Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement (Argumentative Essay Sample)
Check Out Our Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement Essay
Racial profiling has become a noteworthy and controversial issue nowadays. Even giving its’ definition causes plethora of debates. In general, racial profiling refers to discriminatory actions of law enforcement officials when the main reason to suspect an individual in breaking the law is the person’s race, ethnicity, ancestry, Aboriginality, national or cultural background. In such cases the specific group of characteristics is believed to be associated with crime, and the entire community of individuals is implied to have criminal propensity.
The perfect example of racial profiling is the constant suspect that followed Arab and Muslim Americans after September 11 th terrorist attacks: detention on any minor immigrant violations, intense scrutiny at airports and other locations. Sure thing, often the law enforcement officers’ actions are based on race, ethnicity, religion in combination with the alleged violation of law. In such cases the understanding of racial profiling becomes wider and eliminates the majority of racial profiling situations occurring. Although racial profiling is most frequently associated with traffic stops, it deals with any situation when minorities were stopped, interrogated or searched because of their race, ethnicity, or religion.
Individual law enforcement agent who profile suspects solely on the basis of race or ethnicity violates the rights of those minorities. When race and ethnicity become factors in suspicious behavior, the civil rights of racial and ethnic minorities as a group are violated. This tactic also leads to a negative interaction with the police.
Setting prejudice aside, once police know that racial differences in propensity to crime exist it may be hard if not impossible to ignore them when estimating the probability that a person is an offender. This problem is compounded by the fact that such estimations are informal or intuitive.
However, the law enforcement official should always have an objectively reasonable suspicion that the person is quilty in an offense. In practice it is often difficult to define what a reasonable suspicion really is. This is, probably, the basic reason why so many racial-pro%uFB01ling cases take place. If the suspicion was based on prejudice or stereotype, it can not be called reasonable any way. Even if the exercise of law enforcement discretion was subconsciously racist, it is considered unreasonable and will result in racial profiling finding. Unconscious and unintentional racism in the formation of criminal pro%uFB01les is still racial pro%uFB01ling. Unfortunately, nowadays courts are often reluctant to find the police guilty in overt and conscious race discrimination, even if racial profiling arguments were accepted. The reason is that the police are considered a more credible witness than the compliant.
When analyzing unintentional racism we should look not only at the overt behavior, but also at the traditional normative practices in law enforcement organizations. Very often the atmosphere and culture in the specific organization or department is already racist, considering all minority group members except the Whites to be second-class people. That is how racism may represent not a person’s conscious decision making, but the cultural phenomenon that is pre-conscious. Racial pro%uFB01ling as the behavioral expression of police culture, results from such cultural predilections.
Police assessment of suspicion depends on training, communication, and experience received in the company of fellow of%uFB01cers. The interpretation of the specific circumstances largely depends on the worldview that was developed through socialization into the police role. The main problem is that these experiences and interpretations are often full of race stereotypes that influence the law enforcers’ behavior giving it racial undertones.
Moreover, what the police officers consider to be criminal pro%uFB01ling may, in reality, re%uFB02ect racist stereotypes. For example, when officer sees two Black men shaking hands in an isolated place in a high crime area, the police officer may suspect the drug transaction. This would not happen, if they were White. Another example is an evasive action (MacAlister, 2011). An African American who is aware of his historical community being constantly harassed by the police, may consciously avoid the police officer approaching him not because of guilt, but in order to protect himself and avoid troubles.
On the whole, the disparities in police attitude to racial profiling may be based on prejudice, cognitive bias or stereotypes, and race-based deployment. Prejudice is the one to contain conscious intent, while cognitive bias and stereotypes may be unconscious suppositions about the criminality of different races or ethnical groups. Race-based deployment, in its turn, is a local organizational practice of law enforcement that may involve participants’ intent and consciousness, as well as exclude it (Ryberg, 2011).
