Ambiguous police stops confirm minorities’ belief that officers are racist

Evidence

But, as I have personally said to police officials, ignoring unflattering evidence will not make it go away. The term “disparity” as typically used by scholars, and as I use it here, means there is some observable difference between the likelihood of a given outcome (e.g., being searched during a traffic stop) for different groups. The term does not convey what causes the difference and is certainly not automatic proof of deliberate racism. In the approach that my collaborators and I take in our research on race and policing, and in our many conversations with the members of law enforcement with whom we partner, finding disparities is not an indictment of racism nor is it the final word, but rather it is the starting point for a dialogue about how to improve policecommunity relations. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 356 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

In response to claims that law enforcement target people of color, a common refrain is that police are simply “going where the crime is.” If high crime areas have higher concentrations of African Americans and if it is seen as an effective policing strategy to stop more people in these high crime areas, then a consequence, even if an indirect one, is that more African Americans will be stopped. Further, there is evidence of racial disparities in rates of violent crime (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2013; 2016; Morgan & Truman, 2018). To the extent that different groups commit crimes at different rates, we would expect police contact and stop rates to mirror those differences. In these scenarios, race is not the driving factor; crime is. While crime certainly shapes enforcement patterns, the evidence demonstrates that higher rates of police contact with community members of color, relative to Whites, cannot be fully explained by general crime rates (e.g., Hetey et al., 2016a) or by differential rates of criminal activity between racial groups (Gelman, Fagan, & Kiss, 2007). — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 361 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: Racial disparity in policing is distinct from proof of racism — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 356; Racial disparity in police stops widens when officers can visually ascertain the driver’s race — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 363; Repeated police stops erode citizens’ sense of equal standing and legitimacy of law — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 440 (+6 more)

Related

• Crime-rate differences cannot fully explain racial disparities in police stops. (similarity 0.90)
• Racial disparity in policing is distinct from proof of racism (similarity 0.88)
• Racial disparity in police stops widens when officers can visually ascertain the driver’s race (similarity 0.83)
• Police treatment disparities span stops, abuse, force, and response speed (similarity 0.82)
• Oakland stop data shows racial disparities across most officers, not a few (similarity 0.82)
• Racial disparities in traffic stops increase when officers can see a driver’s race. (similarity 0.82)
• Control-oriented policing provokes the hostility it predicts among stopped minorities. (similarity 0.81)
• Oakland police show racial disparities across every interaction stage (similarity 0.81)
• Racial stop disparities hold even in precincts with few minority residents (similarity 0.79)
• Oakland officers who never restrained white people still searched Black people (similarity 0.79)
• Racial disparities persist even in precincts where people of color are a small minority. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Racial disparity in policing is distinct from proof of racism #qualifies (0.85) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 356
• Racial disparities in policing arise from systemic forces, not individual racism #qualifies (0.85)
• Crime-rate differences cannot fully explain racial disparities in police stops. #expands (0.80) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 361
• Repeated police stops erode citizens’ sense of equal standing and legitimacy of law #expands (0.78) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 440
• Control-oriented policing provokes the hostility it predicts among stopped minorities. #corroborates (0.75) — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 905
• Racial disparity in police stops widens when officers can visually ascertain the driver’s race #qualifies (0.72) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 363
• Racial disparities in traffic stops increase when officers can see a driver’s race. #qualifies (0.72) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 363
• Reported racial attitudes often diverge from actual discriminatory behavior #qualifies (0.70) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2089