Hacker News Reader

Comment by nodesocket | Hacker News Reader

“encounters with the police, especially for people of color.”

Huh? How is enforcing people not dart out into streets and hit by cars racist or biased?

I assume because of selective enforcement. The more that we make normal everyday events technically illegal, the more likely the police will have to pick and choose what they enforce and what they let slide. Then you have ample opportunity for that discretion to be applied in a discriminatory way.

Sure, but why make a specific point about that with jaywalking? Can't that argument be made for just about any crime? Just seems like a useless red herring to make it about race when it doesn't need to be; it's a related but separate issue to whether jaywalking should be a crime in the first place.

I think "is this something that often reinforces racial discrepancies" is a useful thing to know when evaluating should it be a crime in the first place. I think it's another point in the "con" column of having harsher treatment for it.

Because jaywalking is very frequently used by police to target communities of color. As an example, 90% of the jaywalking citations given in NYC in 2019 were issued to people of color.

Furthermore: Police use the jaywalking as an excuse to perform more invasive searching.

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/versace-shoe-designer-says-...

"You were Jaywalking, so I'm going to check you for Weapons / Weed / etc. etc."

----------

I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it.

I recognize that racial profiling happens, even in urban centers where Police are given plenty of anti-racism training. I don't know what to do about that however, aside from making people at least aware of the issue.

Police need some leeway to do their job correctly. But whenever its because "I smell weed" or "You were Jaywalking", that just makes people angry and is counterproductive.

> I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it.

why exactly? it's hard for me to imagine a situation where a cop reasonably needs to detain someone but can't come up with even one possible charge.

We all agree with random DUI checks, right? They're pretty effective at scaring off DUI-attempts.

not quite sure if you're being sarcastic, as this is a fairly controversial topic. just for the record, my personal position is that the police should not be stopping or detaining anyone without at least reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or about to be committed. "effective at scaring people off from doing X" is not a sufficient justification.

I'm not being sarcastic. I understand that in the abstract, people talk about all sorts of situations that may or may not be grounded in reality. Which is why I point out real life situations and real life case.

I don't think I've ever met someone who has campaigned against random DUI checkpoints. You're not allowed to leave until you've completed the DUI-test at the checkpoint. There was no evidence for a crime. So under most definitions of "detained" or "detention", it seems to fit the bill.

I've heard that DUI measures can be too strict or that gaining a criminal record from DUIs is too harsh, but never really heard complaints about police enforcement of this particular issue. (DUI leading to jailtime is more of a judge / jury issue than a police officer issue anyway).

Is it possible that "people of color" account for 90% of the total people who jaywalked in NYC in 2019? Unless all data and all variables in the argument are made available for inspection, it is difficult to derive any meaningful conclusions.

> Is it possible that "people of color" account for 90% of the total people who jaywalked in NYC in 2019?

No.

I cannot say this in strong enough terms: every single person in NYC jaywalks.

Jaywalk ticketing is part of a longstanding policy of the NYPD, which is to use any occasion that presents itself to frisk people they deem "suspicious." The NYPD's definition of "suspicious," in turn, looks a lot like a colorwheel.

There's different levels of jaywalking. There's walking across the streets when there's no car and everyone is doing it. And then there's the crazies who walk across open traffic on a green light where there are cars speeding along causing accidents. A large percent of the homeless and drug addicts in cities are minorities.

> A large percent of the homeless and drug addicts in cities are minorities.

I'm sorry, but what exactly are we supposed to derive from this claim? That unprompted police frisking under the pretense of jaywalking is acceptable so long as the jaywalker is a member of a vulnerable class?

In the case of Baltimore, it certainly seems that way.

the city is 63% black, so I guess they have a head start. I certainly see plenty of white folks jaywalking in fed, roland park, etc.

So is speeding.

>As an example, 90% of the jaywalking citations given in NYC in 2019 were issued to people of color.

Do you have a citation for that? Apparently, another poster did[0] have a citation.

In a three month period 80 people were cited for "illegal crossing" in a city of 8.5 million. I can tell you that at least half of those 8.5 million folks jaywalked in that same period.

I've lived in NYC since 1966 and I've never seen anyone receive a citation for jaywalking.

What's more, "jaywalking" in NYC is generally referred to as "crossing the street."

In the busiest of intersections, it's often useful to wait for the light, but that's no guarantee that the operators of vehicles will yield -- even if the signal is against them.

As such, I generally don't even look at the traffic signals; I watch the traffic coming my way and only cross if it's safe to do so, regardless of the status of the signal.

In fact, crossing at a marked intersection with the signal is no guarantee of not getting struck by an automobile. I'm at least as vigilant when crossing in a crosswalk with the light as when I cross against the light or in the middle of the street.

[0] https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-...

Edit: Added link to answer my own question about citations for jaywalking and added ancillary verbiage as to the rarity of such citations.

> Can't that argument be made for just about any crime?

No. The argument is only effective for crimes that a large percentage of people do frequently but which is only seldomly enforced with criminal sanctions.

And I am hard pressed to find any crime fitting that description that I would not be in favor of eliminating. I'm perfectly happy to start with jaywalking.

No, the argument only applies to "crimes" that are very commonly committed. It isn't a racist law in itself but it allows racism to flourish.

This, I don't get. It's quite common to point out the systemic racism in law enforcement when it comes to many common crimes. Why is it that people in this thread are speaking as if this can only be applied to jaywalking? It comes off as very dishonest. At some point, it made sense to enough people that jaywalking have a penalty that it was written into law, and it wasn't because a bunch of people agreed that it would allow cops to punish more black people. Doesn't mean they were right, but it's hardly different from an intent perspective than any other crime on the books. The only difference between jaywalking and speeding(another common way to be pulled over while black/brown) is that far fewer people consider it reasonable.

Is it just because jaywalking is hardly a crime, thus its only conceivable utility is in discrimination? I'm just trying to understand what you're getting at.

I think you're getting a bit confused. Nobody is saying that crimes like jaywalking were created for racists. The racism is an unexpected side effect.

It's an example of a minor infraction, and police are most likely able to use their discretion with this type of lawbreaking. Other more serious crimes will almost definitely require a charge.

The fact that their discretion overwhelmingly leads to the racial bias described, shows a situation where police behaviour needs to change.

It's important to highlight it for this reason.

Yes, the argument can be made for any rarely-enforced law on the books. But if the people fighting injustice are inspired to do so based on injustice against a specific group, then you should examine your own motivations before discouraging them.

I'm generally opposed to such racism, but it's not like there is a good alternative in these times. It's unfortunate that the campaign against police unaccountability has crystallized around "Black Lives Matter", but it's hard to dispute that Blacks have been feeling most of the pain. If "All Lives Matter" were an alternative non-racist campaign against police unaccountability then we could debate the merits of each. Alas it's just a reactionary stand to maintain the status quo.

Creating laws that almost everyone breaks and then enforcing them selectively is a great way to hide bias and racism.

Edit: See also - loitering.

Unfortunately this is very correct.

Yep, or hell even ridiculously low highway speed limits in some states, where everyone goes 10+ over.

But I think it's also just ensuring a ready and plentiful supply of fines for fundraising.

Same reason enforcing random pat-downs for illicit substances, or traffic stops for speeding, racist or biased. Because the people enforcing it are biased, and often racist.

That's exactly why it's phrased as reducing encounters with police, because police encounters are disproportionately negative (or hostile) for people of color. Has nothing to do with the actual infraction.

Of course, you'd know this if you'd paid any attention to the news, considering it's currently the third most major political issue US.

It’s a minor crime which people of color tend to be disproportionately cited for.

Isn’t the real causation here that they’re lower class? I would imagine high-class blacks don’t often get ticketed for jaywalking.

Lower-class people tend to walk more for reasons related to expensive car maintenance. Are blacks more often lower-class? Sure, but that’s a different issue entirely.

While that's interesting conjecture, it doesn't bear out in reality in this case. From an article linked elsewhere in this chain[1]:

>From Jan. 1 to March 31, the NYPD wrote 80 tickets for illegal crossing — less than one a day in a city of more than eight million people — and only one went to a person identified in police logs as “white.”

So unless you think the "lower class" is 98% people of color, it's clear that the bias here is race-based, not inherent in the population.

[1] https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-...

Right but we have no way of knowing how many walkers were blacks, how many black and white walkers actually jaywalked, and how many walkers of each race got let off on warnings.

It’s a nice talking point, I’ll grant you, but it won’t hold up to scrutiny on HN.

>how many black and white walkers actually jaywalked

Are you seriously proposing that 98% people of color could be a representative sample of jaywalkers, or are you a bad troll? That pretty clearly shows a bias in the level of policing.

Drawing conclusions with incomplete information is irresponsible, no matter how good the intentions.

You have incomplete information.

As I said, all you have to do is spend an hour (or even ten minutes) in midtown Manahattan to see that everyone jaywalks all the time in NYC.

I hate to break it to you, but in NYC, nearly everyone, regardless of ethnicity or melanin content, jaywalks.

In fact, we don't call it jaywalking, we call it "crossing the street."

And the fact that out of 8.5 million people, only 80 were cited and 79 of those were people of color (and all 80 male), it's not only obvious that such citations are motivated by something other than "routine" law enforcement, but it's clearly just a trumped up charge to stop someone they wanted to stop anyway.

Spend an hour in midtown Manhattan and you'll see that's absolutely the case.

It would be foolish to deny that stratification of classes is not reinforced by selective enforcement. However, cases such as Henry Louis Gates's arrest show that even the rich are not immune to racial profiling.

Its not a different issue entirely. Saying that is wrong and its harmful. Our "class system" is defined by the deliberately racist history from which it is derived. Communities of color are not disproportionately poor (and visa versa) by misfortune, random chance, or defect, but by several hundred years of cruel oppression and discrimination. Its factually and morally wrong to promote an idea that laws which predominantly target the poor are not also disproportionately targeting PoC, or that poverty in america and racism in america are "different issue(s) entirely".

> All but one of the jaywalking tickets issued by NYPD cops in the first quarter of this year went to blacks or Hispanics

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-...

It looks like non-hispanic whites have much lower rates of pedestrian deaths than other demographics, this indicates that other groups are likely walking in riskier areas, or in more dangerous ways, and may explain some of the 'disparity in ticketing'.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6939a7.htm

Quick check in NYC shows that there were 1.7 deaths / 100K for black folks and 1.8 for white folks between 2012 and 2014. Given the urban/suburban breakdown by race, I'd be inclined to limit the geography to not include, say... Wyoming. Comparing NYC is also valuable given the variance in enforcement of jaywalking along racial lines that we explicitly know about thanks to their open data policies.

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/epi/databrief8...

Walking in riskier areas you say? I wonder how that happens... It wouldn't have anything to do with building highways through non white neighborhoods, would it?

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-...

That's the problem with criminalizing basic activities like walking. Law enforcement becomes the entity that decides who gets in trouble for breaking the law.

Selective enforcement?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com