3874
3875

Zurich cops 'won't report' on criminals' ethnicity - Zurich communal authorities have instructed city police to stop releasing the nationality of criminals to the media to avoid stigmatization. (thelocal.ch)

RudeBritannia が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]gnrl2 211ポイント212ポイント  (82子コメント)

The fact that a certain ethnicity would be stigmatized by reporting its criminal activity is kinda proof that it deserves to be stigmatized.

[–]d6x1 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

What if the criminal was Jewish? Does that make the ethnicity as a whole deserving of stigmatization? That would be antisemitism

[–]anonlymouse 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

We can have that discussion when there are a bunch of Israelis committing crimes in Zürich.

[–]gnrl2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How is antisemitism different from anti anything else?

[–]silkysmoothjay 22ポイント23ポイント  (17子コメント)

The concern is that crimes by minorities would be over-reported compared to crimes by members of the majority. I'm not saying whether that happens or not; I'm just stating the logic behind it.

[–]AaronfromKY 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can kinda see the point, based on the example the article gave of a Chinese person in a small village being stigmatized if he's the only Chinese person there. But I can also see the need for transparency brought up by those opposed to this.

[–]DrunkPeasant 17ポイント18ポイント  (12子コメント)

If crimes by minorities happen more often and are more violent then why shouldn't they be over-reported? It's a well known fact blacks commit a lot of crime in the US, should police stop reporting the criminal's ethnicity so they can be PC about it?

So instead of focusing on the black neighborhood down the street with known gangs and drug dealers they should not judge their race and just pretend like all areas have the same likelihood of crime?

[–]AG3287 19ポイント20ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's a well known fact blacks commit a lot of crime in the US, should police stop reporting the criminal's ethnicity so they can be PC about it?

A stoppage of reporting and not overreporting are two different things. The person you are responding to is probably referring to certain empirical findings that have to do with false reports. For example, people who are victims of crime and have not seen the criminal tend to report the criminal was Black, even in some cases where White people disproportionately commit the crime in question.

[–]Antagonator [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The only crime whites commit at a higher rate than blacks is drunk driving, where the cop has the most power to decide "he looks black, better take him in".

Robbery, rape, murder, assault, etc. are all done at much higher rates by blacks. We're used to it and the media's bullshit excuses.

[–]DadadaDewey 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

Hold it now. It's also a known fact drug usage among white people is the same, if not more than black Americans. However, because they are policed more, they have high arrest rates. Which pretty much is was OP is saying

"The concern is that crimes by minorities would be over-reported compared to crimes by members of the majority."

[–]quzbuz -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

The idea that blacks don’t use illegal drugs much more often than whites comes from surveys. But when you ask people if they take illegal drugs do they tell the truth?

As it turns out, there is scholarly literature on this. Researchers ask people if they have taken drugs and then take urine or hair samples to find out. And almost every time, blacks are a lot more likely than whites to say they haven’t taken drugs but the test then proves they were lying.

A 2005 study in the Journal of Urban Health, for example, found that blacks were ten times more likely than whites to lie about cocaine. Hispanics were five times more likely. When it came to marijuana, not one of the 109 whites in the sample lied, but one in eight of the 191 blacks lied.

A 2008 study of Vietnam-era veterans in the journal Addictive Behaviors found that blacks were more than 20 times more likely than whites to lie about cocaine, and twice as likely to lie about marijuana.

A 2003 report also in Addictive Behaviors surveyed 290 black men who were being treated for high blood pressure. Only 48 admitted they were using illegal drugs but urine tests found that 131 of them were. Forty-five percent were taking drugs but only 19 percent admitted it.

This behavior goes back a long way. In 1994, more than 20 years ago, a large study of young people, aged nine to 20, found that blacks were six times more likely than whites to claim they didn’t use cocaine–but have it show up in a urine test.

[–]pointsOutWeirdStuff 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'M NOT SAYING YOU ARE WRONG BUT, when you said:

A 2005 study in the Journal of Urban Health, for example, found that blacks were ten times more likely than whites to lie about cocaine. Hispanics were five times more likely. When it came to marijuana, not one of the 109 whites in the sample lied, but one in eight of the 191 blacks lied.

do you have a link that SHOWS these (for free) because the link provided only says things along the lines of "To imvestigate[sic] racelethnicity[sic] differences in reporting validity" but the abstract does not contain any of the statistics you mentioned.

