A New DNA Test Can ID a Suspect's Race, But Police Won't Touch It.
139 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MR-X;35542497]The only reason they're not using it is because it isn't a proven science I believe. It isn't well-established as a way to get solid evidence. They want something that is been used and will stand up on his own merit in court.
Eventually this stuff will work.[/QUOTE]
the only time it's use would be ethical is if it was developed to be useful to identify enough other details about a person that it could be used effectively without collateral arrests
race is already going to be the first detail about a perpetrator to emerge if any details about the perpetrator emerge at all through other means and so the only ends to which technology could be put is racial profiling.
There needs to be a database of the dna of ALL people. Take it when they are born and take it at normal doctor visits or whatever to get the rest.
[QUOTE=kenshin6;35543585]There needs to be a database of the dna of ALL people. Take it when they are born and take it at normal doctor visits or whatever to get the rest.[/QUOTE]
except not, because that is terrifying.
[QUOTE=kenshin6;35543585]There needs to be a database of the dna of ALL people. Take it when they are born and take it at normal doctor visits or whatever to get the rest.[/QUOTE]
why?
[editline]12th April 2012[/editline]
that's a really terrible idea imo
[quote]Nevertheless, Clayton says he dislikes anything that implies we don't all "bleed the same blood." [/quote]
But now that it's proven that we do, the harm's already done and there is no real reason not to use it.
If we aren't allowed to identify a suspects skin color by their DNA, why are we allowed to identify a suspects skin color by any means?
Why do these people try to insist that black people, white people, etc., are not structurally different.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35541488]I think what this is teaching us so far is that political correctness in America is so horrible we can't even acknowledge that people are different races anymore.[/QUOTE]
sounds more like rpaul-style "colourblindness" than PC
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;35540959]yeah, profiling people based on their race using DNA is a pretty uncomfortable area, especially if someone takes it towards trying to scientifically prove that one race is on average smarter or more aggressive than another[/QUOTE]
Maybe one race is smarter than the other - who the fuck cares? To function as a human being you need to acknowledge that there are millions, if not billions of people who are smarter than you, stronger than you, better looking than you, taller, funnier and healthier than you - even the thing you are best at has countless myriads of people who are better at it than you. Compared to that, the idea that, on average, people who look like you are not as smart as people who don't look like you is trivial. If it were found that white people are better at rhetoric than blacks, that does not make me a better orator than Martin Luther King. Likewise, even should it be found that East Asians have a greater mean skill at drawing, there will be many thousands of Vietnamese people who cannot draw as well as me. Racist shitheads will be racist shitheads, and they don't need a poorly done paper to justify their bigotry.
I don't understand this logic at all.
Most things controversial I can see both sides no matter who I agree with more, but this makes literally no sense. It's stuff like this that actually gets me angry.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35540981]More like it has the potential to be a tool of racism[/QUOTE]
um it's not going to frame a black person if a white person committed the crime
how is it racist if it just identifies the color of the person's skin? how is it any different from identifying the gender of the person? are DNA tests also sexist? maybe we should just outright ban DNA testing because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, right?
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;35540872]Hmm, a useful tool for narrowing down a list of suspects in a crime. THAT'S RACIST![/QUOTE]
More like they can't wrongly pin something on a minority.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35542595]the only time it's use would be ethical is if it was developed to be useful to identify enough other details about a person that it could be used effectively without collateral arrests
[/QUOTE]
It seems to me your opinion on ethical is something you conform or see as morally correct, if so then how are you going to define such a study as ethically useful?
[QUOTE=cccritical;35546015]um it's not going to frame a black person if a white person committed the crime
how is it racist if it just identifies the color of the person's skin?[/QUOTE]
that's not the problem. the problem is that the ONLY information that this DNA test can give us is race and going after people based solely on race is racial profiling, which is not ok. the only time the statement that "hey, all we know about the perpetrator is that he was black" is "useful" if you decide to start randomly arresting black people
[QUOTE=cccritical;35546015] how is it any different from identifying the gender of the person? are DNA tests also sexist?[/QUOTE]
maybe. there could be a number of conceivable scenarios in which this could be used for sex profiling.
[QUOTE=cccritical;35546015]maybe we should just outright ban DNA testing because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, right?[/QUOTE]
lol dont be a baby about this.
[editline]12th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vasili;35546579]It seems to me your opinion on ethical is something you conform or see as morally correct[/QUOTE]
yes. because that is what the word ethical means.
