ACLU: US Drug War Hurts Women

[andymoon]

9. Newsbrief: US Drug War Hurts Women, Says New Report
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/379/report2.shtml

In a report released Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and two other groups charged that US drug policy is bringing severe, disproportionate harm to women -- many of them mothers -- who are being sent to prison in ever increasing numbers on drug charges even though they typically play only minor roles in drug trafficking groups. The report, "Caught in the Net" was released at the end of a two-day national conference on the subject in New York City. That conference brought criminal justice officials, sentencing reform activists, and others together to consider reforms that would reduce the harmful impact of the drug war on women.

"Drug convictions have caused the number of women behind bars to explode, leaving in the rubble displaced children and overburdened families," the report said, and the hard numbers back it up. Since 1980, the number of women in prison has increased eight-fold to 101,000 last year. Roughly one-third of women prisoners are drug offenders, compared to about one-fifth of male prisoners.

"Many of the drug conspiracy and accomplice laws were created to go after the kingpins," said the ACLU women's rights project director, Lenora Lapidus, a lead author of the report. "But women who may simply be a girlfriend or wife are getting caught in the web as well, and sent to prison for very long times when all they may have done is answer the telephone."

When it comes to drug war injustice, it's not just a man's world, the report found. Among its findings:

* Many women who are convicted of drug crimes were only peripherally involved, and some were convicted solely because they failed to turn in their partners. Sentencing laws fail to acknowledge factors that may keep women from going to police, such as economic dependence or fear of abuse.

* Black and Hispanic women are imprisoned on drug charges at far higher rates than white women even though they have similar illegal drug use rates. The report suggests prosecutorial discretion, police tactics, and practices such as the selective testing of poor, minority women for drug use while pregnant play a role.

* Most women in prison leave children behind. The consequences can be shattering for both mothers, who may lose parental custody, and children, thousands of whom are placed in foster homes.

The traditional view that women and mothers should be treated more gently gets turned on its head when it comes to drug-using or drug-selling women, said Florida State University criminologist Bruce Bullington. "It's not just an issue of drugs, but of embedded moral values," he said. "We demonize these women, and it comes back to haunt us in a variety of ways," he told the Associated Press.

[pirc1]

Andy,

You just need to move to Amsterdam and you should be home free.;)

[andymoon]

Originally posted by pirc1
Andy,

You just need to move to Amsterdam and you should be home free.;)

I might visit Amsterdam at some point, but if this was about me being able to smoke pot, I would have moved to Amsterdam or Alaska when the opportunities presented themselves. I had such opportunities as recently as 1999, but Texas is my home and I really don't want to leave.

Besides, if I started smoking now, I might forget that the rest of the world suffers under prohibition or I might just not give enough of a sh!t to do anything about it. ;)

[basso]

reminds me of the old headline:

WORLD ENDS!
Women and Minorities hardest hit.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
reminds me of the old headline:

WORLD ENDS!
Women and Minorities hardest hit.

Of course they would be. Women are 51% of the world and there would still be at least three white males alive on the ISS.

However, this is a serious article with hard data that points to a serious consequence of our misguided "war" on drugs. Do you have anything of substance to say about it?

[Uprising]

Originally posted by pirc1
Andy,

You just need to move to Amsterdam and you should be home free.;)

Or switzerland. :p

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by pirc1
Andy,

You just need to move to Amsterdam and you should be home free.;)

I worked with a lady from Amsterdam when I was over in Europe a while back. She was pretty cool.

[pirc1]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
I worked with a lady from Amsterdam when I was over in Europe a while back. She was pretty cool.

There are too many things one could say here, but I will keep my mouth shut:D

[robbie380]

hmmm....surprised the article doesnt say anything about how wonderful mothers on drugs are for their kids.

[StupidMoniker]

I am in favor of legalization. Having said that, this ranks about last on my list of concerns. Call me crazy, but I don't think criminals are the best people to be raising children. As for the wives and girlfriends getting busted, here's a bizzare idea, DON'T DATE DRUG DEALERS!