A 2008 study of Vietnam-era veterans in the journal Addictive Behaviors found that blacks were more than 20 times more likely than whites to lie about cocaine, and twice as likely to lie about marijuana.

ah, yes this is interesting. Do you believe that a sample of 1000 people, 76% who were vietnam veterans and 160 individuals were black is representative? in other words would you say that conclusions can be drawn about an entire race of people from 160, the vast majority of whom were war veterans (which the majority of African Americans are not).

[–]quzbuz [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But there’s a better way to tell which groups are more likely to use illegal drugs. Every year, the US Department of Health and Human Services tells us how many people went to the emergency room because they took an illegal drug and got sick or went crazy. Since the government tabulates these numbers by race, we can calculate rates. Blacks are 3-1/2 times more likely than whites to go to the emergency room because they took an illegal drug. They are 2.8 times more likely than whites to end up in the ER because of marijuana, and seven times more likely because they took cocaine.

[–]DrunkPeasant -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, but drive by shootings and murder are not even close to being on the same levels when you compare black and white neighborhoods.

You cannot compare drug usage with murder.

[–]Hakuoro -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problem with focusing on imbalanced drug arrests is that one of the primary reasons the cops are in minority communities is because of the incredibly disproportionate amount of violent crime committed by those groups. 10x higher rates of murder and something like 20x the rates of rape, etc.

It just follows that if there's a disproportionate amount of serious crime in a community, there will be a disproportionate amount of arrests for crimes that are generally equal.

[–]Potentialmartian -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you messed up by using the word "over-reported".

What you mean (or at least, the way I see it) is that if "crimes by minorities happen more often and are more violent" then they should be reported that much, not diminished. Over-reporting means by definition "more than it should be reported".

[–]Guevedoche -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That seems pretty guilt-based. The state needs to show every contributing member of society, that they are capable of tackling immigrant crime, in stead of pretending it doesn't happen and suppressing a free and fact based debate.

[–]AceyJuan -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So instead they do the opposite and call it justice.

[–]s3v3rus7 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I see what you're saying, but was that your first thought? My first reaction was that the xenophilic crowd was attempting to prevent the collection of data the xenophobic crowd relies on to prove their case against immigration or whatever. The stigma thing was just cover. Eg, American parks people can no longer count the crowds at national parks because they once counted the Million Man March as something Less Than An Actual Million.

[–]Droofus 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Only if people had an accurate understanding of the prevalence of crime (which is very low) and not the distorted perception they get from the nightly news.

That fact that a minority group offends at a .005% rate vs a .0025% rate among the majority group doesn't warrant the minority being stigmatized, despite the fact that they offend at twice the rate. The overall rate is just too low for such stigma to be justified.

[–]anonlymouse -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Only if people had an accurate understanding of the prevalence of crime (which is very low) and not the distorted perception they get from the nightly news.

Nobody has a distorted impression from the news in Switzerland. We know crime here is very low.

[–]buzzit292 45ポイント46ポイント  (23子コメント)

No, it's not proof. If a Swiss commits a standard crime, it will probably not be reported in a substantial way. But media organizations will report when a minority commits a crime because it helps them sell papers or get clicks for advertising.

Moreover, there are lots of reasons why crime would be committed by certain groups and not others. Part of it will be related to the criminals, part to the context that they are in.

[–]tasty_cake 44ポイント45ポイント  (11子コメント)

im not swiss, but for most western countries crimes by white people are seen as far more serious

in sweden there was a scandal where blurred pictures of criminals were 'whitened' before being blurred

if a white person commits any offence towards a minority, you can be damned sure the headline will read "white man does X to black man", this doesnt happen when the opposite happens, it will be a minor article somewhere, or maybe just a statistic, just look at the US where one of the least frequent types of homicide is white on black, and the second highest is black on white (next to black on black), yet the current narrative is that white people just cant stop murdering black people

there is a huge drive in western europe to minimialise the effect of immigrants on crime rates, you would only know if you looked directly at statistics or lived in the areas where it occurs

what you said just isnt true, sorry

[–]anonlymouse -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

im not swiss, but for most western countries crimes by white people are seen as far more serious

It's not quite that absurd yet, but this move does suggest we might be heading in that direction.