Furthermore, it is being actively debated whether or not the intentions and motives of law enforcement officials should be taken into consideration when assessing the racial profiling practices. What really matters is the consequences that these practices cause in creating the inequality for certain groups of individuals. Human rights law regards racism from the point of view of the effects it causes to individuals offended, not from the intent of the perpetrator, which need not be proved. To my mind, if the discrimination has already occurred, the initial intention of law enforcers any way can’t constitute a weighty excuse for the person or community offended. Moreover, the police officers tend not to recognize racism in their actions. They consider it a part of sound, work-related criminal profiling that has nothing to deal with race discrimination. This feature of police is not easily changed by training or educating, as it is a consequence of cognitive bias and ingrained stereotype thinking.
Allegations of racial pro%uFB01ling frequently arise in the context of defences to criminal charges, when the accused seeks to have evidence excluded. Racial pro%uFB01ling also arises in other forms of legal proceedings. It has recently arisen in the context of human rights complaints, where those who believe that they have been discriminated against by law enforcement of%uFB01cers seek a remedy from an administrative tribunal (MacAlister, 2011, p. 98). Furthermore, racial pro%uFB01ling has arisen in the context of civil suits, where the victim of alleged racial pro%uFB01ling seeks monetary damages for what they perceive to have been adverse treatment. These cases are quite varied in their nature, but apply similar analyses in determining whether racial pro%uFB01ling occurred.
The influence of racial profiling on citizens attitude to police should be analyzed, as the attitude of public has a direct impact on the effectiveness of law enforcement. Racial profiling usually causes tension and trouble between the public and police. Any enforcement based on race undermines confidence and trust in the system. Nevertheless, the success of many police initiatives is impossible without cooperation with citizens. If the opinion of the police is negative, there exists a risk that law enforcement efforts can be hindered.
The attitude of public to racial profiling has always been diversified and often contradictory. For example, many U. S. citizens expressed their negative attitude to the use of racial profiling by law enforcement officers to prevent crime and terrorism in the country. In this situation the special study was held to examine the different context of public approval. Survey-based experiments and multivariate analyses were used. The results determined that college students were more likely to stand against racial profiling due to their educational background, while White students might approve the use of racial profiling than non-White students (MacAlister, 2011). Many citizens believe that use of racial profiling by police officers is institutionalized and routine, as a greater amount of sanctions is given to minorities.
The main argument for the use of racial profiling by law enforcement is the fact that it helps to target those who are more likely to be offenders. In such a way using race as a targeting factor correlated with crime the police can detain more criminals. Sure thing, the discussions are being held whether or not this method is legitimate when manifested in disproportionate use of stops and friskings of minority groups or becoming the tool in fighting terrorism. However, the force of this apparently appealing argument has not been left unchallenged (Ryberg, 2011, p. 79).
First, the argument can be challenged on the empirical ground. When the law enforcement official starts using the empirical evidence as a basis in their work, it often helps to receive sufficient results, but race appears to be not the highest effective targeting indicator among the others. Moreover, it is supposed that in the long term it also won’t be effective in anti-terrorism war, as terroristic organizations tend to be rather flexible in adapting to racial characteristics in members recruiting process.
Secondly, the argument is challenged on normative grounds. Even if the use of racial profiling is totally supported by the existing empirical evidence, its’ costs will probably overweight the received result of apprehending more criminals. There are certain constraints – for example, forbidding the use of racial profiling independently of the fact that this method may be proper in terms of higher hit rates for criminals (Ryberg, 2011).
Thirdly, it can be objected that the rise of criminals hit rates as a result of racial profiling use is tantamount to the fact that amount of criminals is decreasing. I think that this tactic may, on the one hand, cause a decrease in law breaking among members of the targeted minority, but, on the other hand, the majority may feel more free to violate law as they are suspected and stopped less. Due to the fact that the majority is numerically larger—and also that the elasticity of offending to policing must be less for the targeted group than for members of the majority—it may be assumed that the increasing potency of racial profiling may lead to overall increase of crime in the society.
