...All Law enforcement's "human" emotions/racism/bigotry (you name it) were no longer an issue. Would every race be arrested equally in said hypothetic? What do you think? I'll defer my own opinion till later.
Hypothetically speaking, while claims of racist police practices may be eliminated, such an approach would ensure a zero tolerance approach to crime, with petty offenses being addressed to the same degree severe offenses would be addressed. Littering, loitering, vagrancy, jaywalking, etc. they would all be targeted under this supposed system, as the human element would be removed, and automated functions would treat all crimes equally.
I agree misdemeanors could possibly have more of an equal footing for most races/cultures. I myself think that heavy handed felony crimes would stay in line with the current percentages. So in that respect I think having non-human (emotionless) LEO's would not make a significant difference.
No, races would not be proportionally represented. That crime rates differ (not necessarily due to race) is well known.
I'd imagine that there would be a lot more politicians going to jail. Require robots for judges, and you'll be seeing a whole lot more politicians to to prison. Would it result in fewer blacks going to prison? No, probably a lot more. Like that movie bonfire of the vanities, the whole justice system would love to be a lot more politically correct, but the fact is, there aren't that many great white hopes. They do what they can, but for the most part, white guys just aren't that angry or racist.
...now another thought comes to mind. Could a particular part of the population commit less crimes because they would feel that equal rights were in play? Is it possible that anger could be quelled resulting in less crime from a particular segmented populace?
From the get-go I stated this is all hypothetical? Bottom line if human emotions were not part of Policing would it make any difference at all? What I'm trying to get to is if crime rates are heavily skewed because of human emotion from the authoritative side of the equation?
No. Logic and reason have one big weakness to them that many ignore. They too can be used to justify anything anybody wants. Because some people will listen to a verbose and eloquent argument more than they will a short statement without critically thinking about the claims and assertions within the argument. in short, if it sounds good, then it must be true. And nothing can be further from the truth. Jsut because something is eloquent or verbose doesn't mean it is correct and true. And that's the thing. independent thought leads to independent conclusions. So, I think the actions and the amounts of the actions that are happening will not change, but will just get renamed. Just my 2 cents worth anyhoo.
Tram I had to read this a few times to get the point you are making. But could you clarify your last statement a bit more? When you say "actions" are you referring to actual crime per se or the perception of it?
How many robots would you put in high crime zones and inner cities and how many would be patrolling Beverly Hills? If the robots handled ALL crime the same way most of the population would be arrested within a year or less. Was your intention to see if minorities would fair better or worse? I'd say probably worse since rich white people really don't need to commit crimes while inner city minorities might have to in order to survive, buy drugs, or whatever.
Quite an interesting way to phrase it. Well unless the police chiefs and mayors (who have tremendous influence over police chiefs) were also robots, their patrols would still be affected. One of the common complaints is that police are sent to patrol areas that are predominantly minority areas - just coincidentally areas that are also high crime areas. :/ The idea behind the complaint is that these areas are high crime because the cops are in those areas looking for my crime. In my opinion, those high crime areas are high crime areas... because there is more crime committed there. There is the poverty factor, but there is also a cultural factor that contributes to certain areas - commonly areas with high minority populations - to have high rates of the commission of crimes. Programming isn't that difficult. If you could program a robot to replace a cop, you could program it to handle different violations differently.
I'm curious, why "rich white people"? Do you think that "rich black people" have any more need to commit crimes than rich white people? And you said simply "inner city minorities" - so do you think that a black doctor living in Minneapolis has more need to commit a crime than a white person - perhaps also a doctor, maybe working at the same clinic? My point here is that while we see economic lines often falling along racial lines, they are still economic lines. The idea that a destitute black person has more need to turn to crime than a destitute white person is one that seems to, even if not said, be readily accepted by many people, and I find it to be completely without merit. The racial disparities which exist in crime and arrests exist primarily because of economic disparities, secondly because of cultural disparities. Case in point - Jews, Asians, Mormons - these groups don't have a history of being warmly welcomed in America. In fact even after the Holocaust Jews were still widely discriminated against in America. But if blacks are so poorly off because they have been discriminated against for not being "white" (white here defined not as a skin color but as a part of the predominant and accepted culture), then why have these other minorities done so well? In fact most minority groups, apart from blacks and Hispanics, have done very well in the U.S., and they have historically been discriminated against. Therefore, the idea that blacks are less well off simply because of historical discrimination just doesn't hold up. When you look at them as compared to these other minorities which have been successful there is just one thing that markedly separates them - culture. Asians, Jews, and Mormons have long had cultures which fostered education, hard work, etc., and so they have been and continue - despite prejudices existing even today - have been so successful. 1st generation Africans are far more likely to succeed and rise out of poverty than African-Americans who have been here for centuries, and it is (IMO) because of a cultural gap.
I knew that comment would raise eyebrows, but I threw that in there for the extreme contrast it provides in this scenario, all of it stereotypical and, of course, hypothetical.
Both. And it all depends on what you mean by crime as well. For example, take the issue of Chick Fil A. Liberals claimed that it is forcing its religious beliefs on to its employees (by not proving four forms of birth control because they considered them abortifacients). This is a crime, and it also is bearing false witness. Because it simply was not true that Chick FIl A was imposing its religious beliefs on to others. It is a lie to say so, and it is a crime ebcause people can be sued for slander, libel, and defamation of character. The Bible calls that bearing false witness. Does that clarify things for you? And couldn't the perception of a crime be a crime in and of itself as well?