[–]FairlyOddParents 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well too bad honestly, the media should be able to report on what they want, as long as it's truthful.

[–]MannoSlimmins 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The media faces all kinds of restrictions. Publication bans, when the accused is a minor, if naming someone will lead to the discovery of a minor victim or accuseds name, etc.

[–]BedriddenSam 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Maybe it's not a story when someone has grown up somewhere and does something awful, but other people were specifically brought in by government policy. That government policy has a responsibility for the actions those people take. How do you do something about native crime? Extremely difficult. But there had to be actions taken for there to be immigrant crime in the first place, and that is very very easy to do something about it ( if you are interested in doing something about it that is).

[–]buzzit292 -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

The first thing is to get a realistic handle on the extent of the problem. From what I have read, the problems are relatively isolated and not part of a larger trend. The percentage of immigrants who commit crimes is small and when there are problems, at least in the U.S., it's more likely to occur with first and second generation rather than the immigrants themselves. This suggests that if we want to solve the problems we have to work more at the stage of assimilation. There's going to be some crime, we'll probably reduce it most by applying the best policies we can find for the population as a whole rather than focusing on punishing or excluding immigrants selectively.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/12/economist-explains-10

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/28/immigration-impact-crime

[–]BedriddenSam 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

, it's more likely to occur with first and second generation rather than the immigrants themselves

So your saying it's going to get worse, and this is supposed to make me feel better? The crime rate should not be the same as native born either! Your article didn't If you get to pick who comes into your country, you do it like a sports team and scour the earth for the best. Also, that article you linked to tells me about the rates of crime from eastern European immigrants, which tells me about eastern European immigrants. This thread is about not differentiating between immigrants, when there can be clear distinction is made.

[–]buzzit292 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I guess, I take some immigration as a given because 1) Europeans are not replacing themselves 2) There continues to be destablizing conflict, often facilitated by us/european actions. 3) regional economic disparity.

I am not saying it has to get worse; and remember to consider the extent of the problem. We could probably develop policies, that would help, especially if we learn more about potential pitfalls at the assimilation stage. We have to think creatively and use age old common sense like the golden rule ... or maybe how tit for tat works.

Let's let criminologists and sociologists get a word in rather than relying on hype.

Here are some interesting articles I found while looking for the other ones.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2013/07/spanking-and-crime-rates

http://www.businessinsider.com/south-has-more-violent-crime-fbi-statistics-show-2013-9

[–]BBLLMM 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How much are you paid for spreading disinformation?

[–]anonlymouse 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If a Swiss commits a standard crime, it will probably not be reported in a substantial way

Why not? It's rare enough to be noteworthy.

[–]AG3287 9ポイント10ポイント  (17子コメント)

First of all, as the article says on its first line:

An exception can only be made if the information is “pertinent” to the case

In other words, the race of the criminal will be released as long as it is relevant to the case (for example, if the race is known, and enough other relevant facts are known for the public to be useful in reporting sightings of the criminal). It won't be released if, for example, the race is the only thing known about the criminal, or speculated about if the race is not clear.

The reason is that a priori generalization is never enough to draw conclusions in particular instances. We can know that one group tends to commit more crime than another. That's not a warrant for assuming any given crime was perpetrated by a member of that group, or that any given member of that group is more likely to be a criminal. And that's exactly the kind of stupid and irrational behavior humans often run with in low-information situations, because of our tribalistic tendencies and other psychological biases, which is what this policy is supposed to prevent among the civilian population (since the police will still know and use the race in their investigation). There's no reason for innocents in a group to be stigmatized because of the criminals.

EXAMPLE:

In the US, arson, vandalism, and alcohol-related crimes like drunk driving are disproportionately committed by White people. Let's say an erratic driver who seems to be drunk does a hit and run on me, and I never see who they are or the plate number. Am I justified in assuming the criminal is White, and then assuming any White person I see who owns the same model car is the criminal? Am I justified in treating all White people who own such cars with suspicion on sight? What if the media began reporting all drunk-driving incidents by including the race of the offender, a disproportionate amount of whom would be White. Would people in general be justified in treating White drivers with suspicion, avoiding them or complaining about them on sight, before seeing how they drive?

