The Pros And Cons Of Racial Profiling

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

What is racial profiling? The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defines racial profiling as “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” (2005). Do not confuse racial profiling with criminal profiling; criminal profiling is usually practiced by police in which they use a group of characteristics that are associated with crime to target individuals (ACLU, 2005). Examples of racial profiling include using ones race to target specific drivers for traffic violations and pedestrians for illegal contraband; another prime example is the targeting of Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians since 9/11 in

Generally, the announcement of a racial profiling study by police and/or other public officials typically includes a denial that racial profiling exists “within this jurisdiction,” but also an acknowledgment that it would be helpful to study the pattern of police stops within the jurisdiction (Adler and Adler, 2012, pg. 3). The prevalence of racial profiling and understand that this practice descended from stigmas created during slavery to socially control African Americans. The very act of

Data and statistics also show that minorities are discriminated due to racial profiling. In the essay “The big question about why police pull over so many black drivers”, Kim Soffen provides statistics from other credible sources to show that the police excessively targets African Americans. “The Times analysis found that among the largest police department in each of those four states, black drivers were between 1.5 and 5.2 times more likely to have their cars searched than white drivers” (par. 9). Also, “A 2015 analysis by the Hartford Courant found that black and Hispanic drivers who were stopped were 11 to 41 percent more likely to be ticketed than white offenders, depending on the offense committed” (par. 11). The difference between African Americans and Hispanic to whites is huge because of racial profiling. It shows how much the police discriminates against the minority groups. The police show discrimination when they mostly target African Americans and Hispanics. Police think that minorities are the only people who can commit crimes, but whites are just as capable of committing crimes. Another essay that shows the misjudgment of African Americans is “The secret surveillance of ‘suspicious’ blacks in one of the nation’s poshest neighborhoods” by

Racial profiling is a controversial and illegal practice in which an individual is targeted solely because of their race, ethnicity, or religion. This practice has been around for hundreds of years dating back to the beginning of slavery and still goes on today. Racial profiling comes in many forms and can be done by police officers, business owners or employees, airport security, or even regular citizens. Muslims, Hispanics, and African Americans are the usual targets of racial profiling. Muslims are usually labeled as terrorists, Hispanics are labeled as illegal immigrants, and African Americans are labeled as gang members.

An indication that disproves the claim that racial profiling is an essential policing tactic centers on the idea that it violates the constitutional rights of an individual. In “Rights and Wrongs,” Jeffrey Toobin demonstrates that racial profiling violates the constitutional rights of an individual, in that unarmed individuals and those of color are racially profiled for the way they look for no apparent reason. This article discusses the idea of whether or not racial profiling is or is not a constitutional tactic for law enforcement. It is unclear as to why law enforcement chooses to target those who look suspicious without knowing their purpose. Those of color are being unfairly treated and accused of crimes for no apparent reason. Toobin states, “An officer got out of an unmarked van and came up to me,” Bradley recalled. “I just accommodated the officer to the best of my ability, and, in turn, what happened was, he went into my pockets… There was nothing in my pockets except my house keys, my cell phone, my wallet. The thing about it that was so appalling was that I had spent my last dollar to see my loved one. And then he said, ‘Fuck that, you’re going in” (Toobin 30). This quote is a perfect representation of racial profiling, where an officer decides to target individuals based on his appearance, which is unconstitutional. When Scheindlin stated, “I just accommodated the officer to the best of my ability, and, in turn, what happened was, he went into my pockets,” it was to my understanding that law enforcement has violated the rights of an individual in the sense of which officers do not have the rights to go through personal belonging without a valid reason. Even if he “accommodated the officer” with the best of his ability, he was violated for his rights for not doing anything illegal. Since he was still being searched for looking “suspicious” it is clear that the officer had racially profiled an individual under no circumstances of a prosecution. This proves that the even if an individual is complying with the laws, police officers will go out of their to find reasons to target people and violate their constitutional rights. In addition to this topic, the idea of violating the constitutional rights

Racial profiling exceeds the legal limits, Latino communities are afraid of going out because they have a higher risk of being arrested, based in the way they look. Ranjana Natarajan a clinical professor and director of the Civil Rights Clinic at The University of Texas School of Law, writes the article, “ Racial Profiling Has Destroyed Public Trust in Police. Cops Are Exploiting Our Weak Law Against It” where she explains how police brutality is against the law but is still happening. Natarajan mentions, “Whatever else we have learned from the recent tragedies of police violence, it is clear that we need comprehensive federal, state and local policies that outlaw racial profiling and rein in police excessive force”. This shows how police

Racial profiling is a discriminatory act committed by law enforcement officials in which individuals are targeted and discriminated against based on race, religion, culture or any criteria which defines a person. Racial profiling is based around the suspicion of crime where officers turn to designated characteristics they believe to be associated with certain groups of people that commit misconducts.

