Wednesday, 5 October 2011

Following on from the rape of the 12-year-old girl in Sweden yesterday, in which the police refused to divulge information about the person's race, here is another example of this disturbing practice from Belgium: an 83-year-old woman raped in her home. After raping her, he orders her to make him dinner. She refuses, so he helps himself from the fridge. As he's leaving, he defecates in her garden and rubs his excrement into one of her garden chairs.
“He came through my bathroom window and came into my bedroom. He closed my window so no one could hear me scream”, she recalls.

The young man threatened her with a knife. “He quickly dropped it and raped me. I have been a widow since I was 49 and I have never had a lover. Imagine how I suffered. I cried and cried, I suffered so much.

This is the description issued:
20 to 25 years old, the suspect is of slim build. He has short brown hair and a tattoo on his left arm. At the time of the events, he was wearing a multi-coloured jersey.

So they'll discuss the colour of his jersey but not the colour of his skin, even though he can remove his jersey very easily. In multi-racial societies, skin colour is the most obvious distinguishing characteristic; in cases where the victim has heard the perpetrator speak, accent is also highly distinguishing. These should be the first two items in the description of any criminal suspect except in the few places left (in Europe) that are overwhelmingly racially homogeneous.

This isn't about whether the perps were Muslims. Maybe they were. Maybe they weren't. For all I know they were both white. What we do know with absolute certainty, however, is that the police are systematically concealing the race of perpetrators of serious crimes, even when those people are still at large and pose a danger to society. The dishonesty becomes especially apparent in rape cases, where the victims often get a very good look at their attackers and may also hear them speak. The suppression of the relevant information is clearly a policy decision that has been made on high.

For the modern police force, screening aliens from the hostile sentiments of Europeans (even when those sentiments are grounded in reality) is a higher priority than screening Europeans from the hostile actions of aliens.


Here is an extract from an article about "Police Use of Race in Suspect Descriptions". See how the author gradually builds up a justification for leaving race out of the description. This is actually from the US, but I am sure there are similar documents to be found in Europe.
As we have seen, there are many circumstances in which a witness may only
be able to provide the most rudimentary description of a suspect. The briefness
of the encounter, poor lighting, the trauma of the encounter, as well as the age,
race, and perspective of the witness, can contribute to the quality and detail of
the description a witness gives to the police. A witness’s racial bias may also
contribute to her recollection of a perpetrator. The police play an important role
in eliciting, developing, and applying a suspect description. They may lack the
interviewing skills to properly gather detailed evidence regarding a suspect and
may apply the description differently according to race, however.

...Should the police act on a suspect description in which race is a sole or
primary factor, however? The police can, after all, decline to proceed with a
description if it will not be fruitful or will lead to discriminatory behavior. First,
a poor suspect description may be a sign of an underdeveloped or inadequate
investigation. As discussed earlier, techniques do exist to attempt to elicit and
develop the most complete, accurate, and reliable descriptions possible.

Supplementary questioning of other witnesses or further investigation of the
physical evidence may be necessary. In addition, the social science literature
reveals the critical function of the police in the process of gathering and
implementing a suspect description. Deciding to exercise discretion to decline to
apply an overly general description acknowledges the powerful role of the
police, and the concomitant responsibility they bear to act effectively and fairly.
Moreover, a central consideration should be the possibility that civilians’
and police’s potential biases could be expressed through overly general
descriptions because they provide the police an enormous degree of unguided
discretion. The fewer elements there are in any description, the fewer objective
factors there are to direct a police officer in his or her investigation. The officer
then has enhanced powers to make arbitrary decisions about whom to stop, and
opportunities to act upon or to amplify prejudices. As a result, a suspect descrip-
tion in which race is a sole or primary factor may permit racially discriminatory

The widespread use of race-based suspect descriptions can also result in
costs from the law enforcement perspective. Reliance on a general suspect
description is inefficient. Approaching and questioning a broad set of indivi-
duals is a slow process that diverts police resources. It is also likely not useful;
in Oneonta, for example, no perpetrator was ever apprehended. Such activity
may also be found to be insufficiently based on reasonable suspicion or probable
cause, creating a risk that a stop or arrest will be invalidated by the courts.

In addition, the use of suspect descriptions in which race is a sole or primary
factor may jeopardize relationships between police departments and
communities of color. By definition, the use of general suspect descriptions will
result in interactions with many innocent individuals of color. Their use can
confirm the views of many people of color that the criminal justice system is
racially biased. Particularly if people of color are in the minority in a given community, police activity motivated by race can also create the impression that it is being used as a tool of racial oppression. While police-community relations have always been an important part of crime prevention, police goodwill with all communities is vital for gathering concrete intelligence in the postSeptember 11 era. Thus, endangering police-community relations can only make modern policing more difficult.

...As discussed in Part I, courts have often found suspect descriptions in
which race was one of only a few factors to be insufficient to justify any police
action under the Fourth Amendment. An important ground upon which to
challenge a general suspect description, therefore, is its sufficiency.

Courts have also observed that suspect descriptions that rely mainly on race provide the police with unfettered discretion that may allow racially discriminatory police

And this from a Council of Europe document:
The police should not reveal to the media or to the public information on the
race, colour, language, religion, nationality or national or ethnic origin of the alleged perpetrator of an offence. The police should only be allowed to disclose
this type of information when such disclosure is strictly necessary and serves a
legitimate purpose, such as in case of a wanted notice.

Especially when making public statistical information, the police should be
careful not to contribute to spreading and perpetuating myths linking crime and
ethnic origin or linking the increase in immigration with an increase in crime. The police should ensure that they release objective information, in a way that
is respectful of a diverse society and conducive to promoting equality.

The mere provision of information has to be done in such a way that it is "respectful of a diverse society" and promotes equality!


Dymphna said...

"For the modern police force, screening aliens from the hostile sentiments of Europeans (even when those sentiments are grounded in reality) is a higher priority than screening Europeans from the hostile actions of aliens."

You're right :it's about putting lipstick on a pig and demanding that you kiss this Prince Charming. Even as leaders admit the m.c. is a failure.

The average person isn't fooled, only those who put their rhetoric in the service of a utopian would-be reality deliberately fool themselves.

The basic facts aer that this 83 old woman has no hormones left. The skin all over her body is fragile, but the genitalia are particularly vulnerable to tearing and abrading. This was a cruelty who physical barbarity will likely remain with her the rest of her life. To put it plainly, everytime she has to pee, the pain will make the trauma return with full force.

As for the 12 y.o., her brain -- still forming -- will be affected for her lifetime. If we can get children to age 14 or so, they can escape the worst of the permanent damage. But she didn't make it. In a year, if they do a brain imaging series, they'll see her amygdala has atrophied some...and that's just for starters.



Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews