If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will be required to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Yes, everyone knows old white ladies carry unlicensed guns and traffic in illegal drugs
Seriously, when people who fit the profile of drug dealers and terrorists no longer commit those crimes disproportionately than the rest of us, it will cease to be effective.
I don't have a problem with profiling per say, I do think sometimes it is not applied as appropriately as it should be. Meaning it is ONE tool in making an reasonable deduction or assumption about someone or in trying to determine their actions, past, present, and future. It is not 100% accurate as we are all aware I am sure.
What if we called it trending or something else, would that make it acceptable? If I apply trending to a stock and profit from it (even if it costs someone else to sustain a loss) is that OK? How much different is that (in principle) than profiling other than one is about a thing and the other about a person.
So if I collected trending data on people would that be OK? And then used it to determine what they had done or might do. Things like where they shop or eat or what kind of vehicle they drive or where they go to church or what kinds of clothes they buy or how they cut their hair or their surfing habits on the WWW such as what forums they hang out in and what they say or do there. Can't I collect all that information under the title of trending or some other seemingly benign or PC description and still be doing the work of profiling someone?
Isn't much of that done already by other than government agencies and we accept it as part of daily life? And then aren't we bombarded with junk in our mailbox or ads on web pages or spam or sales calls based on those habits of ours?
When you arrest someone on nothing more than a profile perspective of them I don't think that is right. However, if you use that information along with other information that may point to the person as a possible suspect or person of interest then I don't see a problem with it.
If I am a cop and I see someone walking or driving down the street that fits the general description of a suspect in an investigation do I have enough information to detain that person for questioning? I think so. If I don't then you can expect the crime rate to go up. Oh, wait, it HAS been going up.
Its no secret that we are creatures of habit. So how can profiling be taken out of the detectives toolbox so to speak without hampering their capabilities.
What is the basis for repeat offender laws if we can not apply profiling principles to convicted criminals? I think a case could be made for striking them all down, and every case would have to be tried on its own merits, and never taking into account a persons prior convictions or past acts during sentencing or jury deliberation. Can you tell me that's how the system works today?
On the other hand I think you would also have to do away with first offender rules, because that is a form of profiling too. You're saying based on past history this person has never committed a crime before (or at least been charged or convicted of one), so we should let them off with a warning or some community service in lieu of jail time. That's profiling too as I see it.
Light is faster than sound. That's why some people seem really bright until you hear them speak.
--------------- “If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber.” - Albert Einstein
--------- "Its a table saw.... Do you know where your fingers are?"
--------- sigpic http://www.helmetstohardhats.com/
Personally, I think the whole issue of "profiling" is absolutely stupid... If "Flying Purple People Eaters" have done the crime, then why would the police or any other agency be looking at any thing else?
Seriously, while I can understand some cases where just a stop and search might be a bit sensitive, we really have to accept such things as part of a protective society I think. Crime and terrorism has become part of our social awareness and anxiety. So I really don't care to hear of someone's whining should they fit the profile of whatever "profile" has caused the latest alert.
On my home ground, I remember a few years ago when my son was complaining about his two "waste of time" additional searches as he went through airport security during his business travels. My response to his complaining was to tell him to "look in the mirror".... he had recently grown a beard, and with his typical travel travel dress and onboard carry, it looked pretty much like a terrorist.
Of course a "profile" can be by-passed by changing your appearance and not looking the part. But then does one just forget "the profile"... I don't think so, it's good security work and thus a good place to start.
the reason sheriff Joe is under attack here in AZ and in Washington DC is the
plain fact bad guys hate him and his style works!
Considering he's 80 something years old this may be his last term
With all the bad guys and cry babies hating him he still won reelection that should say it all
The powers to be seem to prefer to coddle criminals...TV -internet- exercise gear-
what the hell! I don't have access to a gym so why should a killer have such access?
We have more laws and rules to choke a mole! Why not enforce them instead of making new ones
every time a bad guy gets away with something!
I strongly support subtle profiling..meaning you do not abuse the process.
Israel has been doing for years without incident...our bureaucratic TSA is a joke
and simply allows thieves to rummage your privates and steal your valuables.