Showing posts with label profiling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label profiling. Show all posts

Thursday, March 6, 2014

CNN Legal Analyst Rips Mall"s Hoodie Ban: "Akin...to Stop and Frisk"; "Racial Profiling"


Matthew Balan

Sunny Hostin blasted an Indiana mall’s ban of people wearing raised hoodies on Thursday’s New Day: “This is…akin, in my viewto ‘stop and frisk’ – to the pretext of ‘stop and frisk’ – and I think many courts have found that this type of behavior is unacceptable, and downright unconstitutional.”


The CNN legal analyst also contended that “‘hoodie’ is code for ‘thug’ in many places,” and later claimed that “to identify just hoodies in my view…it’s very, very clear what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about racial profiling. It’s code for racial profiling.” [video below the jump]


Anchor Chris Cuomo took on the role of Hostin’s sparring partner during the segment. Cuomo first noted, in defense of the commercial complex, that “the mall says, we’ve had it in place since 2004, so don’t hit me with the Trayvon Martin stick…[and] had it in place because the local police like it, and they like it because they feel it makes it easier to fight crime because it allows people to not conceal themselves. Wear your hoodie – just don’t have it concealing your face, so I can identify you in case anything happens.”


Hostin wasted little time before using her “‘hoodie’ is code for ‘thug,” and continued with her “stop and frisk” claim:


SUNNY HOSTIN: I think the bottom line is, we know what this is about. This is about the pretext for being able to stop young African-American males. ‘Hoodie’ is code for ‘thug’ in many – in many places, and I think businesses shouldn’t be in the business of telling people what to wear. The 14th Amendment protects us from this. And this is, sort of, akin, in my view, Chris, to ‘stop and frisk’ – to the pretext of ‘stop and frisk’ – and I think many courts have found that this type of behavior is unacceptable, and downright unconstitutional.


Remember the saggy pants ban…that a lot of places tried to enforce, and that again was code for black men – please don’t wear this. And so, I suspect that this will be found unconstitutional because, quite frankly, it is. And when do we get to a place in our society where we stop doing this kind of thing; where we stop targeting young black men? So, that there’s a pretext for it being allowed to stop them to escort them out of a mall simply by what they’re wearing.


The CNN anchor followed up by trying to cast doubt on the legal analyst’s racial bias assertions:


CHRIS CUOMO: The other side is, why do you assume that only blacks wear hoodies? That is not true. That is not provable. So, you are making a cultural distinction yourself. Also, the local police like it, which means they see a cross-section between crimes they investigate and – you know, the kind of concealing of one’s identity using a hoodie. And you don’t want to own part of the problem in the first place, which is if there are a lot of black kids, by your own designation, who wind up wearing hoodies and getting in trouble, why don’t you deal with the fact you have a disproportionate number of black kids, wearing hoodies, getting in trouble and fix that? Don’t fix me for having to deal with them?


In reply, Hostin stood by her likening of the ban to “stop and frisk,” which led to a back-and-forth between her and Cuomo:


HOSTIN: …I think, actually, that argument is suspect because we know that – you know, a lot of young black men in ‘stop and frisk’ programs are targeted for offenses that white kids aren’t targeted for-


CUOMO: This is not stop and frisk-


HOSTIN: But it is-


CUOMO: It’s just don’t pull up the hood-
                                           
HOSTIN: But it is – it’s ‘stop and frisk.’ Why are hoodies inherently unsafe? Why are-


CUOMO: Not a hoodie – covering your face.


HOSTIN: Well then, why aren’t caps – in this instance, why aren’t they outlawed-


CUOMO: Because it doesn’t cover your face-


HOSTIN: Of course, they do; of course, they do.


CUOMO: No, it isn’t. It’s on top of your head. This is something you pull over that masks your identity.


