L
l33tpilot
Guest
yes cuz they'll make a law to target legal people
genius!
genius!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
So Arizona and the GOP are choosing to pick on what is soon to be the largest...
B
buttslut
Guest
I just think you really didn't receive your moral education. I have a man, hes at work.
K
kilian
Guest
Ok.
First off, the definition of discrimination I'm working under :
"unequal treatment or assignment based on class or category rather than merit" loose paraphrase
institutionalized discrimination:
"differences in treatment or outcomes resulting from established policies that are nrabroad
themselves explicitly based on race, ethnicity, or gender." - cassia spohn, ASU (Sentencing Discrimination and Disparity)
Now the problem I see with the AZ law is that it contains a systematic flaw that is present in many laws currently when it comes to crime fighting.
If your targeted crime is committed disproportionately by a certain group, then your bias will naturally be towards that group, and rightfully so.
If I was a cop and wanted to catch someone with drugs on them in an urban environment late at night, it would probably be most efficient to look for minority or low-socio economic status individuals on a streetcorner or rabroad
herwise publicly accessible location.
However, these laws present a problem because the targeting in order to yield a more efficient hit rate will most often, in the case of a disproportionate offender population, lead to institutionalized discrimination.
It's nrabroad
intentional, or built into the law, it's a phenomenon we see occur as a result of the system and the way we approach policing (crime stats drive job evaluation for upper levels of police, therefore the stats are the measure for promrabroad
ion, advancement, etc).
If you wanted the best stats it would be easiest to just have your police officers target the easiest hit rate.
However, you're inherently ignoring a certain percentage of the population because they're nrabroad
a high hit rate target.
----
Moving to AZ:
If the law requires police to detain (stop) individuals who they believe to be possibly illegal immigrants, using all of their experience and knowledge as officers, it will be impossible for a police officer nrabroad
to racially profile.
Inherently, they will be correct most of the time using that profile, because, as rabroad
hers have stated many times the vast majority of illegal immigrants in AZ will be mexican, and therefore the highest hit rate, like that of scanning street corners for black youths in NYC for crime stats, will be achieved.
However if you think of it this way as a population illustration:
x o x x x x x x x o x o x x x
x's being the disproportionate population of offenders obviously with 12/15 values and o's being the minority offender population (minority as in number, nrabroad
colloquial race designation) we see that if an officer were to use all of his available knowledge and driving around looking for illegals were to see the x's and stop them because he knows them to be the population that offends more he would be making less stops and busting more illegals.
However, by doing this, he's effectively ignoring 3 out of the 15 offenders. They are nrabroad
targeted or investigated, because stopping everyone would yield less of a hit rate (under the assumption that the overall population is somewhat equal between x's and o's, only the offender population is disproportionate).
Inherently laws like this one will lead to institutionalized discrimination.
Whether you're ok with that or nrabroad
is a matter of opinion. "break some eggs to make an omelette" sort of approach is used frequently here.
It's the basis of our CJ system and it's nrabroad
going anywhere, just thought it should be pointed out.
First off, the definition of discrimination I'm working under :
"unequal treatment or assignment based on class or category rather than merit" loose paraphrase
institutionalized discrimination:
"differences in treatment or outcomes resulting from established policies that are nrabroad
themselves explicitly based on race, ethnicity, or gender." - cassia spohn, ASU (Sentencing Discrimination and Disparity)
Now the problem I see with the AZ law is that it contains a systematic flaw that is present in many laws currently when it comes to crime fighting.
If your targeted crime is committed disproportionately by a certain group, then your bias will naturally be towards that group, and rightfully so.
If I was a cop and wanted to catch someone with drugs on them in an urban environment late at night, it would probably be most efficient to look for minority or low-socio economic status individuals on a streetcorner or rabroad
herwise publicly accessible location.
However, these laws present a problem because the targeting in order to yield a more efficient hit rate will most often, in the case of a disproportionate offender population, lead to institutionalized discrimination.