Also, I hate the ACLU. There are a million things they could focus their time and resources on, but every time I read about them they are doing something stupid, pointless, or fighting to protect some scumbag. The ACLU is one of the crappiest charity organizations I have ever seen.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by robbie380
hmmm....surprised the article doesnt say anything about how wonderful mothers on drugs are for their kids.

Obviously, "mothers on drugs" are not good for their kids, but I would argue that, depending on the drug, a mother in jail would be far, far worse. In addition, the funds we now dedicate to incarcertaing those women and supporting their children in the foster care system would be much more effectively used if spent on rehabilitating the problem users. I could also make a very strong argument that a woman who smokes pot would be better suited to raising children than a heavy drinker.

Besides, as the article points out, most of these women are peripherally involved at best and sometimes get sent up the river for as little as answering a phone call or merely being at home when the bust happens.

Just more idiotic consequences of prohibition.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
I am in favor of legalization. Having said that, this ranks about last on my list of concerns. Call me crazy, but I don't think criminals are the best people to be raising children.

As the article points out, in most cases the women are peripherally involved at most. I wouldn't call them criminals.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker

As for the wives and girlfriends getting busted, here's a bizzare idea, DON'T DATE DRUG DEALERS!

What if the dealer is the father of your kids?

What if you married him before he started dealing?

What if he didn't even tell you he does or deals drugs?

There are too many what ifs for your statement to stand. Sometimes there just isn't a lot of choice in the matter. Sometimes the man is the only source of income and the woman has noplace else to go. What is she to do, live on the street with her kids?

Originally posted by StupidMoniker

Also, I hate the ACLU. There are a million things they could focus their time and resources on, but every time I read about them they are doing something stupid, pointless, or fighting to protect some scumbag. The ACLU is one of the crappiest charity organizations I have ever seen.

Whatever. In this case, the ACLU is pointing out one of the serious harms of prohibition. They are not "fighting to protect some scumbag" in this case, they are trying to keep kids in their homes with their parents where possible. They are advocating for an end to the drug war, which would ensure that these women would have the ability to raise their children rather than seeing them taken away as they are put in jail.

[arno_ed]

Originally posted by pirc1
Andy,

You just need to move to Amsterdam and you should be home free.;)
andy if you move to amsterdam be sure to look me up:D.
About legalizing drugs, imo opinion it is the same as when alcohol was illigal, the mafia was the one who had most profit of it.

Look at holland, Soft drugs is legal here, and we do not have alot of problems with drugsdealers, or junkies.

the biggest problem for holland ralated to the legalizing of drugs is all those anoying tourists that come to holland to get high:p

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by andymoon
As the article points out, in most cases the women are peripherally involved at most. I wouldn't call them criminals.

The article says many, not most. There is a difference. One that can be big or small depending on the relative definition of "many" in this study.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by rimbaud
The article says many, not most. There is a difference. One that can be big or small depending on the relative definition of "many" in this study.

Whether it is "most" or "many," these women cannot be accurately painted as "criminals" and certainly do not deserve to be in jail, lose their kids, etc.

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by andymoon
Whether it is "most" or "many," these women cannot be accurately painted as "criminals" and certainly do not deserve to be in jail, lose their kids, etc.

I know, I was just trying to clarify. It is always best to be as thorough and accurate as possible.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by rimbaud
I know, I was just trying to clarify. It is always best to be as thorough and accurate as possible.

Agreed.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by andymoon
As the article points out, in most cases the women are peripherally involved at most. I wouldn't call them criminals.

They are being convicted of crimes and sent to prison. You and I must have very different definitions of the word criminal.

What if the dealer is the father of your kids?
What if you married him before he started dealing?
What if he didn't even tell you he does or deals drugs?

There are too many what ifs for your statement to stand. Sometimes there just isn't a lot of choice in the matter. Sometimes the man is the only source of income and the woman has noplace else to go. What is she to do, live on the street with her kids?

So what. My mother was married to an alchoholic that was abusive to her on occasion. She married him before he started drinking. She kicked his ass to the curb and raised 2 kids by herself. At the time, my father was the only source of income. You do what you need to do. If my mom did not want to get a job and be a single parent, she could have stayed with him and accepted the consequences of that, but she made a choice. These women have the same choice.

