Clark Baker—of Los Angeles—wrote in to complain about Matt’s recent coverage of racial profiling, like his piece this week on the 2006 traffic stop data, which shows that a disproportionate number of African Americans and Latinos are still being stopped by cops.

Clark calls bullshit, in a kneejerk conservative fashion:

What the author failed to assess are the demographics of crime and local population.

For example, if Portland’s Latino population is at 20%, but 45 percent of all reported crimes indicate Latino suspects, that is relevant data. If whites are committing 4 percent of Portland’s crimes, racial profiling countermeasures would force officers to either ignore criminal behavior, or initiate random stops. Either way, the only way to level the traffic stop data is to force officers to use race as a significant factor in the development of “probable cause,” e.g., the politicians who force this issue will require that cops use racial profiling.

Translation: Clark thinks it’s entirely possible that whites, which make up 78 percent of Portland’s population, are committing “4 percent of Portland’s crimes.” His numbers are obviously exaggerated, but even if he presumed that whites are committing just 30 percent of all crime, when they make up 78 percent of the population, it stands to reason that cops should pull whites over less, right?. Conversely, the cops should focus their resources on who’s actually committing more of the crimes, according to Clark.

That might make sense, if the system weren't a mess at the back end. For starters, I can't think of any other way to measure the "demographics of crime" than by looking at who's been arrested or convicted (because criminality certainly isn't in your DNA). Cops certainly don't have a suspect description for every crime (I'll call and find out how often they do get a suspect description—I'm guessing maybe half the time, at most. But think of all those car prowls and petty thefts—not to mention traffic crimes, like running red lights and driving like a maniac—that go unnoticed by anyone, or have scant information if a police report is ever filed.

But the stats of who's getting arrested, convicted, or sentenced can't possibly be an accurate measure of who's committing crime—not everyone gets arrested or convicted, and I have a hunch that whites have an easier time not getting caught/convicted than their Latino or African American neighbors do. Oregon's prison population, as of November 2006, was 76 percent white (while Oregon's population is a staggering 90.8 percent white), 10 percent African American (while the state population is a meager 1.8 percent) and 10.6 percent Latino (Latinos make up 9.9 percent of the population).

Does that mean 76 percent of crime is committed whites? I really doubt it. I bet it's a lot closer to 90 percent. But until every person who's actually guilty of a crime is caught and the justice system treats everyone equally, we aren't going to have an accurate picture of "the demographics of crime." And to make up those demographics based on who is caught is simply unfair, and astoundingly naive.

Scott broke it down ever further this afternoon: "How do you come up with the figures for, say, the percentage of crime white people commit? By looking at who gets caught. And how do you get caught? By being pulled over. It's so circular it's mindblowing."

Meanwhile, even if you accept Clark's logic, the data is still flawed: If prisoners are a good indication of "the demographics of crime," then we'll go with that 76 percent number. Whites commit 76 percent of all crime, based on prison populations, in Clark's world. So then why did the most recent traffic stop data show that the driver was white in only 66 percent of stops? Meanwhile, African Americans—roughly ten percent of the prison population each—were pulled over in 14 percent of stops last year. Sorry Clark—your math doesn't add up either way. Because the underlying assumptions are severely flawed.

Clark's sign off:

Racial profiling is the “Global Warming” issue of law enforcement – and just as ridiculous. Clark Baker http://exlibhollywood.blogspot.com www.CaliforniaConservative.org www.CopTalkLA.com