In addition, profiling may have the unexpected negative consequences, such as the segregation of residential areas and the loss of deterrence, which are neither emotional nor personal, but reflect rational strategies for responding to the situation of profiling. Such costs must be included when weighing the pros and cons of a profiling practice. The social cost of racial profiling can be generally divided into three broad groups:distressed individuals, disconnected communities and diminished domestic security capabilities (MacAlister, 2011).
Moreover, racial profiling appears to be unreliable when communicating with crime witnesses. Eyewitness accounts based on racial descriptions at the expense of other identifying traits are often burdensome and offensive to innocent individuals, who just belong to the same race as the suspected. To my mind, racial descriptors should be supplemented with modern forensic methods to achieve an “overall evidence” approach. Among these techniques are DNA phenotyping, which gives information about the suspect’s racial ancestry, and molecular photofitting, which describes the individual’s physical attributes using biometric comparison (Ryberg, 2011).
Often the method of racial profiling appears to be totally ineffective when it comes to exposing the criminals. For example, using this tactic, law enforcement organizations failed to detain at least one terrorist. Therefore, instead of racial profiling the use of other types of profiling may be suggested. Thus, the “smart profiling”, which is also called “anti-profiling” or “reverse profiling”, is a withdrawal from a number of potential suspects certain people who can not be criminals (MacAlister, 2011).
Racial profiling deals not only with potential criminal recognition, same way it involves the law enforcers. Various researches held demonstrate the salience of minority status in understanding racial and ethnic differences in perceptions of the police (Ryberg, 2011). Blacks and Latinos have less trust and confidence from citizens, than do Whites and other racial minorities. Racial identity of a police officer is especially important for people, who suffered from racial injustice themselves. It influences citizens’ perception of police behavior and evaluations of police encounters. This finding is important as it provides some evidence that increasing the number of minority officers may be one viable option for improving citizen–officer relations.
Eliminating racial profiling in law enforcement is a crucial task for the government of each country. In the U. S., for example, the federal justice department plays the key role in confronting racial profiling, as well as in its creating. The election of President Barack Obama had considerable positive consequences for racially biased policing of the country. In my opinion, eliminating racial profiling is impossible without the aggressive enforcement of civil rights laws, which will encourage local police chiefs and employers to monitor and address discrimination inside their organizations.
In conclusion, the ways of controlling racial profiling in law enforcement can be expressed in various organizational initiatives: educating officials concerning the effects of racial profiling usage; holding special trainings with practical issues discussions and reproduction of the most problematic situations; monitoring data on racial profiling decisions and actions that deal with the problem. In addition, legislation together with media coverage is what can really reduce racial disparities while searches and stops. The quality of policing could be improved by external political and social pressure. The appropriate level of publicity, as well as the required internal reforms, may be the key to ensure that law enforcement practices are scrutinized and that the social and political pressure for change is escalated.
Racial Profiling Research Paper Starter
Racial profiling is a contentious issue in US law enforcement policy. The practice of using race as a part of a profile when attempting to identify or curb criminal activity has been used in various ways, including pulling individuals over on highways and questioning airline passengers and individuals at border crossings. Racial profiling has been used to justify finding drug smugglers, terrorists, and undocumented immigrants. Many contend that racial profiling severely hampers civil rights, while others believe it is necessary police practice.
Keywords Broken Windows Theory; Case Probability; Class Probability; Community Policing; Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; Profiling; Terrorism; Undocumented Immigrants; War on Drugs
Racial profiling has become a contentious issue in law enforcement practices over the last twenty years. An increasing number of reported instances in which law enforcement personnel have been accused of targeting certain minority groups has cast a spotlight on racial profiling, as well as increased tensions and debate over the legitimacy of the practice for various reasons (Institute on Race and Justice, 2008).