Whatever. In this case, the ACLU is pointing out one of the serious harms of prohibition. They are not "fighting to protect some scumbag" in this case, they are trying to keep kids in their homes with their parents where possible. They are advocating for an end to the drug war, which would ensure that these women would have the ability to raise their children rather than seeing them taken away as they are put in jail.

You are right, in this case they are not fighting to protect some scumbag, they are doing something stupid (one of the three things they are always doing). They are arguing to ignore the laws that are on the books. What they need to do is lobby congress to repeal drug laws because the laws are stupid, not because mothers are breaking the law and being seperated from their children.



Unfortunately, there are far too many anti-prohibitionists that are potheads trying to legalize their drug of choice. I am sad that they are the face of my position, because they are not going to be the ones that get the law changed.

[robbie380]

Originally posted by andymoon
Obviously, "mothers on drugs" are not good for their kids, but I would argue that, depending on the drug, a mother in jail would be far, far worse. In addition, the funds we now dedicate to incarcertaing those women and supporting their children in the foster care system would be much more effectively used if spent on rehabilitating the problem users. I could also make a very strong argument that a woman who smokes pot would be better suited to raising children than a heavy drinker.

Besides, as the article points out, most of these women are peripherally involved at best and sometimes get sent up the river for as little as answering a phone call or merely being at home when the bust happens.

Just more idiotic consequences of prohibition.

first...the article does not say MOST it says 'many' but does not specify a number. who knows what the number is and it probably just throws that in there for effect. of the people that i have known that have been arrested for drugs NONE of them were arrested for being peripherally involved and i know no one who was peripherally involved with drugs that has been arrested.

second...it doesnt matter if you make the point that a mother on weed is better than a mother on alcohol. you do kind of bias the point you made by qualifying a mother who is a HEAVY drinker and only say a mother who smokes weed. if u want to compare apples to apples anyone who is a heavy drug/alcohol user will more than likely be a poor parent. plus we aren't trying to say if one is better cuz that is not the issue. bringing this up would only serve to distract from the main issue which is mothers being arrested for drugs.

finally...maybe you have information on this but one of the points the article makes is that black and hispanic women are arrested more than white women. i was curious if you knew if the usage rates were higher among black and hispanic women compared to white women. just from living my generalized life it seems that blacks and hispanics are much more likely to smoke weed than whites. not trying to make an argument here just curious if you had information on this.

[Trader_Jorge]

Robbie, obviously if the information appeared at stopthedrugwar.com, then it is completely unbiased and factual. We all should know that by now, considering every headline from the website finds its way into a new thread in this forum...

[andymoon]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
They are being convicted of crimes and sent to prison. You and I must have very different definitions of the word criminal.

I guess so. Personally, I don't think that answering the phone or merely being present when a drug dealer is busted qualifies as a "crime." The criminals in that instance are the prosecutor who charges the woman to bump his conviction numbers, the politicians who passed laws that are being used to convict peripherally involved individuals, and the judges who do not assure that justice is done.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker

So what. My mother was married to an alchoholic that was abusive to her on occasion. She married him before he started drinking. She kicked his ass to the curb and raised 2 kids by herself. At the time, my father was the only source of income. You do what you need to do. If my mom did not want to get a job and be a single parent, she could have stayed with him and accepted the consequences of that, but she made a choice. These women have the same choice.


You may see it that way, but I do not, and neither do many of them.

An ex-girlfriend of mine served two years in prison because she went out to dinner with a guy after her 5 year high school reunion. On the way home, he stopped at a park to complete a drug deal, completely unbeknownst to my ex. She stayed in the car, was never a part of the deal, and they still busted her for dealing drugs. She was unable to get a plea bargain because she didn't know anything (had never so much as smoked a joint), while the guy who did the deal got a year of probation for turning in his dealer.

Our justice system does not dispense "justice" when it comes to the drug war.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker

You are right, in this case they are not fighting to protect some scumbag, they are doing something stupid (one of the three things they are always doing). They are arguing to ignore the laws that are on the books. What they need to do is lobby congress to repeal drug laws because the laws are stupid, not because mothers are breaking the law and being seperated from their children.


