Victor Reppert has made a shocking discovery. Thankfully, it took a man of his philosophical acumen to ferret this out. Reppert just discovered that laws disproportionately impact lawbreakers. Yes, you heard me right. Laws discriminate against outlaws. They have the insidious potential to single out non-law abiding citizens.
For example, laws against drunk driving single out drivers. By contrast, laws against DUI don’t profile joggers or swimmers–only drivers.
It’s appalling that in this day and age we still have such pernicious laws on the books. Time to stage a protest. Riot in the streets.
"Reppert just discovered that laws disproportionately impact lawbreakers."
ReplyDeleteIs this true? If so, Reppert's not very smart.
Hence, if a law is typically broken by a certain group, that group will on one level be disproportionately affected by the law. So the mere fact of disproportionate impact doesn't show that there is any invidious profiling.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is possible that a law might have a disproportionate impact of one group as opposed to another that affects people who don't break the law. In other words, if a law, say, the law against illegal border-crossing, is violated by Hispanics far more than any other group, then if we try to catch them, there will of course be a completely benign disproportionate impact.
However, that doesn't dispel all objections to profiling, as some people seem to think that it does. It might turn out that a law not only affects law-breaking Hispanics, but also law-abiding Hispanics. If, let's say, the Maricopa County Sheriff were to perform a "crime sweep" in largely lower-class Hispanic areas as a sort of fishing expedition for illegal immigrants, using other statutes as a pretext for making stops that might lead to a paper check and a possible deportation, what we will find is that many law-abiding Hispanics will be caught in the net. Even if the vast majority of illegals are Hispanics, the majority of Hispanics are here legally.
Now, we can argue from here that the disproportionate impact on law-abiding Hispanics as opposed to law-abiding Anglos and African-Americans is a price worth paying to crack down on illegal immigration. That would be another argument. However, the implicit argument in this kind of statement, that the charge of racial profiling is invariably trivial, doesn't work.
Disproportionate Impact
ReplyDeleteYou boycott Arizona. We boycott you.
The police aim their radar at all the auto's in traffic, and when the radar determines that an auto is violating the law that auto is ticketed. We don't criticize the cop or the radar for checking the speed of drivers who are not speeding, do we?
ReplyDeleteI believe it is true that if one informs to the US CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AGENCY of an illegal alien's presence in the community and they investigate the tip and it is true, arresting and deporting the lawbreaker back to their country, the tipster is entitled to be rewarded with a reward for that tip.
ReplyDeleteThat hasn't been incentive enough for the Hispanic community, though. Why not? Is it because there seems to be a deeper voice of injustice being heard within or is it a fear of retribution from the legal alien community?
Obviously, I am not detained by a speed gun.
ReplyDeleteVictor, have you read the law? http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
ReplyDeleteYes, I have a printout of it. And on my own blog I offered a gloss on the concept of reasonable suspicion that might alleviate at least some of the objections.
ReplyDeleteDo you mind telling what is specifically in the law (so that I can read it as well) that you object to?
ReplyDeleteWell, my main concern is with the "reasonable suspicion" clause. That strikes me as horribly vague. Some people think that when they see a lower-class Hispanic-looking person who speaks Spanish much better than English, then we can reasonably suspect that they are illegal immigrants. We already have a county Sheriff who goes fishing for illegal immigrants.
ReplyDeleteIn our state, most illegals are Hispanics, but most Hispanics are not illegals. If you define your conception of what it takes to have reasonable suspicion, and on my blog I made an un-remarked-upon recommendation that we have reasonable suspicion just in case we have objective criteria leading to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the person is illegal, then you could at least eliminate the worst of the profiling problems. You can't just stop a Hispanic and make an immigration status inquiry, because being Hispanic is not sufficient for it to be more than 50% likely that the person is here illegally.
But if you go that way, I am not sure how many illegal immigrants you are going to succeed in deporting based on this law.
It isn't just a racial issue; most illegal immigrants make less money than people here legally, and they are more likely to be monolingual Spanish speakers or poor English speakers than their legal counterparts. But if these criteria are going to be sufficient to justify and immigration inquiry then, since such in inquiry is considerably discommoding to its object, it runs afoul of a basic conviction that law-abiding citizens should not be treated differently by the government because of race, color, or national origin.
If these criteria are not sufficient, then I have doubts as to whether the law will actually get much of anybody deported. So my "fifty per cent solution" may result in the law not result in invidious profiling, but it might also render the law ineffective.
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
ReplyDeleteWhat is vague about that section?
It's vague because I don't know what reasonable suspicion means. Do you need a preponderance of the evidence in order to have reasonable suspicion. Does the officer have to have good reason to believe that it is more likely than not that the person is an illegal alien?
ReplyDeleteIs there anything that makes it clear that appearing to be Mexican, being a member of the lower class, and failure to either speak English or speak English well, all broadly ethnic features that many residents of Arizona have, sufficient to generate a reasonable suspicion. What safeguards the law from being interpreted in this way? Are we going to have to go through a round of court cases before anybody has any idea of what reasonable suspicion means? If you say "Let the courts decide," then I never want to see the words "judicial activism" come out of your word processor again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing how people can just quote the bill as if it is perfectly clear what it means or what it is going to do. As if we have no clear idea of how it is supposed to be interpreted.
ReplyDeleteSimilar bills have resulted in legal challenges and massive legal fees. Does the phrase "tort reform" mean anything to you?