The CNN legal analyst used her “racial profiling” labeling of the mall’s policy near the end of the segment:



Story Continues Below Ad ↓



HOSTIN: Look, I think the bottom line is, if you’re going to outlaw hoodies in this mall, then you should outlaw baseball caps – any kind of head gear – ski masks, and just anything. And so, to identify just hoodies in my view, is – it’s very, very clear what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about racial profiling. It’s code for racial profiling. And I think when you look at the sign –  and the sign says, ‘for the safety and well-being of everyone, please lower your hoodie.’ Are hoodies – do they make you unwell? Do they – are they inherently unsafe? And, of course, they are not.


This isn’t the first time that Hostin has made an eyebrow-raising argument on CNN. Back in September 2011, she asserted that the sex abuse cases involving Catholic priest could be considered war crimes, and could plausibly be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court, after the Survivors Networks of those Abused by Priests group filed a complaint with the global body: “I don’t think it’s a frivolous lawsuit by any stretch of the imagination or a frivolous complaint.”




NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias



CNN Legal Analyst Rips Mall"s Hoodie Ban: "Akin...to Stop and Frisk"; "Racial Profiling"

Friday, February 28, 2014

Algorithms and Future Crimes: Welcome to the Racial Profiling of the Future



More and more police departments are turning to "predictive policing," which has proven unmistakably racist.








Across the country, large police departments have been developing their ability to track where crime will happen next using predictive software. Known as “predictive policing,” the practice has made waves in the media over the last few years, capturing the imagination of futurists and tough-on-crime zealots, while offending the sensibilities of basically everyone else.


Proponents describe the program in techno-pragmatist terms, arguing that it uses data to make smart inferences about the future in much the same way meterologists do. Opponents compare the idea to hellishly dystopian stories like The Minority Report, where innocent people are rounded up because a computer said there was a chance they would break the law in the future.


There is one major feature of predictive policing that the libertarian critique often glosses over: it"s unmistakably racist. 


Any attempt to predict future criminality will be based on that of the past. It"s well known that blacks and Hispanics are arrested at a higher rate than whites and comprise the majority of the prison population. If that"s the reality that is supposed to inform who we criminalize in the future, won"t initiatives like predictive policing just perpetuate the racist criminal justice policies and practices of the present?


The Verge took these questions to Chicago to examine the most developed and well-financed iteration of predictive policing in the country. The Chicago Police Department users data on past crimes, information about disturbance calls and calls regarding suspicious persons to create a crime map that “highlights neighborhoods of the city that might soon be at risk of an uptick in crime.”


Keeping with the dry data-babbling sell, the predictive analyst behind Chicago"s program, Dr. Miles Wernick, compares it to his previous work in weather forecasting. “The recommendations of the mapping system will not replace the expertise of police officers, but instead [will] highlight potential concerns so police can take them into account,” he says.


CPD has also created a “heat list” comprised of around 400 Chicagoans who are “most likely to be involved in violent crime.” Police have already visited the homes of 60 people on the list, warning them like a schoolteacher warns a class clown that if they screw up, the law will be watching, and there will be serious consequences. 


Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, summed up concerns about CPD"s use of predictive policing:


“Are people ending up on this list simply because they live in a crappy part of town and know people who have been troublemakers? How many people of color are on this heat list? Is the list all black kids? Is this list all kids from Chicago’s South Side? If so, are we just closing ourselves off to this small subset of people?”


For the moment, those questions cannot be answered because the CPD blocked an attempt by The Verge to access the heat list through a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act. 


Wernick insists, delusionally, that predictive policing “evaluates the risk of violence in an unbiased, quantitative way,” reaching for a smoking analogy to justify his claim:


[It is] similar manner to how the medical field has identified statistically that smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer. Of course, everybody who smokes doesn"t get lung cancer, but it demonstrably increases the risk dramatically. The same is true of violent crime.

Wernick and the CPD want to put already blighted communities in their crosshairs for enhanced police presence. Imagine that if instead of targeting them for more patrolling, they were targeted for more schools, social workers, and community-building resources.


Surely, that too would have an impact on the future of crime.


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



Algorithms and Future Crimes: Welcome to the Racial Profiling of the Future