In the past couple years, racial profiling has made many people fear the thought of getting pulled over, especially people of color. Law enforcement is supposed to make society feel safer when they are around them but they changed that thought real quick. Racial profiling has also led to the hate of law enforcement which caused people to say “f*** the police”, or even resulted in certain individuals attacking law enforcement officers out of anger. It has also led to the beginning of protests in certain cities for the young blacks that have died and some of the protests turned awry when police arrived and shut everything down. In one article concerning racial profiling, it says “Contreras said LULAC has received a complaint alleging a St. John police officer was racial-profiling Latinos. She cited a town police messenger log in which the officer allegedly said he was conducting a "Mexican hunt"(Carlson). This evidence proves that certain officers if not all have horrible mind sets for their specific job. And if they do have a bad mindset for their specific job, then they need to find a new profession so they do not end up injuring or even killing someone. Another way racial profiling is showed in an article is when the article says “On February 18th, a black Elizabethtown police officer has filed a lawsuit that accuses the Fayetteville Police Department of racially profiling and

Data collected In our society states racial profiling has been a social issue and the legal question at matter since the dawn of time. The existence and pre- existence of racial profiling dates back to the times of slavery . In 1693, the main state of law was Philadelphia. Philadelphia’s main and important people of the town where the court officials back then. They came to a conclusion; and agreed upon giving police legal authority to stop and detain any Negro (freed or enslaved) seen wandering in and around on the streets. This discriminatory, unlawful, and downright wrong practice continued through the Jim Crow era and has now taken an effect in the twenty-first century. That from the viewpoint of the pro side that they can still do this

Some say that racial profiling is a tactic that is very much needed to help officers with investigations. Racial profiling is actually unconstitutional because the fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. The fourth amendment also sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause. The court case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce confronted the issue of race as being a factor to the suspicion of criminal activity. The officer that stopped the respondent's car said it was “ the apparent Mexican ancestry of the occupants.” This belief that the occupants were illegal immigrants did not satisfy the court and they ruled the case as violating the fourth amendment.

One of the most important civil rights facing our nation today is racial profiling. The main source of those accused of racial profiling are police officers. In the eyes of citizens, racial profiling by a police officer can be defined as “any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity or national origin rather than behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity” (Ramirez, 2000). For instance, concerning traffic stops, the use of racial profiling can be defined as when the race or ethnicity of a person is a

Imagine you get shot because of your skin color. Your skin color that you can’t change. For that reason you get killed or discriminated. Racial profiling is a practice that some law enforcement use when it comes to someone being suspicious because of their race, ethnicity and religion. In 2004, 32 million people reported that they were unfairly singled out by law enforcement because of their race, according to a new Amnesty International report (Goyette). One example of racial profiling is when 9/11 happened, Muslims have been more likely to be questioned more in airports. Historically speaking, racial profiling has been around since the 1700’s in the United States and it still a problem because innocent people are being targeted based on

Racial profiling is when someone’s race is used by law enforcement to assume criminal suspicions (Spagnoli, Filip). Law enforcement has used racial profiling to “help” prevent criminal activity. For instance, a survey done by the department of justice when officers focused more on African-American and Latino drivers they found that less of them had drugs the when they least focused on white drivers (The Truth About Racial Profiling: FIVE FACTS). Some officers assume that Hispanics and African-Americans are carrying around illegal substances and weapons. This is not always true! As the survey revealed, most of the people who did have prohibited items were white Americans. Law enforcement should begin stopping drivers by suspicion not by their race. In another survey done by Ian Ayres and Jonathan Borowsky they had found very similar information. “We also found that, once people were stopped, officers were more likely to frisk, search, or arrest African-Americans and Latinos than whites…when these frisks and searches are substantially less likely to uncover weapons, drugs, or other types of contraband” (Borowsky, Ayres). Officers are spending more time on race than focusing on real criminals who are ousting the reasons why this country is remarkable. Other cases like these have been confirmed as well. “Relative to stopped whites, stopped blacks is 127% more likely and

According to a report conducted by Prejudice Institute (2001), “Racial Profiling,” racial profiling is a special case of discrimination. The concern with profiling began, and is primarily, focused, on police stopping motorists and searching their vehicles because of the driver 's ethnicity. This is where the term “Driving while Black” came to light in 1989. Such actual unconventional policies exist in many police departments. Uncovering it often depends on the testimony of the officer. In New Jersey, Black and Hispanic state troopers have testified that they were forced to engage in profiling by their commanders (Prejudice Institute, 2001).