On police, just the facts
Are some police officers racist? Is law enforcement unfairly skewed against African Americans and Latinos? Are police profiling people by race? Are they disproportionately killing non-whites? More than a few people believe the answer to all of these questions is “yes,” a view that has grown more common as a result of the highprofile killings of young, unarmed black men by police in the past year.
But conjecture is dangerous without cold, hard facts. And those are in short supply.
That’s why two data-gathering efforts in California are so important and deserve full support by lawmakers, law enforcement and the public. The first is an online portal, known as Open Justice, launched by state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris this month that for the first time makes data about who is arrested and killed by police in the state easily accessible to the public.
This will bring some reason, logic and data to the emotional and often hyperbolic debate over police killings. Like this: Between 2005 and 2014, about 900 people were killed by police during the arrest process in California. And this: African Americans under 18 are almost 20% more likely to be booked after an arrest than white juveniles.
When the portal was announced, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck applauded it, noting that the LAPD was a data-driven organization. But Beck and most other law enforcement officials aren’t so keen on the second data-collecting effort, a bill that would require officers to report the perceived race or ethnicity of people they stop over the next five years. The data would be collected and analyzed by the state. The bill, AB 953 by Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), is due for a final vote in the Legislature this week.
Opponents argue that the proposal isn’t workable because there’s no mechanism in place to report the data, and that it will cost tens of millions of dollars. Those arguments are suspect for many reasons, starting with the fact that the state’s three largest police agencies — the LAPD, the L.A. County Sheriff ’s Department and the California Highway Patrol — already collect racial information during stops with no apparent hardship. And there’s a phase-in period to make it easier for smaller departments. Finally, the state of Connecticut was able to undertake a similar data-reporting project in 2008 for $150,000.
How the data collected will be used is another concern — and a valid one. That is why the advisory board created as part of this bill is absolutely necessary. Composed of community and law enforcement advocates, academics and civil rights organizations, the advisory board will be responsible for working out the details of the data collection and how it will be analyzed and discussed.
Data alone can’t solve problems, but they have to be part of a solution. You can’t fix a problem until you know what it is.