This was bound to happen, the generations of the civil rights era are still alive and the thoughts from that time still linger with bitterness. Along with of course the every popular racism of white Americans. It'll take time for this country to desensitize itself in both directions. Racism is starting to go from black hate to white hate from blacks. Though this is still very minimal it is seen. Honestly it all stems from how each individual interrupts the world as they grow up. In both situations in america White children and Black children can and are exposed to their parents hate for the opposite race. Any hint of that will continue in their kids unless they can differentiate their parents thoughts from their own. So back to the subject at hand, white people in positions of power have to remain sensitive to the still open wound per say of the civil rights era and be over cautious, especially in the day in age of over suing. Eventually this technology will be put to use. Just takes time and patience. Hopefully at one point well even out and it wont matter if you might racial stereotype as long as it is accurate. Progression in human thought and ideas is a long process that requires generational death. So expect these sort of situations for the next 10 -20 years.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35548640]that's not the problem. the problem is that the ONLY information that this DNA test can give us is race and going after people based solely on race is racial profiling, which is not ok. the only time the statement that "hey, all we know about the perpetrator is that he was black" is "useful" if you decide to start randomly arresting black people
maybe. there could be a number of conceivable scenarios in which this could be used for sex profiling.
lol dont be a baby about this.
[editline]12th April 2012[/editline]
yes. because that is what the word ethical means.[/QUOTE]
You have 10 suspects. 3 are black and 7 are white.
You have DNA stating that the perpetrator ABSOLUTELY HAS to be black. You have now ruled it down to three suspects.
Now let's look at another example.
You have 10 suspects. 3 are black and 7 are white.
You have 100 eyewitnesses that state that the suspect ABSOLUTELY HAS to be black. You have now ruled it down to three suspects.
WHAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM?
the method by which you would acquire those 10 suspects in the first place would almost certainly involve race anyway.
that's the problem with this. in any possible situation in which you could use this you would A: have a limited pool of suspects who were probably already identified by race via witnesses anyway or B: you have no suspects and therefore the information of their race is useless to you until you get some (>go to A)
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35550278]the method by which you would acquire those 10 suspects in the first place would almost certainly involve race anyway.
that's the problem with this. in any possible situation in which you could use this you would A: have a limited pool of suspects who were probably already identified by race via witnesses anyway or B: you have no suspects and therefore the information of their race is useless to you until you get some (>go to A)[/QUOTE]
So what's the problem? You're assuming that because they know what race the person is, they'll suddenly stop actually investigating and just start choosing people randomly.
[QUOTE=geel9;35550478]So what's the problem? You're assuming that because they know what race the person is, they'll suddenly stop actually investigating and just start choosing people randomly.[/QUOTE]
yeah that's not an assumption. the police have a really bad track record in american w/r/t people who aren't white.
[editline]13th April 2012[/editline]
i mean throughout US history "a witness has stated that the suspect was black" has generally translated to "start racially profiling black people in the area" in a lot of police precincts so I don't have any reason to think that it'll be any different if it's DNA saying that instead.
[editline]13th April 2012[/editline]
i don't even buy that this would be an effective tool against crime because unfair police treatment of minorities is one of the core elements of the institutional racism that creates the poverty and social disenfranchisement that causes crime in the first place
[QUOTE=Cushie;35541462]This isnt putting a huge emphasis on race, its purely used to determine whether or not you are looking for a black, white, hispanic person etc who committed a crime.
This cant really be abused in any way, [B]if you wanted to prove black people are more agressive or whatever in some idiotic way then this makes no difference[/B], you could just go and get the already existing crime figures which detail what race the person who did it is.
Put it this way, they have a case with witnesses, they know they are looking for a white or black guy. If they have a case with no witnesses, they can use any DNA to find out the race of the person who committed the crime to give them an idea of who to look for.[/QUOTE]
I agree with pretty much everything you say but this.
I don't see why issues like race and intelligence or race and emotion are so hugely taboo. I mean, first, as a scientist you wouldn't go out of your way to 'prove that a certain race is more 'this or that' than another'. You never attempt to 'prove' something like that in science - it's bad science. What you'd do is you'd go out and investigate whether there were any marked differences in emotional or cognitive abilities between races in relation to genetic make-up, and if so, investigate why.
But why is that inherently bad? You can't just bury your head in the sand and go, "NO WE'RE ALL EQUAL, SHUT UP!" if it turns out that's not the case. If it turned out that Caucasians were more susceptible to becoming gun-toting psychopaths than every other race due to some characteristic genes (note I said due to genes here, not due to the way we're brought up) inherent to Caucasians then I'd sure as hell want to know about it and exactly why that was the case.
If there was also proof that, as the stereotype is, Asians were more intelligent than every other race (and it turned out to be due to genetic make-up again, and not social pressure), I'd also be curious as to why exactly that was. If you could link intelligence or emotions in any specific way to gene sequences I think you'd open up the potential for a lot of ground breaking research.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35550278]the method by which you would acquire those 10 suspects in the first place would almost certainly involve race anyway.
that's the problem with this. in any possible situation in which you could use this you would A: have a limited pool of suspects who were probably already identified by race via witnesses anyway or B: you have no suspects and therefore the information of their race is useless to you until you get some (>go to A)[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you're issue with this is.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35551142]I'm not sure what you're issue with this is.[/QUOTE]
maybe you should read my posts and find out
my issue with it is that the police in america are going to abuse this power just like they abuse pretty much any other power they're given.
maybe if the world were an equal place where discrimination didn't exist this could be used for good but in the world as it exists today it's only going to end up being used poorly (IE racial profiling left and right)
[editline]13th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=sltungle;35550849]I agree with pretty much everything you say but this.
I don't see why issues like race and intelligence or race and emotion are so hugely taboo.[/QUOTE]
because there's centuries upon centuries of history of people trying to use "science" to prove that non-white races are inferior; with that garbage serving as the basis for very real examples of terrible acts of discrimination, persecution, and genocide. jesus.
[QUOTE=sltungle;35550849]I mean, first, as a scientist you wouldn't go out of your way to 'prove that a certain race is more 'this or that' than another'. You never attempt to 'prove' something like that in science - it's bad science. What you'd do is you'd go out and investigate whether there were any marked differences in emotional or cognitive abilities between races in relation to genetic make-up, and if so, investigate why.
But why is that inherently bad? You can't just bury your head in the sand and go, "NO WE'RE ALL EQUAL, SHUT UP!" if it turns out that's not the case. If it turned out that Caucasians were more susceptible to becoming gun-toting psychopaths than every other race due to some characteristic genes (note I said due to genes here, not due to the way we're brought up) inherent to Caucasians then I'd sure as hell want to know about it and exactly why that was the case.
If there was also proof that, as the stereotype is, Asians were more intelligent than every other race (and it turned out to be due to genetic make-up again, and not social pressure), I'd also be curious as to why exactly that was. If you could link intelligence or emotions in any specific way to gene sequences I think you'd open up the potential for a lot of ground breaking research.[/QUOTE]
it's nice that you're changing around your hypotheticals to be against whites or be "positive" stereotypes in order to be more palatable but it'd be a lot harder to swallow if you just stopped edging around the point and said what terrible social darwinists have been trying to use "science" to prove for centuries, again, that non-white races are inferior.
the "science" of measuring racial intelligence isn't a science at all because there is no reliable way to measure intelligence and, even if there were, there would be no way to account for the incredibly vast numbers of confounding variables, institutional biases, the myriad effects of socialization and conditioning, and just plain wrongheadedness of the task at hand.
Studies on "racial intelligence" are taboo in the mainstream field of science in the west for the same reason "creation science" and "intelligent design" are taboo: they are, at their very fundamental core, not good science at all.
Awesome! Ignoring science because you don't to seem more racist than you already are, you pig cop.
The DNA tests don't prove a correlation between race and crime; they just help build the criminal profile.
The Race Card. White People Being Oppressed and the further downfall of mankind.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35551369]it's nice that you're changing around your hypotheticals to be against whites or be "positive" stereotypes in order to be more palatable but it'd be a lot harder to swallow if you just stopped edging around the point and said what terrible social darwinists have been trying to use "science" to prove for centuries, again, that non-white races are inferior.
the "science" of measuring racial intelligence isn't a science at all because there is no reliable way to measure intelligence and, even if there were, there would be no way to account for the incredibly vast numbers of confounding variables, institutional biases, the myriad effects of socialization and conditioning, and just plain wrongheadedness of the task at hand.
Studies on "racial intelligence" are taboo in the mainstream field of science in the west for the same reason "creation science" and "intelligent design" are taboo: they are, at their very fundamental core, not good science at all.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that non-whites are any better or worse than whites, I'm not saying that people of Asian decent are actually more intelligent than other races. But if it turns out there are fundamental differences to the way we tick due to genetics are we not kind of obligated to investigate them? If you never allow these things you be investigated then you can't outright deny them as possibilities.