Um, they ARE lobbying to repeal the drug laws. That is a big part of what this report is about. They are reporting on one of the major unintended consequences of prohibition.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Unfortunately, there are far too many anti-prohibitionists that are potheads trying to legalize their drug of choice. I am sad that they are the face of my position, because they are not going to be the ones that get the law changed.

And yet they should be. Who are these "potheads" hurting? What harm are they doing to society?

Part of the problem with drug reform is that everyone seems to have been snowed by the government propaganda that claims that medical marijuana is a smoke screen for "legalizers" among other egregious lies. You seem to think that the only people who advocate for drug reform are people like Tommy Chong (who, BTW, has been sober for a few years now) or Woody Harrelson. What about the voices like Walter Cronkite, William F. Buckley, Bill Richardson (Ex-Governor of NM), or any of the other hundreds of anti-drug war folks who just get ignored?

The biggest problem is that the government will not allow debate to happen, certainly not in this country, and even in the UN. US officials at a recent UN anti-HIV/AIDS conference (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/379/halfwhat.shtml) kept any mention of needle exchange programs completely out of the resolutions resulting from that conference, despite massive evidence that these programs are extremely effective at reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS. Debate is limited to "how much harsher can we be with regard to drugs" and the government spends millions every year to keep the general public snowed.

It is disgusting to me and it should be disgusting to you, but as long as people have the "do the crime..." attitude, unfortunately, it will not change anytime soon.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Robbie, obviously if the information appeared at stopthedrugwar.com, then it is completely unbiased and factual. We all should know that by now, considering every headline from the website finds its way into a new thread in this forum...

Put up or shut up, moron.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by robbie380
first...the article does not say MOST it says 'many' but does not specify a number. who knows what the number is and it probably just throws that in there for effect.

A point that was brought up and that I conceded earlier in the thread.

Originally posted by robbie380

of the people that i have known that have been arrested for drugs NONE of them were arrested for being peripherally involved and i know no one who was peripherally involved with drugs that has been arrested.

I related one of the dozens of stories I have heard about peripherally (in that case, not at all) involved persons being arrested, convicted, and incarcerated on drug charges. I worked as a drug abuse treatment professional for several years and heard many, many stories much like the one I related and the ones mentioned in the story.

For a more complete discussion, there is a book called "Shattered Lives" that details some of the worst abuses of the drug war and shows the destruction that said "war" has wreaked on the lives of Americans.

Originally posted by robbie380

second...it doesnt matter if you make the point that a mother on weed is better than a mother on alcohol. you do kind of bias the point you made by qualifying a mother who is a HEAVY drinker and only say a mother who smokes weed. if u want to compare apples to apples anyone who is a heavy drug/alcohol user will more than likely be a poor parent. plus we aren't trying to say if one is better cuz that is not the issue. bringing this up would only serve to distract from the main issue which is mothers being arrested for drugs.

I would go so far as to say that I believe that a mother who smokes pot heavily would be a MUCH better mother than a heavy or even a binge drinker.

I totally disagree that "anyone who is a heavy drug/alcohol user will more than likely be a poor parent," particularly when the drug you are talking about is marijuana. I have known dozens of heavy smokers who were exemplary parents, committed PTA members, community leaders, and business owners. You won't hear much about them because they keep their smoking very private (for good reason), but I would be willing to bet that a pretty heavy percentage of the respectable, hard working, taxpaying adults you know also smoke marijuana.

Originally posted by robbie380

finally...maybe you have information on this but one of the points the article makes is that black and hispanic women are arrested more than white women. i was curious if you knew if the usage rates were higher among black and hispanic women compared to white women.

# According to the federal Household Survey, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Summary Report 1998 (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1999), p. 13; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 343, Table 4.10, p. 435, Table 5.48, and p. 505, Table 6.52; Beck, Allen J., Ph.D. and Mumola, Christopher J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 10, Table 16; Beck, Allen J., PhD, and Paige M. Harrison, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, August 2001), p. 11, Table 16.

Originally posted by robbie380

just from living my generalized life it seems that blacks and hispanics are much more likely to smoke weed than whites. not trying to make an argument here just curious if you had information on this.

