It’s possible you’ve never heard of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, until now headed by Lawrence Greenfeld. BJS is responsible for federal law enforcement and crime statistics. And it’s those statistics that got Greenfeld in trouble with the Bush administration.
With about 50 employees in the department, the bureau has a very low profile. The bureau strives to be politically independent, so as to produce relevant, useful data without interference. And it’s the Bush administration’s interference which has got them upset.
The April study by the Justice Department, based on interviews with 80,000 people in 2002, found that white, black and Hispanic drivers nationwide were stopped by the police that year at about the same rate, roughly 9 percent. But, in findings that were more detailed than past studies on the topic, the Justice Department report also found that what happened once the police made a stop differed markedly depending on race and ethnicity.
Once they were stopped, Hispanic drivers were searched or had their vehicles searched by the police 11.4 percent of the time and blacks 10.2 percent of the time, compared with 3.5 percent for white drivers. Blacks and Hispanics were also subjected to force or the threat of force more often than whites, and the police were much more likely to issue tickets to Hispanics rather than simply giving them a warning, the study found.
The authors of the study said they were not able to draw any conclusions about the reason for the differing rates, but they said the gaps were notable. The research “uncovered evidence of black drivers having worse experiences – more likely to be arrested, more likely to be searched, more likely to be have force used against them – during traffic stops than white drivers,” the report concluded.
In April, as the report was being completed, Mr. Greenfeld’s office drafted a news release to announce the findings and submitted it for review to the office of Tracy A. Henke, who was then the acting assistant attorney general who oversaw the statistics branch.
The planned announcement noted that the rate at which whites, blacks and Hispanics were stopped was “about the same,” and that finding was left intact by Ms. Henke’s office, according to a copy of the draft obtained by The New York Times.
But the references in the draft to higher rates of searches and use of force for blacks and Hispanics were crossed out by hand, with a notation in the margin that read, “Do we need this?” A note affixed to the edited draft, which the officials said was written by Ms. Henke, read “Make the changes,” and it was signed “Tracy.” That led to a fierce dispute after Mr. Greenfeld refused to delete the references, officials said. — New York Times (or mirror)
That’s right, they wanted Greenfeld to obfuscate the truth in the press release, and he refused. In case you actually want to read the report, they really did put it online, though without a news release or briefing Congress, as they usually do. So it effectively was buried.
Another veteran statistician said: “Larry wanted to ensure that the integrity of the data was not compromised, and that’s what’s causing a lot of anxiety. We’ve seen a desire for more control over B.J.S. from the powers that be, and that’s what seemed to get Larry in trouble.”
Amid the debate over the traffic stop study, Mr. Greenfeld was called to the office of Robert D. McCallum Jr., then the third-ranking Justice Department official, and questioned about his handling of the matter, people involved in the episode said. Some weeks later, he was called to the White House, where personnel officials told him he was being replaced as director and was urged to resign, six months before he was scheduled to retire with full pension benefits, the officials said.
After Mr. Greenfeld invoked his right as a former senior executive to move to a lesser position, the administration agreed to allow him to seek another job, and he is likely to be detailed to the Bureau of Prisons, the officials said.
Why is this important? We all know there’s a racial profiling issue, even if we don’t agree on what the issue is or how extensive it is. This report sheds some light on the matter, and the White House apparently wanted it obfuscated or buried. Someone explain this to me, please!
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3541 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Dave Harmon
Aug 26, 2005
The simple explanation: The current administration considers that truth is permissible only when it serves the Bush throne. Anyone who contradicts the official line is a traitor to God, America, and freedom (in that order), and must be punished.
This guy is neither the first nor the last.
I expect we’ll see (more) interesting numbers coming out of our prison system.
Gary Fyke
Nov 08, 2006
With regard to the statistics reported,I would object to the raw stats of the actions following the stop, as referred to in this report. What I didn’t see referred to was research into the situations that reported use of, or threat of the use of force, to execute a vehicle search after a traffic stop. The police view has not been explained, as far as I can see. The report that the police used force or threatened to use force to obtain a search seems to have come from those who were stopped and subsequently searched. The results of the searches were not revealed. The nature of the arrest that did follow a stop was not explained, i.e. as result of criminal history inquiry an outstanding warrent was found,or perhaps the detainee aggrevated the stop into an arrest situation. Reporting the opinions of the arretees, without the input from the police officers seems a bit unfair. If the study was to determine if traffic stops were predicated upon the racial bias of police, as I believe this study was, the initial report by BJS was that the study did not indicate race of a motorist as a significant factor in making a traffic stop.
Then to add, without balanced reporting, that after a traffic stop, police used force or the threat of force, as “sensed” by an arrestee, to conduct a search of the arrestee or his vehicle does not paint a clear picture of what may have taken place. Having worked as a police officer for many years, I can speak from personal experience that many arrestees claim police bias, intimidation,and abuse for their arrest. I do acknowledge that there are such incidences, also from personal observance, but in a very small numbers of traffic stops.
With regard to the demotion of Mr. Greenfield, I can only say that I was not privy to what exchanges took place between him and his superiors and do not possess the necessary information to make a judgement of whether he was demoted for doing his job, or was demoted for slanting the intent of the study because of a personal bias on his part, or because an act of insubordination during the the dicussion of his report with superiors.
Joel E. Wischkaemper
Aug 21, 2007
I believe the statistics, and I understand those statistics. I am posting links that demonstrate that Blacks wind up in prison far more frequently than any other group. Hispanics are second. Whites are a very small third.
If we stopped all people, and treated them equally, would they all go to jail at the same rate? No. You seldom find narcotics in the cars of ‘Whites’, and far to frequently, DO find them in automobiles if African Americans and Latinos. And from that poin to discovery onward, the rest of the events described in this piece is a natural event.
And with this link, an alternative site to examine the statistics.
———————————-
VERY frequently, these arrests are made in minority communities and by minority officers. But even with that put aside, we know that in, for example, the Watts area of Los Angeles, the dope dealers were running around that community shooting each other, the homes, the people on their front porch, and anyone passing in their cars.
I don’t believe the problem is with anything the police did as a general rule. But I do believe the Barrio and the Getto are two very dangerous places to work for a Police Officer. If those communities would get rid of the dopers, and narcotics are by far… by far the most frequent cause for arrest, the problems this author describes would go away.
Homeland Stupiedity is beating the wrong horse.