10-19-2016, 10:04 PM
(10-19-2016, 11:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get what you're saying. Do you know of any studies that separate out arrests of minorities for drug crimes without any other charges. Legitimately curious about that.
Look at the "stop and frisk" numbers from New York City
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/opinion/racial-discrimination-in-stop-and-frisk.html
At the heart of the Floyd case are statistics showing that the city conducted an astounding 4.4 million stops between January 2004 and June 2012. Of these, only 6 percent resulted in arrests and 6 percent resulted in summonses. In other words, 88 percent of the 4.4 million stops resulted in no further action — meaning a vast majority of those stopped were doing nothing wrong. More than half of all people stopped were frisked, yet only 1.5 percent of frisks found weapons. In about 83 percent of cases, the person stopped was black or Hispanic, even though the two groups accounted for just over half the population.
The city has consistently said that the disparity was justified because minority citizens commit more crimes. But Judge Scheindlin trenchantly rejected this argument. As she pointed out, “this reasoning is flawed because the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent — not criminal. There is no basis for assuming that an innocent population shares the same characteristics as the criminal suspect population in the same area.”
This policy of racial profiling resulted in over half a million citations and arrest. A large portion of them were for simple possession of small amounts of drugs. And since blacks and Hispanics were racially profiled (83% of the stops) they received an overwhelming majority of these citations.
This had nothing to do with "collateral crime". It was nothing but straight up racial profiling. If you stop and frisk more minorities for no reason then you are going to end up charging more minorities even though minorities and whites both possess illegal drugs at the same rate.