You must be pretty sheltered then, because whites use drugs at roughly the same percentage as blacks. Whites are more likely to snort powdered cocaine than use crack, they are more likely to use methamphetamines than blacks, IOW, even if blacks and hispanics use marijuana more than whites (I have not seen any evidence of this), whites use other (more dangerous) drugs more than blacks, and overall drug usage rates are pretty much constant across races.

[bnb]

Andy:

do you think the courts are 'harder' on women...or is it that prison can have more repercussions for some women?

I kind of thought basso's :eek: end-of-the-world quip was spot on.

A bunch of filler's around a 'hook' that wasn't really appropriate. Overall...drug policy may be shamefull...but i don't see anything in the article that shows it's worse for women....just that they're affected too.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by bnb

do you think the courts are 'harder' on women...or is it that prison can have more repercussions for some women?

I don't necessarily think that courts are harder on women, except that women are less likely to have information that can be parlayed into plea bargains and as such, they usually get hit with the full sentence where their "men" get reductions (see the story above).

Originally posted by bnb

A bunch of filler's around a 'hook' that wasn't really appropriate. Overall...drug policy may be shamefull...but i don't see anything in the article that shows it's worse for women....just that they're affected too.

Unfortunately, when the women are incarcerated, especially when they didn't have anything to do with the crime, the egregious injustice comes when authorities break up families in the name of ... protecting families. Kids who grow up in foster homes and orphanages are much more likely to experiment with drugs later in life than those who grow up with one or both parents. I would assert that a stable home where one or both parents use drugs (remember, alcohol is a drug) is a better home than those the state places children in.

[bnb]

Andy:

you appear to be making the assumption that women cannot be involved in the nasty old drug trade. My (very limited) experience it that women are given the benefit of the doubt more then men would in these cases.

Your example could have just as easily been a male friend in the car, rather than a woman. Crazy result --either way.

Wouldn't there be just as many men who may not have the info to plea bargain away?

The whole minority bit kind of confirmed the sensationalist bent of the article IMO. Unless they're suggesting the same bias does not exist for men.

I just don't see this as a gender issue.

[robbie380]

Originally posted by andymoon
You must be pretty sheltered then, because whites use drugs at roughly the same percentage as blacks. Whites are more likely to snort powdered cocaine than use crack, they are more likely to use methamphetamines than blacks, IOW, even if blacks and hispanics use marijuana more than whites (I have not seen any evidence of this), whites use other (more dangerous) drugs more than blacks, and overall drug usage rates are pretty much constant across races.


i dunno about pretty sheltered probably the opposite of that, but i guess just the people i have been around growing up during my life has skewed things. maybe its just the youth that skews things for me. maybe i simply overgeneralize. i was only talking about use of marijuana though. i do know more white people that do x, speed, coke, as well as weed, seems like most of those are stippers. anyhow...it just seems like more of the black people and hispanic people i know like to smoke out. from the data i glanced at it looks like more whites as a percentage of population smoke weed versus blacks and versus hispanics (6.79% to 5.17% to 4.67% respectively).

[andymoon]

Originally posted by bnb

you appear to be making the assumption that women cannot be involved in the nasty old drug trade. My (very limited) experience it that women are given the benefit of the doubt more then men would in these cases.

I have no illusions about women and the drug trade. Women sell drugs just like men do, but when was the last time you heard of a major cartel or drug ring being run by a woman? I am sure it happens, but I don't believe that nearly as many women are involved in the drug trade at high levels.

Originally posted by bnb

Your example could have just as easily been a male friend in the car, rather than a woman. Crazy result --either way.

Wouldn't there be just as many men who may not have the info to plea bargain away?


You are absolutely correct, and it happens that way for men, too. People who get nabbed in drug busts and who are too low level to give any information of use get the maximum sentence and get charged with the harshest crime the prosecutor can think of. Higher level players get off far lighter (or go on to become professional informants) because they can plea their crime and sentence down. This has the net effect of making sure that low level drug users bear the brunt of the enforcement sting while high level players hardly feel the sting, if they ever do.

Originally posted by bnb

The whole minority bit kind of confirmed the sensationalist bent of the article IMO. Unless they're suggesting the same bias does not exist for men.

I just don't see this as a gender issue.

