Innocence or guilt

Profiling. We all do it. We all put two and two together in coming to a conclusion, we draw conclusions based on statistics and our own prejudice.

In the United States a person arrested of a crime is required to complete a questionnaire and amongst the questions, one simple and obvious one is "have you ever committed a crime in the past". It seems at first glance, innocuous and to the point but it is claimed it is prejudicial when applied to a black person if that person lives in a certain area.

Algorithms have been compiled which 'statistically'  prove that a person of a certain race are more likely to commit a crime if they come from a certain area. The argument goes that because there are more black people in that area, any crime committed is likely to be committed by a black person.

Statistically correct but is it justice. Should a person be judged to be innocent until proved guilty, or can his/her guilt be presumed by association.

The questionnaire is now being deemed racially prejudiced because whilst it does not ask for the persons race it is assumed that coming from the area the person will be black and by assumption that because they are black and coming from the area they will be guilty if they admitted that they had committed previous crimes.

How precarious is justice. The other question, how important is the protection of people in keeping criminals off our streets. Is it a price worth paying that an innocent man is put behind bars lest the same man is actually guilty and goes on to committed some horrendous crime.

Is the crime against an innocent person worth more than a crime against a person who lives a marginalised life in a crime ridden area.

If we assume that "everyone" is innocent unless caught with evidence to the contrary then profiling is wrong and the algorithms have no value in a court of justice. If on the other hand there are a whole set of prejudicial facts about a person which can be brought into play and used as building blocks to profile the likelihood of guilt, is likelihood a sufficient claim to take away a persons liberty.

A footballer the other day was released from prison for raping a woman because new evidence had been led that the woman had had an almost identical case denied and that her claim "to have been raped" was one she had used before. The judgement was that there was sufficient doubt as to the veracity of her story and the footballer was released. 

Part of our judicial system in this country usually precludes previous cases from being cited in a new case.  Each is judged on its own merit but in this case it was allowed because of the symmetry of each case.  Women's rights groups are up in arms because they say that the past history of a woman in this sort of case has no relevance.

That aside, the assumption that previous association, be it because you come from a black neighbourhood or because you were, in the past promiscuous, has no baring on your innocence or otherwise.