Defining Racial Profiling
There is no single agreed upon definition of racial profiling. The definition across the literature ranges from including race, ethnicity, or nationality as a consideration when deciding to apply law enforcement procedures, to using race, ethnicity, or nationality as the only consideration when deciding to apply law enforcement procedures. A similar term is racially-biased policing, and the line between what communities find acceptable and unacceptable is influenced by a wide range of factors (Anderson & Callahan, 2001). The public perception of the acceptability of racial profiling varies under circumstances. For example, a poll conducted in 1999 said 81 percent of individuals reported that they disapproved of racial profiling when law enforcement officials pulled over motorists solely based on their race and ethnicity. On the other hand, another poll conducted after the September 11 terrorist attacks showed that the majority of those polled supported increasing security and investigation of individuals from Arab backgrounds on planes (Pampel, 2004).
The practice of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies was begun during the late 1970s, as police officers worked to capture drug traffickers. A profile is a collection of gathered facts that help law enforcement officers target individuals who are likely committing criminal acts. Law enforcement officers have long used profiling to help them gain understanding about the likely characteristics of the perpetrator of a crime, including but not limited to age, sex, race, and observed behaviors (Institute on Race and Justice, 2008). Police have used profiling to target the characteristics of certain individuals as more likely to commit certain types of crimes, often observed by police officers. For example, a poor individual who spends a large amount of time in affluent enclaves may be targeted as someone likely to commit a crime. While this type of profiling has often been seen as unfair and biased, law enforcement agencies consider it a necessary practice to intercept possible criminal activity before it occurs (Pampel, 2004).
Racial profiling was first termed during the war on drugs in the 1970s and 1980s, when police officers were accused of pulling over motorists based on race and then searching their vehicles for illegal substances. However, there are incidents of racial profiling in other situations and instances throughout American history. For example, during World War II, hundreds of thousands of Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans were interned in camps throughout the United States even though many were American citizens and had never had any negative interactions with law enforcement officers in the past (Anderson & Callahan, 2001). Even more currently, after the September 11 attacks in 2001, the War on Terrorism was announced and individuals across the country were arrested, questioned, or detained by federal law enforcers. Many advocacy groups have derided the government for what they believe is questioning or harassment based solely on an individual’s race, ethnicity, or national origin (Anderson & Callahan, 2001).
Other instances of racial profiling include pulling over Hispanics near the Mexico border in an attempt to capture illegal immigrants en route to the United States or questioning or searching minorities in high-crime urban areas (Pampel, 2004). In April 2010, Arizona enacted SB 1070, which made it a misdemeanor crime for a a nonresident of the United States to be in Arizona without carrying required documents. The act also allowed officers to determine an individual’s immigration status during a lawful stop or arrest (Archibold, 2010). The act, which was written primarily to address Arizona’s influx of illegal immigrants, was the strictest and most controversial anti-illegal immigration legislation at the time and prompted debate worldwide regarding the potential for racial profiling. The Supreme Court upheld the requirement in 2012, and five other states (Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Utah, and South Carolina) adopted similar legislation (Billeaud & Berry, 2012).
The arguments that surround the issue of racial profiling are connected to the inherent racism found in our communities and the tensions between law enforcement officials and various communities of color. Statistics have shown that African-American individuals are much more likely to be arrested and imprisoned than white Americans. As of 2012, 60 percent of all imprisoned men were African American, and 1 in every 15 African American men was in prison versus 1 in every 106 white men. Additionally, 1 in every 3 black men can expect to go to prison as some point in their lives, and convicted blacks receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than their white counterparts. Blacks were also three times more likely than whites to be searched during traffic stops (Kerby, 2012). Other ethnic groups in the United States have also experienced negative effects from racial profiling.
While the term racial profiling has only recently come into use, law enforcement agencies have long used race, ethnicity, and national origin as grounds for police action in the United States. During the years of slavery, blacks were not allowed to leave their plantations without passes, and they could be questioned or detained by any white individual without any reason for suspicion. After slavery was outlawed, many states continued to control African Americans through curfews and the use of Jim Crow laws throughout the South (Pampel, 2004).