If we could somehow 'quantify' thins like intelligence or emotion and study the way they work across sex, race and age (and anything else you could think of) it could yield a lot of interesting results in regards to how the human mind works. But if everyone starts blurting 'racist', 'sexist' or 'ageist' we'll never know if there's anything to it.
[QUOTE=sltungle;35551608]I'm not saying that non-whites are any better or worse than whites, I'm not saying that people of Asian decent are actually more intelligent than other races. But if it turns out there are fundamental differences to the way we tick due to genetics are we not kind of obligated to investigate them? [/QUOTE]
not when the thing we're investigating is something as mercurial and subjective as "intelligence".
I honestly refuse to believe that there can be an objective measurement of "intelligence." That is my contention.
[QUOTE=sltungle;35551608]If you never allow these things you be investigated then you can't outright deny them as possibilities.[/QUOTE]
actually we totally can when it is readily apparent that the task is far beyond the purview and capabilities of modern science
[QUOTE=sltungle;35551608]If we could somehow 'quantify' thins like intelligence or emotion and study the way they work across sex, race and age (and anything else you could think of) it could yield a lot of interesting results in regards to how the human mind works. [/QUOTE]
what results? what new information could applying an arbitrary manmade metric to the performance of the human brain provide apart from the brain's measurement on that metric?
because I'm uhhh a guy who is into This Stuff and I don't buy this whole "it could shed new light on XXX" steez. I honestly don't think measuring the human brain's performance within some arbitrary ([b]and [i]necessarily[/i] flawed[/b]) metric can actually provide new any new, useful data.
[QUOTE=sltungle;35551608]But if everyone starts blurting 'racist', 'sexist' or 'ageist' we'll never know if there's anything to it.[/QUOTE]
because that's what it's been for centuries. it's really understandable and actually pretty reasonable to do that.
I don't fucking understand the problem you have. So if a witness said that the robber/whatever was white you are still going to investigate black people too because you don't want to be racist? That's retarded beyond measurement.
I guess if the robber was a female we would be investigating males too because otherwise it would be sexist.
hi there guy. read my posts again because that is not anything even vaguely resembling my argument. so much so that I think maybe instead of my posts you were reading, I dunno, maybe the latest issue of Nickelodeon magazine (avaliable wherever books are sold) instead of my posts. hey, remember that nickelodeon magazine please ad? turns out the girl from sleigh bells was in that. well I certainly hope this discussion of ours goes somewhere. i dont think it will though which is probably why i am taking so long to end this post. the moment i finish typing is the moment i again become fully aware of the futility of my endeavor because even if I manage to convince you of my point immediately after that another dude is going to come in and say the exact same thing as you and Ill feel even less inclined to explain it then and I cant keep saying "read my posts read my posts" (like, two times max) because that would make me a jackass and I dunno I guess I'm gonna just kill it here before I get carpal tunnel well bye
But you make no fucking sense. You think that the moment the race of the perpetrator is known, the police is going to arrest and charge random people from that race.
By that logic we shouldn't ask the question like "what race was he?" to witnesses because that's racial profiling. Following that we shouldn't ask the question "was it a male or female?" because that would be sex profiling. That makes no sense. Every way of narrowing down the suspect list is prejudice for you.
What I said is exactly your argument. Investigate everyone even tho we know that the perpetrator was a white female in her 20s. Because if we don't it's racial or sex profiling.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35552870]But you make no fucking sense. You think that the moment the race of the perpetrator is known, the police is going to arrest and charge random people from that race.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah they do that all the time already. I have no reason to believe they'll suddenly stop now.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35552870]By that logic we shouldn't ask the question like "what race was he?" to witnesses because that's racial profiling. Following that we shouldn't ask the question "was it a male or female?" because that would be sex profiling. That makes no sense. Every way of narrowing down the suspect list is prejudice for you.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you are completely right. It's a sad fact that the American police seem to have a problem with profiling but they totally do and until the systemic racism gets rooted out of the american justice system then anything that could conceivably assist racial profiling [B]IS[/B] going to be used for racial profiling.
I'm glad we're in complete agreement on this.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35548640]
yes. because that is what the word ethical means.[/QUOTE]
Then really that's void statement and you might as well said 'in my opinion', seeing as your ethics might be completely different to others. I brought that up because usually when I see people saying ethical its in reference to seeing their opinion as correct, like a cultural morality - not to be a smart arse.
To your other statement I think this would be a good tool to use in crime when collecting DNA to detail what the suspects race would be, I don't know why this would be wrong to do though; what could be racially manipulating about it?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.