Racial profiling and dentists

The Mercury News reports that 100s are protesting alleged "racial profiling" in Palo Alto. Meanwhile, a dentist is hauled away after one patient alleges that he fondled her (in an open practice with many people around in plain view.) In Palo Alto, there are not a a whole lot of black people. But there has been a recent surge in violent crime, much of it perpetrated by dark-skinned people. Thus, a dark-skinned person acting suspiciously in Palo Alto would have a much higher probability of being a criminal. Is this bad? Well, what if there is still only a 20% chance that the dark-skinned man is a criminal (versus a .001% chance that the Chinese woman is a criminal)? Would it still be preferable to wait until clearly suspicious activity is seen (even it means pouncing on the Chinese woman practicing Tai Chi?) Nobody likes being questioned by police. However, it is difficult for police to know exactly what a criminal looks like. How do they minimize the hits on the "wrong guy", while making sure that the "right guy" doesn't get away? Race is, after all, a fairly clearly identifiable characteristic. Denying it would only needlessly hamper crime prevention efforts (and may actually lead to additional false arrests.) Perhaps the solution would be to install surveillance cameras everywhere - then they would know exactly what the perpetrators looked like. (Though privacy would go out the window.)

The dentist case presents a similar case of 'guilty and proven innocent'. A dentist potentially loses his freedom and livelihood, all because of one accuser. The defense is next to impossible: "yes, he fondled me". "No I did not". Even witnesses could be problematic: "I did not see him do it"... "Well, he might have done it when I wasn't there." What is scary is that this looks very similar to a case in Davis. There a woman reported that the dentist had touched her inappropriately on multiple times. This poses a few questions: (why did she keep going back? How was it inappropriate? (Or was it inappropriate - could the patient just have been uncomfortable with the procedure?) What is also scary is that the accuser can remain totally anonymous, while the accused has his name dragged in public. (Recall the false accusations in the Duke Lacrosse case.) While it is important to prevent crimes from happening and encourage victims to come forth, anonymity also can lead to false accusations with little fear of negative consequences. Ideally, the dentist case should be resolved with a simple discussion. If he truly is a Seinfeld-type dentist, that continues with the behavior, then charges are warranted. If he was performing actions in the best interest of the patient, there may be was to do it in a less offensive manner, or even give the suggestion with concerns made apparent, only only perform it at the patient's insistence. Or they may squash privacy by setting up cameras to monitor every action.