American History: Racial Profiling and Bias in The Media

The media’s job is to entertain, inform, and educate society on what is going on around the world. The media entertains society by reporting stories that amuse people. The educational function of the media is about allowing society to know their legal rights. The informational aspect of the media does not need to be explained; it is self-explanatory. Within the last three decades, the media’s role has changed dramatically. The media went from using telegraphs, post offices, newspapers, magazines, radio, and television to using cell phones and tablets. In the modern era, which is also sometimes referred to as the information age, global networking and global communication have shaped modern societies. The majority of

Racial Profiling is an act of automatically defining or identifying someone based on their ethnicity. This act was most recognized during the late 1800’s in the U.S. under the Jim Crow law. It was passed in order to segregate whites and the colored in America. It fundamentally made whites superior to all. Though, in 1964 the Civil Rights Act passed stating that anybody of any ethnicity or religion are to be equal and united. However, today this law has never been truly accepted when seeing the statistics of the type of people being stopped by the police. In fact, based on the statistics of the people stopped, there is an ethnic disproportion which shows that the police use racial profiling. Even though innocent people are stopped, the

Racial profiling is a very prevalent issue within the criminal justice system that is quite controversial, but there is a significant number of evidence that shows that racial profiling has been present since the 1600’s and continues to be a significant issue. Racial profiling is evident in the criminal justice system in various ways such as in interrogations, jury selection, misleading statistics, stops, and immigration laws. Racial profiling within interrogations and jury selection can be seen with the Brandley v. Keeshan case. Racial profiling within statistics can be seen in instances where the numbers focus on arrests and incarcerations that do not necessarily mean a crime was committed. Stops are seen as evidence showing racial profiling with a personal experience, and lastly, immigration laws are seen as showing racial profiling by the encounter of a Mexican American women had with an officer in Arizona.

Racial profiling has been and will continue to be a problem in the United States. Many believe that racial profiling is more prevalent in today’s society; however, this issue has been a part of our society since slavery. Moreover, African American males are mostly the targets of racial profiling, especially in larger cities like New York City and Los Angeles. Racial profiling is becoming a huge problem within the police departments. Police officers are conducting more traffic stops on African Americans males than on any other racial group, for the reason that many police officers believe African Americans males are most likely to be engaged in some sort of criminal activity. Thus, racial

One of the most prominent deficiencies of racial profiling is the fact that the officers who participate in these faceoffs and shootings are almost always acquitted of the charges brought against them. Jasmine Elliott states that, “Racial profiling diverts officers ' attention from using actual, objective signs of suspicious behavior to effectively assess situations” in her article Racial Profiling Is Ineffective, Distracting, and Detrimental to Public Safety. Using an overgeneralized category to find a perpetrator is ultimately distracting law enforcement from possible catching signs of suspicious activity from a different target. There has even been one specific instance observed where police officers abused their authority to check the immigration status of a group of men of Ecuadorian ethnicity. The case was called “Maldonodo vs. Holder” (Groff 88) and recently went before the U.S. Court of Appeals. The court ruled in favor of the officers, which left open the window for suppression through racial profiling. “The Second Circuit in Maldonado ignored its own precedent and its decision could lead to an increase in unconstitutional racial profiling and targeting” (Groff 125). Cases like Maldonado vs Holder keep the idea of racial profiling as a means for justice alive within today’s society.

Racial profiling is simply, “the unlawful police practice of using race, color, or ethnic background, as the reason for conducting a traffic stop on an individual.” (Michigan Civil Rights Commission) This definition can be extended to any kind of discrimination mainly based on myths and stereotypes towards a certain race or ethnicity. However, the term racial profiling is commonly used when a police officer or any other law enforcer stops, questions, searches or arrests an individual purely on the basis of their race. African Americans or simply blacks have been the major racial group that has suffered much of racial profiling. Much of this is based on the stereotypes against the blacks are perceived as more likely to engage in criminal activities. For instance, in a 2013 Racial Profiling Data from Ferguson Police Department, out of 5384 police stops, 4632 were against blacks. (Ferguson Police Dept. 1) Despite the low population of blacks in U.S. compared to other races, the former continues being subjected to more racial profiling. Racial profiling against African Americans continues to expose the blacks to humiliation and racial injustices, as this paper will expose, thereby calling for the responsible authorities to address and find solutions for the problem.