[–]lil_mac2012 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

Regarding your example. Not reporting race of a suspect is not going to end speculation. However not reporting race of a suspect will lead to a less accurate description of a suspect. This manifests itself here in the US as the many media outlets who do not report on the race of the suspect unless they are a non-minority. It has gotten to the point that people can, with amazing if not absolute accuracy, idenitify the race of the suspect simply because their skin color wasn't included in the description of the suspect.

[–]DadadaDewey -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah, but you can do that with a lot of things. If I hear a story about some kid getting some odd harsh sentence. I can pretty much guess the race.

[–]lil_mac2012 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But I'm not talking about pretty much guessing, I'm talking about like 95%+ accuracy here when they have an initial story that provides a description of a suspect.

[–]WhaleThief -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

If I hear about a particularly brutal attack, particularly if it was committed by multiple people or is described by the media as "random" or "a robbery gone wrong", I can pretty much guess the race.

"Police are looking for a man suspected of burglarizing several homes in the area." - That's a tossup.

"Police are looking for information about four men who broke into a local home, and tied a woman to a radiator before raping her." - If we were gambling, I know what I'd put my money on.

[–]lil_mac2012 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm talking about a scenario when you have a initial/breaking story where the suspect is not in custody.

Example 1: Witnesses say the suspect was a white male, approx. 6' tall, wearing a light colored hooded sweatshirt. The suspect left the scene in a green Honda sedan.

Example 2: Witnesses say the suspect was a male, approx. 6' tall, wearing a light colored hooded sweatshirt. The suspect left the scene in a green Honda sedan.

They just lop the race off of their suspect descriptions even when they are still on the loose. With example #2 you pretty much lose any benefit of even providing a suspect description. Citizen sees a tall white guy wearing a hoodie driving a green Accord 4-door and calls the police because Example #2 left out the race of the suspect.

[–]nullcrash -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Let's just, to use an outlandish example, say that 85% of guys named Craig were found to have committed a murder. Now, you don't wanna profile or betray your social justice roots, so of course you treat every Craig you meet like a non-murderer, right?

[–]give_me_shinies 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except irl it's never quite like that. It's more like 1 in 1,000 Swiss nationals are murderers, compared to 3 in 1,000 Arabs/blacks/whatever. The risk is larger from one group, but is still small in the grand scheme of things.

[–]AG3287 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's an interesting question, but as far as I can see, it's a purely academic one that doesn't really bear on this case (or any similar case, for that matter.)

My understanding is that there are two ways you can justify the view that one shouldn't use general stats to draw inferences about any particular instance:

(1) The stats can be a poor guide because of the actual figures. This is the case when, say, even if Black people commit particular a particular felony at much higher rates than Whites, the % of Black people who commit that felony is still small enough to make the inference weak.

(2) You have some moral principle that says that everyone has an inviolable right to the assumption of innocence unless proven otherwise. In this case, even if 99 out of every 100 Craigs was a murderer, you should still not assume any Craig is a murderer simply because he could be the 1 out 100 who isn't.

My immediate intuition is that (2) is probably harder to defend, but to be honest, I haven’t thought about it in detail. Luckily, in the real-world cases in question, I think (1) works just fine.

[–]nullcrash 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

(1) The stats can be a poor guide because of the actual figures. This is the case when, say, even if Black people commit particular a particular felony at much higher rates than Whites, the % of Black people who commit that felony is still small enough to make the inference weak.

Is it, though? To flip it around and go with a far lower percentage, if 1% of all hot dogs eaten killed the eater, how happily would you go about eating hot dogs? It basically comes down to risk analysis, right?

(2) You have some moral principle that says that everyone has an inviolable right to the assumption of innocence unless proven otherwise. In this case, even if 99 out of every 100 Craigs was a murderer, you should still not assume any Craig is a murderer simply because he could be the 1 out 100 who isn't.

I'll agree that there's an inviolable right to the assumption of innocence in a legal setting, but on a personal decision-making level? I don't agree with that at all. Sure, the guy in the Jason hockey mask walking down the dark alley toward me has a right not to be arrested before he actually murders me, but I have no obligation to assume innocent intent on his part until he proves otherwise. Dude could be a cosplayer, but I'm not sticking around to find out.

[–]WhaleThief 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That would suggest to me the presence of a culture that had a predilection both for choosing the name Craig and for violent crime.

You can bet your ass I'd be wary around Craigs if that were the case.

