Et nyt blik på raceforskelle i politiets brug af dødbringende magt

Et af de vigtigste sociale spørgsmål i de sidste fem år er fatale politiskyderier på sorte amerikanere.

Bekymringen for, at politiet fatalt skyder sorte med højere hastigheder end hvide, har givet anledning til et stærkt fremstød for afdelingsdækkende interventioner for politibetjente. Sådanne indgreb, normalt i form af "implicit bias" træning, stole på at ændre den overbevisning, som officerer har om minoriteter, som et middel til at reducere denne racemæssige forskel.

Men er de antagelser, der ligger til grund for disse indgreb, rimelige? Er der stærke beviser for, at fejlagtig beslutningstagning er ansvarlig for raceforskellene i fatale politiskyderier?

Der er tydelige beviser for raceforskelle i dødelige politiskyderier med hensyn til befolkningsforhold. Sorte amerikanere er kun omkring 13 procent af befolkningen, men udgør over 30 procent af de mennesker, der er dødeligt skudt af politiet.

Det er ud fra disse beviser, at mange nyhedsmedier og aktivister konkluderer, at politibetjente er raceorienterede i deres beslutninger om at skyde. Hvis dette er sandt, så giver det god mening at målrette officersbias.

Men er det virkelig den rigtige sammenligning at sammenligne procenterne af sorte og hvide skudt med procentdelen af ​​sorte og hvide i befolkningen? Fortæller det os, hvad vi har brug for at vide om, hvordan vi kan reducere fatale politiskyderier?

Mine kolleger og jeg har ekspertise i beslutningstagning og politianvendelse. Vi testede, om disse sammenligninger på befolkningsniveau giver os den information, vi har brug for for at reducere politiskyderier. Vores seneste arbejde, udgivet i Social Psychological and Personality Science, afslører et andet syn på politiets skævhed.

Betydningen af ​​benchmarks

Brug af sammenligninger på befolkningsniveau som et benchmark for beviser for officers racemæssige skævhed bygger på antagelsen om, at folk af alle racer er lige involveret i situationer, hvor betjente sandsynligvis vil bruge dødbringende magt. Vi hævder, at denne antagelse har ført til en fejldiagnosticering af problemet, og i forlængelse heraf, løsninger, der ikke virker.

Overvej følgende eksempel:Forestil dig, at du vil vide, om der er raceforskel i, hvem der modtager kræftbehandling. Du oplever, at blandt dem, der modtager behandling, sorte udgør 13 pct. Sammenligner man dette med den samlede befolkning på 13 procent, du ville konkludere, at der ikke eksisterede nogen racemæssig forskel.

Men antag, at du lærer, at sorte udgør 75 procent af mennesker med kræft. Du vil helt sikkert konkludere, at der er racemæssig forskel i at modtage behandling. Det er fordi den relevante pulje er dem, der har brug for behandling, ikke den almindelige befolkning.

Mere tilbøjelige til at blive skudt, i forhold til hvad?

Som med kræfteksemplet ovenfor, det er afgørende at vælge det korrekte benchmark eller pulje af individer at sammenligne et resultat med.

I tilfælde af politiskyderier, beviserne er klare, at dræbende skyderier er stærkt knyttet til situationer, hvor der begås voldelig kriminalitet eller mistænkes for at blive begået. Et typisk fatalt politiskyderi opstår, når der er potentiale for forestående død for en betjent eller anden borger. Næsten 85 procent af politiets dødsskyderier involverer bevæbnede borgere.

I betragtning af dette, vi kan spørge, "Bliver sorte skudt mere end hvide givet deres tilstedeværelse i situationer, hvor der er sandsynlighed for, at politiskyderier finder sted?"

For at besvare spørgsmålet, mine kolleger og jeg analyserede den største database over dødelige politiskyderier til dato, The Guardians database over politiskyderier, De tællede. Det dækker alle kendte skyderier fra 2015 til 2016. Vi beregnede oddsene for at blive skudt for sorte og hvide givet voldskriminalitetsrater for hver gruppe, som vi etablerede ved at bruge 16 forskellige mål for kriminalitet på tværs af fire databaser. Vi brugte disse forskellige kriminalitetsrater som et middel til at estimere tilstedeværelse i dødbringende magtsituationer.