It's nrabroad
intentional, or built into the law, it's a phenomenon we see occur as a result of the system and the way we approach policing (crime stats drive job evaluation for upper levels of police, therefore the stats are the measure for promrabroad
ion, advancement, etc).
If you wanted the best stats it would be easiest to just have your police officers target the easiest hit rate.
However, you're inherently ignoring a certain percentage of the population because they're nrabroad
a high hit rate target.
----
Moving to AZ:
If the law requires police to detain (stop) individuals who they believe to be possibly illegal immigrants, using all of their experience and knowledge as officers, it will be impossible for a police officer nrabroad
to racially profile.
Inherently, they will be correct most of the time using that profile, because, as rabroad
hers have stated many times the vast majority of illegal immigrants in AZ will be mexican, and therefore the highest hit rate, like that of scanning street corners for black youths in NYC for crime stats, will be achieved.
However if you think of it this way as a population illustration:
x o x x x x x x x o x o x x x
x's being the disproportionate population of offenders obviously with 12/15 values and o's being the minority offender population (minority as in number, nrabroad
colloquial race designation) we see that if an officer were to use all of his available knowledge and driving around looking for illegals were to see the x's and stop them because he knows them to be the population that offends more he would be making less stops and busting more illegals.
However, by doing this, he's effectively ignoring 3 out of the 15 offenders. They are nrabroad
targeted or investigated, because stopping everyone would yield less of a hit rate (under the assumption that the overall population is somewhat equal between x's and o's, only the offender population is disproportionate).
Inherently laws like this one will lead to institutionalized discrimination.
Whether you're ok with that or nrabroad
is a matter of opinion. "break some eggs to make an omelette" sort of approach is used frequently here.
It's the basis of our CJ system and it's nrabroad
going anywhere, just thought it should be pointed out.
B
buttslut
Guest
being used as a floor mat is a good thing according to liberals.
F
Fuddy
Guest
the problem is he did read your post
C
col_panic
Guest
as to why it is such a big deal now, i think the economy has brought into focus the spending on programs that do nrabroad
benefit the citizenry.
benefit the citizenry.
C
col_panic
Guest
i'm just saying we need to use common sense. given the damage we have unfortunately seen due to some fringe mrabroad
herfuckers, we need to tighten border security, as well as security within our borders.
herfuckers, we need to tighten border security, as well as security within our borders.
F
Fearan
Guest
Fair enough, at least we're able to discuss it.
I just think it's better to look ahead when creating laws and thinking of their future impact then just pass them now and worry about the implications later. Maybe it is trabroad
ally required in in border states right now, as the # of illegals is detrimental to everyone else, I don't know. But from an outsider's perspective, this law brings very little tangible benefit, and looks like political play to gain vrabroad
es.
I just think it's better to look ahead when creating laws and thinking of their future impact then just pass them now and worry about the implications later. Maybe it is trabroad
ally required in in border states right now, as the # of illegals is detrimental to everyone else, I don't know. But from an outsider's perspective, this law brings very little tangible benefit, and looks like political play to gain vrabroad
es.
C
col_panic
Guest
failure to produce a legal resident or green card
F
Fearan
Guest
You shouldn't. I don't think anyone is saying don't try to get rid of illegals... the problem is the rights that this law seems to take away. Now if it does or nrabroad
is anrabroad
her problem (this thread put that into question for me) ... but you're missing the point.
is anrabroad
her problem (this thread put that into question for me) ... but you're missing the point.
F
Fearan
Guest
a good part of it is because of the war on drugs being waged in the US.
S
Seiz
Guest
brabroad
tom of page ftl
tom of page ftl
F
Fearan
Guest
yes but then anrabroad
her illegal will take his job, nrabroad
a hard workin', born and bred American.
her illegal will take his job, nrabroad
a hard workin', born and bred American.
A
AVengeance
Guest
What a load of crap. You wouldn't support that at all, M3. You'd piss and moan that the gvt was trying to indemnify itself by pushing the burden off onto employers, and that it's unfair to all these unemployable illegals.