases the cost to police a society. This is inefficient. Eventually, targeting specific groups increases costs so high that something will be done to bring price back down.