The gender issue comes up for me when we start taking kids away from their primary caregivers (most likely women) in the name of "protecting the family," or "sending messages to the children."

I would much rather implement a policy that ACTUALLY reduces drug use, particularly use of drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines (and especially among young people) and that helps people who do get addicted to recover from said addiction.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by robbie380
i dunno about pretty sheltered probably the opposite of that, but i guess just the people i have been around growing up during my life has skewed things. maybe its just the youth that skews things for me. maybe i simply overgeneralize. i was only talking about use of marijuana though. i do know more white people that do x, speed, coke, as well as weed, seems like most of those are stippers. anyhow...it just seems like more of the black people and hispanic people i know like to smoke out. from the data i glanced at it looks like more whites as a percentage of population smoke weed versus blacks and versus hispanics (6.79% to 5.17% to 4.67% respectively).

Honestly, those numbers are so close that you might as well say that race is not a big factor in drug usage. In addition, it is likely that blacks and hispanics, two groups at risk for more aggressive prosecution of drug laws, are not as honest as whites on these surveys.

If you look at the official numbers from Holland, you will see that race does not seem to be a determining factor in drug usage.

However, 55% of the people in jail for drugs are black despite the fact that they comprise only 15% of drug users in America. If that isn't racial bias in enforcement, then I don't know what is.

[robbie380]

Originally posted by andymoon
However, 55% of the people in jail for drugs are black despite the fact that they comprise only 15% of drug users in America. If that isn't racial bias in enforcement, then I don't know what is.

i wonder if there is an extremely comprehensive breakdown of people in jail for drugs based on race and economic class that breaks things down based on usage and incarceration percentage of each group. i am curious about this because when you state that blacks only compromise 15% of drug users in america they also only compromise about 13+% of the population of america, so stating percentages that aren't based off of population skews things.

further i am curious if it is racial bias or more of a class bias. i do know that racial profiling does occur, but at the same time i am curious if profiling happens for good reason. that reason being that the particular group does happen to commit more crimes. i'm not saying it is good i am just curious if there is some sort of basis for profiling. eg. like profiling all males 16 to 35, regardless of race or nationality, probably wouldn't be a bad thing for anti-terrorism concerns since this is the group that has committed the most acts of terrorism.

anyhow...i'll stop before i go off on completely different tangents that don't particularly help explain my thoughts or reinforce my points.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by robbie380
i wonder if there is an extremely comprehensive breakdown of people in jail for drugs based on race and economic class that breaks things down based on usage and incarceration percentage of each group. i am curious about this because when you state that blacks only compromise 15% of drug users in america they also only compromise about 13+% of the population of america, so stating percentages that aren't based off of population skews things.

There may very well be a lot more data on race, though I doubt that prisoners are surveyed regarding class (I don't think they collect stats on income).

Actually, your 13% figure even more glaringly illustrates the problem when a race that comprises only 13% of the population also has 55% of the people in jail for drugs.

Originally posted by robbie380

further i am curious if it is racial bias or more of a class bias.

I am dure that there is a major class bias as people who cannot afford high-priced attorneys end up with more jail time and less chance for plea bargains. I don't see how this would account for all of the blacks in jail since there are plenty of poor white folks, but I am sure that class plays a part.

Originally posted by robbie380

i do know that racial profiling does occur, but at the same time i am curious if profiling happens for good reason. that reason being that the particular group does happen to commit more crimes.

The statistics that I have seen indicate that crime is committed by the various races at a pretty even rate. There are major differences in the types of crimes (more blacks commit burglary, robbery, etc. while more whites engage in fraud, blackmail, and extortion) committed, but much of this is class based as well.

Originally posted by robbie380

i'm not saying it is good i am just curious if there is some sort of basis for profiling. eg. like profiling all males 16 to 35, regardless of race or nationality, probably wouldn't be a bad thing for anti-terrorism concerns since this is the group that has committed the most acts of terrorism.

This would be an interesting theory to try to prove. However, you might as well try to profile the phone book if you are talking about every single male between 16 and 35. That is a HUGE demographic.

Originally posted by robbie380

anyhow...i'll stop before i go off on completely different tangents that don't particularly help explain my thoughts or reinforce my points.

Please, feel free to go off on tangents.