Throughout history, conflicts and tensions between police officers and communities of color have endured. Hispanics and Latinos have faced intense scrutiny from law enforcement officials under suspicion that they are illegal residents; Asian-Americans were discriminated against by police officers in the communities in which they lived when they began immigrating to the United States in large numbers in the 1800s. Those of Middle Eastern descent face profiling in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The Police Public Contact Survey
A report released by the United States Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) provided results from a 2002 survey in which contacts between police officers and close to 17 million drivers were analyzed. The results were significant for several reasons. First, although white drivers were more likely than both black and Hispanic drivers to be stopped by police for speeding, both blacks and Hispanics were more likely to receive a ticket. Among the young, males drivers to be stopped, blacks and Hispanics were more likely to be searched. These statistics are in spite of the fact that in 2002 a higher percentage of white drivers were licensed in the United States (76.2 percent) than black drivers (10.5 percent) and Hispanics (9.7 percent).
Many people equate the war on drugs as beginning the controversy regarding racial profiling. The war on drugs gained intensity in the 1980s, with the introduction of crack cocaine into mainstream America (Pampel, 2004). In 1985, as the war against drugs continued, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) began training police officers across the country in recognizing a profile of a drug courier, based on intelligence gathered in how drugs were transported and introduced to various drug markets. The intelligence garnered by the DEA gave birth to Operation Pipeline, the knowledge of the relationship between drug networks and drug markets, and how drugs were transported between each. Local and state police were trained to target individuals and vehicles that met certain characteristics, including but not limited to age and race characteristics of possible transporters. When the profiling lesson was distorted, officers began targeting black and Hispanic drivers, pulling over male drivers with these racial characteristics under the.
(The entire section is 4,023 words.)
Unlock This Study Guide Now
Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this 17-page Racial Profiling study guide and get instant access to the following:
- Research Paper Starter
- 7 Homework Help Questions with Expert Answers
You’ll also get access to more than 30,000 additional guides and 300,000 Homework Help questions answered by our experts.
Racial Profiling in Policing
Autor: review • November 13, 2010 • Essay • 419 Words (2 Pages) • 721 Views
Kenora OPP will test 12 in-cruiser cameras
First time devices used in Canada
By JANET GIBSON, Sun Media
KENORA — Like a black box in an airplane, it’s indestructible. A digital video camera mounted inside a police cruiser was displayed by the Kenora OPP yesterday, part of a three-year pilot project that kicks off March
COMBAT RACIAL PROFILING
The OPP will test 12 in-cruiser video cameras in Kenora and 22 in Toronto — the first time such cameras have been used by a police force in Canada.
The cameras will help the OPP maintain the highest standards of professionalism, enhance safety for the police and the public and combat racial profiling, said North West region OPP commander Supt. Mike Armstrong.
The project was first announced in December 2003, one day after the Ontario Human Rights Commission released a report recommending cameras be installed in police cruisers to combat racial profiling.
At the time, OPP Chief Supt. John Carson said the cameras will prove the police don’t engage in profiling. While the Kenora OPP has made a plan to train its officers in the use of the cameras, it hasn’t decided when the cameras will be turned on, how long it will retain the video and when it can release the video.
The «digital eyewitness» cameras, purchased for $12,000 apiece from Kustom Signals Inc. in the U. S., capture audio and video for nine hours and 20 minutes at a stretch. They can be recorded over 80,000 to 100,000 times, said Kenora OPP Const. John McDougall who, with Kenora OPP Sgt. Paul Van Belleghem, will train 22 fellow officers.
Kenora and Toronto were chosen to give the project a north/south perspective, Armstrong said. While Kenora has an extreme climate, with temperatures ranging from —30 C to 30 C, both cities have diverse populations.
Armstrong said there’s a «great deal of excitement» in the detachment because it’s participating in the pilot project.
Kenora resident Barb Martin said the cameras are a good idea.
«It’s going to help with issues such as discrimination,» she said. «What you’re going to see is how things are handled.»