Jackson Jambalaya

Completely agree; not disclosing the race of the supsect is a stupid policy. IMO, this policy results from the hypersensitivies of those in the media who are afraid that reporting the race of suspects might bolster stereotypes. Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, for reasons of public safety, it should be reported.

Ronnie Agnew even wrote a column defending their decision not to publish the race of the rapist. I lost a lot of respect for him that day.

I'm not sure how useful it would be to say "keep an eye out for two black males, one tall and middle-aged, one younger and short." I probably would have reported the races of the attackers if it were up to me, especially if I reported their ages and height, but the description is so uselessly vague that I can't see how it would help.

("Officer! Officer! There are two black males that just came in--one's middle-aged and short, the other's younger and tall!" "Uh, okaaaaayyyyy...")

then the CL deserves criticism for not publishing a better description.

Here's out I think it helps: it automatically excludes from the suspect pool people who aren't of that race. So, to the extent it is two black makes, none of us have to waste our time being on the lookout for two white makes. In other words, in instantly and automatically excludes a great percentage of people. IMO, that IS helpful.

I don't really see how "watch out for two black males" is helpful, since there are approximately 65,000 black males living in this city and 64,998 of them didn't rob the Antique Market. But certainly if I'd written the rest of the description, I would have mentioned race, too, along (one hopes) with more useful information.

Here is what I know. Community policing uses citizens as the eyes and ears of the local police force. If the description is purposefully vague in order to be politically correct then please don't expect your citizen watchers to be effective.

Politically correct garbage in will do nothing but to guarantee garbage out.

While I see your point (I was anon above except the post immediately above this) re: the numbers, I disagree with the conclusion that that means it wouldn't be helpful. There are a lot of people with dark hair, but I think we would all agree that even if that was the only descriptive element we had, we'd include it. I don't see why we shouldn't do the same with race. It's helpful because - like all other characteristics that are shared by large numbers of people - it narrows the pool of suspects. The only reasons I see used to not include it are ones based on political correctness, and to me, that's substantively outweighed by the potential helpfulness in apprehending a supsect.

I'm not worried about political correctness; I am a little worried about the cumulative effects of 2,000 newspaper stories per annum in which the culprits, identified only as black males, are the same 30 or 40 people. Tell me what they were wearing. Tell me if they had any facial hair. Tell me how tall and how old they are. Without that information, it doesn't really matter whether they're black or white--I'm not going to be able to spot them anyway, am I?

The CL is a laughingstock. It is not in a league anywhere near a legitimate paper. Papers in other states do not report like this. In addition, the newspaper articles are written about things that a first grader already knows. As a former Jackson, Ms. resident it saddens me that crime has gotten so bad there, and that things have been allowed to go on as such for such a long time. I used to visit the Antique Market. I wish the owner well. Hope that he moves out of Jackson to a safer area soon.