So before I can answer this million dollar question I need to establish what racial profiling is. According to the American Civil Liberties Union it is “when law enforcement and private security target people color for humiliating and often frightening detentions, interrogations, and searches without evidence of criminal activity and based on perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.” In plain English this means a person is perceived to have committed a crime only because of their race.

In the Justice System there are a lot of flaws that affect many people of color, and from past history, it has shown how these practices can lead to very unfortunate events, one of these practices is racial profiling. Racial profiling is when law enforcement uses race and ethnicity as grounds to determine if someone, typically of color, is guilty of doing something illegal. Racial profiling is a major problem in this country, this as well affects many citizens that are mainly of color because law enforcement usually sees them as targets, and it is important to improve and fixed this issue because there are many tragic incidents that have been caused of racial profiling.

In America’s judicial system, the color of skin or race are often equated with criminal behavior. Dr. King once said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” As United States citizens, we are not convicted of a crime until proven guilty. However, racial profiling aids law enforcement on deciding when to pursue or detain a suspect based on race. This method undoubtedly categorizes that certain races are more prone to commit crimes. Nevertheless, racial profiling is a violation of constitutional rights thus protected by federal law; oddly it is often disregarded by states.

Racial profiling is an example of police brutality, which is defined by Gross and Livingston (2002) as “the practice of some officers of stopping motorists of certain racial or ethnic groups because the officer believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crimes” (p.1413). Therefore, individuals are treated unfairly by law enforcement solely based on their race. This type of mistreatment is unmerited and ultimately a violation of an individual’s rights. However, in many instances the courts do not find it a violation of their civil rights based on the fact that racial profiling is difficult to prove. Often, prosecutors are disinclined in bringing forth a case against officers on this particular matter. Officers are permitted to stop and search individuals and their vehicles whenever there is reasonable suspicion, however, there has been studies that prove that some law enforcement officers restrict these rights primarily to minority groups. Bowling and Phillips found that although there was no formal monitoring of use of these powers, it was concluded that it was particularly heavy use of these powers against ethnic minorities, largely of young black people (as cited in Sharp & Atherton, 2007, p. 747) . In several cases, officers argue that they reasonably pulled an individual over for other probable grounds such as: traffic violations, suspicious behavior, etc., with race never being an

The United States of America has been called a “mixing pot” since the birth of the nation. Everyone, especially politicians and educators, will proudly declare that the U.S. is a land of unmatched diversity. The U.S. seems to always be portrayed as a highly cultural territory, harboring a vast population of many races. Admittedly, the United States has come a long in terms of eliminating racial barriers and pursuing equality. All around the world, America is seen as a country of colors, yet mass media does not recognize that fact.

Racial Profiling is unconstitutional and illegal, yet it’s still used in law enforcement. The practice of racial profiling, as defined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), refers to the “discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin”(ACLU 2005). Racial profiling causes more harm than good, it can cause emotional, mental and more often physical harm to the person being subjected to the practice. According to the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments, racial profiling is unconstitutional. It causes distrust in law enforcement because ethnic

While racial profiling is used to solve many crimes, using race as a description of the criminal being pursued does not constitute discrimination. “Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.”1 Identifying and defining racial profiling simply on the basis of race can raise several issues. Using this definition solely based on race fails to mention when police act on the basis of race along with a violation. For example an officer who targets African Americans who were jaywalking would not be considered to be racial profiling because the people that were stopped were jaywalking and happened to be African Americans.

Benjamin Todd Jealous once said, “Racial profiling punishes innocent individuals for the past actions of those who look and sound like them. It misdirects crucial resources and undercuts the trust needed between law enforcement and the communities they serve.”(Jealous, 2015). I couldn’t agree more with him. In today’s society more and more Black men and women suffer from police bias. Police is a powerful organization that was meant to serve and protect. Enforce laws and keeping communities safe. The problem is we fail to acknowledge that police are humans with real life bias. The problem with police is how much racial profiling is going up,

The definition of race is often based on physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture and eye shape. Race is both a set of genetically defined biological characteristics and culturally defined characteristics. One influence on culture is the media and the media have a huge influence on the way different races are viewed by society. The media consists of communication devices and some media forms include television, newspapers, magazines, film and radio. Misrepresent can be defined as to give a false or misleading representation with an intent to deceive or be unfair.