[–]LionsPride -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well, that is the dumbest thing I've read today. The name Craig has nothing to do with one's propensity to commit murder. Neither does being of a certain race. Just because minorities are statistically more involved with crime doesn't mean that just because someone is black or Hispanic or whatever they'll be more inclined to commit a crime. What an asinine assumption to make about a person.

[–]nullcrash 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just because minorities are statistically more involved with crime doesn't mean that just because someone is black or Hispanic or whatever they'll be more inclined to commit a crime.

I don't recall saying it did. I was responding to a post in which it was asked if it would be reasonable to be more wary of white drivers as they tend to drive drunk more than drivers of other races. Does that make them more inclined to do it? No. Does it mean the chances of a white driver being a drunk driver are better than the chances of, say, an Asian? Yes. Acting accordingly is simply playing the odds.

[–]Spacejams1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are really naive. Someone's racial and genetic makeup plays a large part in the person you will become. Race is much more than just skin deep it's also affected the brain

[–]NextTimeDHubert -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

In the US, arson, vandalism, and alcohol-related crimes like drunk driving are disproportionately committed by White people.

This disparity in arrests is across multiple charges, with the exception of alcohol-related offenses,arson and vandalism, which were disproportionately of white people.

Not only is that not what your link says, it also provides no numbers to back it up.

[–]AG3287 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Are you suggesting that the disparity in arrests has no connection to a disparity in crime? Do you know how crime is measured?

You can find the numbers in the FBI crime report for that year.

[–]NextTimeDHubert -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do the drug arrest rates for blacks and whites accurately reflect their likelihood to use drugs?

One thing I'd like to see in those numbers is whether or not it separates whites and Hispanics, and also whether the disparity is statistically relevant.

I find it very hard to believe that rape, murder, assaults are all dominated by other races but that they'd steer clear of arson and vandalism.

[–]frillytotes 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

No ethnicity "deserves" to be stigmatised. There will always be members of any ethnicity who don't commit crime, and when you stigmatise them as criminals that is called unfair discrimination. This is generally considered a bad thing that societies aim to remove as they become more sophisticated.

[–]anonlymouse -2ポイント-1ポイント  (11子コメント)

It's considered to be a bad thing, but in reality it's a good thing. Countries like Sweden that removed it are going to shit because of it.

[–]frillytotes -1ポイント0ポイント  (10子コメント)

It's considered to be a bad thing, but in reality it's a good thing.

History has shown that unfair discrimination is not a good thing and leads to a wide range of social problems. This is why progressive societies seek to eliminate it.

Countries like Sweden that removed it are going to shit because of it.

Sweden currently has one of the highest standards of living in the world so I am not sure how it is "going to shit".

[–]anonlymouse 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

Unfair discrimination is not the same as fair discrimination, and pretending that all discrimination is unfair is what gets you into the mess.

Sweden currently has one of the highest standards of living in the world so I am not sure how it is "going to shit".

Sweden is the world leader in tolerating Islamic intolerance of homosexuality.

[–]frillytotes 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Unfair discrimination is not the same as fair discrimination, and pretending that all discrimination is unfair is what gets you into the mess.

Quite, and discrimination against actual threats is obviously fair. What is unfair is characterising non-criminals as criminals.

[–]anonlymouse 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

Stating facts that certain demographics commit more crime isn't an unfair characterisation of anything.

[–]frillytotes 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

It is if you use that fact to characterise all members of that demographic as criminals, regardless of whether they have committed a crime or not.

[–]anonlymouse 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Nobody's doing that, and suggesting it would happen is what got Sweden, the UK and many other countries into the mess they're in.

[–]frillytotes 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Nobody's doing that,

Sadly, they are. You only have to read this sub for examples. People read a headline about an immigrant committing crimes and then become opposed to all immigrants, even the ones who make a valuable contribution to society.

suggesting it would happen is what got Sweden, the UK and many other countries into the mess they're in.

Sweden and UK are both doing great at the moment, outperforming many other OECD countries. I am not sure what mess you are referring to.

[–]Guevedoche 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If the reader thinks that people of a certain ethnic group are responsible for all crime, they'll never be corrected when a member of the majority is the perp.

*language

[–]MerelyIndifferent 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, it's proof of bias. It's not ok to judge someone because they are from the same place as someone else who was a piece of shit.

Did no one teach you about racism?

[–]mosswo -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would spend hours upvoting this if I could.