In Wednesday’s paper I read the story “Survivors in Ogden targeted for fraud, burglary,” about the elderly residents that were targeted by a fundraising scam. What particularly struck me was how the perpetrator was described, or rather, what was missing from the description.
Throughout the year, students get a fair number of Crime-Alerts via email from the chief of police. I’ve noticed that when describing “offenders,” they’ll state their race, and in many alerts, they’re African-American. They put in the disclaimer that “Information about the race or ethnicity of alleged offenders is provided only to aid detailed descriptions that … offer a meaningful picture of an individual’s appearance.” I agree that, used for that purpose, the information is relevant, but it’s always seemed peculiar to me that it is predominantly African-American males in these alerts. In only one instance that I can recall was the offender in an alert described as Caucasian. I always thought it strange: It’s not as though white people don’t commit crimes, is it that they simply get reported less?
Although those questions came to me, I didn’t think too much on it.
But in the article, the man was described as a “6-foot-tall, slender male in his early 20s”. About the fundraising scam, the questions arose yet again. Why was the race of the offender not mentioned? If it’s such an important definer that it gets mentioned in nearly every Crime-Alert, why not the specificity in this case? I’m not claiming some white-supremacist cover-up agenda on behalf of the DI or racism in the police department, it’s just a genuine question. Is race so crucial in identifying a criminal that it is imperative for it to be included every time, or is it not? Who gets to decide?
Amanda Toledo,
junior in LAS