Man kan spørge, "Bruger anholdelsesdata ikke til at vurdere kriminalitetsrater forkert, i betragtning af, at politiet er mere tilbøjelige til at overvåge sorte samfund og arrestere sorte borgere?"

Hvis politiet er mere tilbøjelige til at arrestere sorte borgere end hvide borgere – uden nogen egentlige raceforskelle i kriminel adfærd – ville dette øge kriminalitetsestimaterne for sorte og ville forvride vores resultater.

For at håndtere dette, we also looked at a different set of data to measure crime – death by assault records from the Centers for Disease Control. These data are derived from death certificates. Whether police are more likely to arrest one race or another for, sige, homicide would have no impact on the CDC's counts for how often members of each race die from assault. Dermed, the data provide a way to estimate rates of violent crime that is not biased from police arrest decisions (although it is possible that this data could be subject to other kinds of errors).

When we considered the rates at which people from different groups are likely to be present in these contexts, a different picture emerged.

The differences in involvement in criminal situations between black and white citizens fully explains the population-level disparity in fatal police shootings.

This suggests that officer bias – in terms of officers making different shooting decisions for black and white citizens – is not necessarily the cause of black citizens being shot at higher rates. Even if officers were making the same decisions about whether to use deadly force for black and white citizens, population-level disparities would still emerge given these crime rate differences.

What about shootings of unarmed citizens? The results were too uncertain to draw firm conclusions one way or another. This is because the number of fatal shootings in which a citizen is unarmed and not assaulting an officer is small – about 6 percent of all fatal shootings, or 45 people every year.

For at være klar, there is a population-level racial disparity in fatal police shootings. But our work suggests this disparity is explained by differences in rates of exposure to the police, rather than racial bias by officers making deadly force decisions.

Now what?

These results may help explain why department-wide implicit bias training has not been – and will not be – effective. It is not addressing the root of the problem. The notion that all officers across the profession are biased in this important decision is not supported by the data.

I stedet, our research suggests two paths for reducing fatal police shootings and reducing the population-level gap in these shootings.

Først, the most effective means of reducing police shootings would be to reduce violent crime, particularly crimes involving firearms. While this may seem obvious, the point has been lost in most public discussions. The decision to shoot usually happens in certain contexts – reducing the frequency of those events will directly reduce police shootings.

På samme tid, it would also reduce police shootings of innocent unarmed citizens who live in neighborhoods with high rates of violent crime. One recent example is the case of Akai Gurley, an unarmed black man who was killed by police patrolling a public housing building in New York City with high rates of violent crime. Reducing violent crime rates would reduce the expectation that officers have of encountering armed individuals in such locations, likely reducing such mistakes.

Sekund, researchers need to develop tools that accurately identify those few officers who do show robust evidence of racial bias and identify which psychological processes are responsible for such bias. Officers might treat black and white citizens differently due to implicit bias, explicit racism, or even something much more basic such as low skill at visually distinguishing harmless objects from guns.

Targeted interventions, based on a scientific understanding of bias, are needed – not blanket, untested interventions based on faulty assumptions. Our lab has recently been awarded a National Science Foundation grant to develop such interventions.

All research has limitations, and ours is no exception. Our analyses look at national data and cannot speak to any individual case or police officer. I øvrigt, there is robust evidence of racial bias in other use-of-force behaviors, such as Taser use – just not the use of deadly force. Anti-bias training might be effective in stemming these racially-biased policing behaviors.

Endelig, the question of why crime rates are different across racial groups in the U.S. is a complicated question beyond the scope of this research, and thus we do not speak to this issue. Ikke desto mindre, we believe that any research that can suggest new and innovative interventions to address this important problem should be encouraged.

Denne artikel blev oprindeligt publiceret på The Conversation. Læs den originale artikel.