- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,641
- 48,199
- AFL Club
- West Coast
No, it's not more helpful, which is why police in many countries don't use it. If you say someone looks Indian or Pakistani, a potential witness might think, 'well I don't know, are they Indian or Pakistani, or Sri Lankan or maybe Afghan...oh, I don't know, I won't waste police time because I'm not sure'. When it comes to police descriptions, they want to keep it simple yet effective. But when there is no doubt, they still use terms like Aboriginal, Caucasian etc.It's one example that popped up on the first page of Google.
Light or dark skinned is a much simpler description, but the whole point of describing someone to aid identifying them is to be specific as possible. Man or woman is even simpler. Human simpler than that. Mammal simpler still.
A lot of Indian, Sri Lankan and Pakistani people look similar because the countries are right next to one another and people have moved about and bred over the course of history. Saying the bloke you saw looked 'probably Indian or Pakistani' or 'a bit like Kumar Sangakkara' is bit more useful than 'dark skinned'. But that's "racist".
There's no PC gone mad here, it's the police trying to get the most out of their descriptions.