![]() ![]() Instead, the key question for purposes of the empirical, policy, and constitutional analyses is: What are the conditions under which it is justifiable to use race in policing? The key statistics, it turns out, are the comparative elasticities of offending to policing and the relative offending rates of the different racial groups. The key question is not whether racial profiling maximizes the success rate of searches, and the key statistic is not the comparative hit rate by race associated with those searches. ![]() The problem is, the debate is asking the wrong question and tracking the wrong statistic. It is also focusing increasingly on the issue of policing efficiency. The debate over racial profiling on the highways is becoming increasingly empirical, technical, and engaged. Meanwhile many constitutional commentators decry racial profiling on the highways as "plainly unconstitutional," while courts draw technical legal distinctions to easily dispose of civil suits alleging racial profiling on the roads. They argue that equal hit rates merely reflect similar offending patterns by race and thus that the disproportionate searches are racially biased. Civil liberties advocates are scrutinizing the same data and, in most cases, reaching opposite conclusions. Economists are developing new models of racial profiling to test whether the data are consistent with policing efficiency or racial prejudice, and argue that equal hit rates reflect that the police are maximizing the success rate of their searches. The new data reveal consistently disproportionate searches of minority motorists, but, very often, an equal or lower general success rate - or "hit rate" - associated with those searches. New data on highway stops and searches from across the country have spawned renewed debate over racial profiling on the roads. The authors hope that the results of state policy experiments that provide evidence for the viability of harm reduction, quality treatment, and related approaches can be a viable part of the national policy discussion. With a new presidential administration, there is some indication that drug policy reform may be a national issue as part of the federal health reform agenda. In addition, there has been considerable state-level policy focus on substance abuse treatment quality. The resulting state-level drug policy landscape includes continued prohibition as well as harm reduction, medicalization, and decriminalization. During this period, state initiatives have been in the forefront of drug policy experimentation via ballot initiatives, legislative actions, or judicial and administrative policy decisions. In recent years, there has been little federal interest in drug policy reform and a continuing focus on a prohibitionist deterrence approach. ![]() The history of United States drug policy is complex, ranging from laissez-faire to strict prohibition. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |