According to Ciment (2015 ), criminal profiling is conceptualized as the use of certain predefined characteristics in determining whether someone is possibly a criminal. Law enforcement officers execute this through the creation of a profile based on attributes that are common in offenders. These include social, psychological, and behavioral character traits. Racial profiling is thus the use of race to give merit to suspicion of probable criminal behavior in an individual. This is often done in the absence of any other character trait in the suspected individual. Owing to racial profiling, law enforcement officers are likely to be biased in the execution of their duties. This has been proven statistically. For instance, in some states, the highest percentage of traffic stops are aimed at blacks despite the fact that vehicle ownership by blacks is significantly low ( Ciment, 2015; Ekstrand & Rezmovic, 2000). Nevertheless, racial profiling does not affect African Americans only. As highlighted by Spann (2005) , since the terror attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, the Islamic community has been significantly victimized particularly with regard to air travel. This can be seen in the attitude of the United States (U.S) president toward this community as exemplified by the ban on Muslim travel to the U.S. The bans began with the president’s desire to stop issuing of visas to Muslims but have since transitioned to a ban on a few nations with predominantly Muslim populations. Owing to racial profiling, the targeted communities, who are often the minority, are bound to feel disenfranchised. T his paper will first expound on the problem of racial profiling. It will then highlight the possible solutions and lastly offer the recommended option.
Explanation of the Problem
The problem of racial profiling extends beyond individual communities to the national level resulting in a public outcry over the issue. Firstly, racial profiling is a blatant flouting of the rights of individuals. Both the 5th and the 14th Amendments of the U.S Constitution prohibit the law from engaging in discriminatory behavior due to an individual s race, ethnicity, or national origin. Both the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d] and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 [42 U.S.C. 3789d(c)] are federal statutes that prohibit institutions that receive federal funding from engaging in any form of racial discrimination. Additionally, in 1994, the Attorney General was given the power to seek injunctive relief if a federal institution was found to engage in racist behavior, regardless of whether or not it was receiving federal funding. This indicates that racial profiling is of such immense national importance that the Constitution and Congress have made a point to make laws that oversee it and give institutions the power to pursue those who violate the laws.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Racial profiling is associated with numerous adverse impacts. Therefore, the need to give attention to this problem cannot be overstated. Firstly, racial profiling increases the chances of the search and seizure of goods based solely on a law enforcement agent’s arbitrary decisions. According to Harcourt (2004), profiling reduces the efficiency of searches. When individuals are targeted disproportionately based solely on their race, a higher rate of offense in the targeted race is likely. This phenomenon is attributed to be as the execution of duties by law enforcement agents. Targeting specific individuals also implies that those not being racially profiled get away with offenses. Another problem is what Harcourt (2004) describes as the ratchet effect. The ratchet effect alludes to a scenario where minority-race offenders are apprehended more due to profiling. In this case, profiling raises the number of offenders which subsequently increases the number of arrests. This is a loop of positive feedback whereby due to profiling, the targeted race gets more offenders in a perverse self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
Racial profiling leads to such adverse situations as the imbalanced dispensation of punishment to individuals of certain races. An example of this imbalance is the disproportionate dispensation of the death penalty among black people (Alvarez & Miller, 2017; Alesina & La Ferrara, 2014). Another example is the keeping of individuals in internment camps such as what was done to the Japanese during World War II and innocent Arabs in Guantanamo Bay. Racial profiling leads to separation within families. It also increases acrimony between incarcerated individuals and the government, further playing into the hands of groups that recruit individuals to perpetrate terrorist acts.
Possible Solutions to the Problem
According to Lever (2005), racial profiling is a necessary evil and that, in some cases, the vice is justified. For instance, a disproportionate relationship exists between the number of crimes committed and the race of the individuals committing the crimes. Further, Sesardić (2018) argues that racial profiling is necessary. The author posits that the argument that it is morally wrong to profile an individual racially is unconvincing. He reckons that the arguments against racial profiling fall short because they do not consider the statistical data indicating that black people are more likely to commit a crime. This gives weight to the idea that individuals who make arguments against racial profiling are in denial. To this end then, one policy in handling racial bias in terrorism is to ensure that profiling does not translate to racism. Racism entails actively discriminating against someone based on their race while profiling is backed by data that is indicative of an actual correlation between a race and certain actions. It is therefore difficult to argue against using a method that is justified in its adoption.
Having justified the use of racial profiling, the best policy would involve the maintenance of the status quo on the matter but with an insistence on measured action and careful consideration of action so that racist undertones do not fuel law enforcers' efforts. This is of particular importance since one of the issues that might affect an individual in a community is implicit bias. These are biases found in individuals who are not even aware that they have biases. Studies have shown that racial preference is a learned characteristic. According to Lee et al. (2017) , babies as young as six months begin to show bias towards their race. This phenomenon is not a form of racism, but rather is indicative of a fact of life. Individuals are ingrained to form opinions on other people’s races. Law enforcement officers are not immune to this phenomenon. It is therefore important to train the officers in becoming aware of their prejudices, implicit or otherwise, and use them, together with experience and statistical data to best protect the nation.
Conversely, the re is an argument that a shift has emerged with regard to terrorism. Data shows that most acts of terror perpetrated in the U.S are carried out by Caucasian males. However, prejudice exists against individuals of Arabian descent because it is assumed that they are easily radicalized. This position is not based on any facts. Corbin (201 7 ) calls this a false narrative. This is because after 9/11 the media began depicting terrorists in a more Arab light than they were. This has also been tied to the belief that terror is a Muslim - fuelled crime and since most Arabs are Muslim, the re is a link. Most domestic terror acts are perpetrated by Caucasian, Christian men who act with ideologies as their backing against groups such as Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, government officials, and police officers. However, these individuals are never branded terrorists but rather ‘ lone wolves. ’ Their actions are connected to mental health issues and passed off as such. In these cases, there is no racial profiling of terror acts being perpetrated by male, Caucasian individuals, even though existing data clearly shows that they are more likely to commit such acts. As described by Spann (2005), most of the liberty infringements and social ill-will are still being directed at Muslims. Policy on these matters, therefore, is not based on a justified racial profile that is anchored on data as was argued before.
Simmon s (2011) argues that the problem is an institutional culture of impunity, tools such as racial profiling, and a judicial system that places the burden of proof on those claiming the police are biased. The best solution is therefore to create a system where the federal government destroys the culture that allows individuals with a racial bias to commit a crime and then hide behind the curtain of law enforcement agencies for protection. Also, the government could adopt civil suits where, unlike in criminal courts, the burden of proof falls on the individual charged. Other strategies for solving the problem include internal probes and charging officers that target individuals due to their race.
Recommended Solution
The best solution for the issue of racial profiling as it pertains to terrorism is an amalgamation of the arguments made in both spectrums. In this case, there is a need to strike a balance. On the one hand, the argument in support of racial profiling does not acknowledge how systemic abuse can slowly become mainstream. It also does not consider that despite training individuals on how to become aware of their bias, the same individuals are likely to proceed and act with impunity. On the other hand, the argument against the use of racial profiling does not allow for the use of statistical data to guide policy. It is, therefore, my opinion that racial profiling should be used deliberately but carefully in the formation of security policy. This is vital in the case of terrorism as has been established that those who are most likely to be targeted are not those statistically probable to cause problems. The government should also invest heavily in training law enforcers to recognize and deal with their own implicit bias. However, to provide checks and balances, the federal government should create laws that strictly monitor the execution of racial profiling-backed policy. Likewise, the government should create strong internal investigation mechanisms and ensure that there is a swift and actionable recourse when individuals use this policy as a launch pad for racial discrimination.
References
Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2014). A test of racial bias in capital sentencing. American Economic Review , 104 (11), 3397-3433.
Alvarez, M. J., & Miller, M. K. (2017). How defendants’ legal status and ethnicity and participants’ political orientation relate to death penalty sentencing decisions. Translational Issues in Psychological Science , 3 (3), 298.
Ciment, J. (2015). Social issues in America: an encyclopedia . Routledge.
Corbin, C. M. (2017). Terrorists Are Always Muslim but Never White: At the Intersection of Critical Race Theory and Propaganda. Fordham L. Rev. , 86 , 455.
Ekstrand, L. E., & Rezmovic, E. L. (Eds.). (2000). Racial Profiling: Limited Data Available on Motorist Stops . DIANE Publishing.
Harcourt, B. E. (2004). Rethinking racial profiling: A critique of the economics, civil liberties, and constitutional literature, and of criminal profiling more generally. The University of Chicago law review , 71 (4), 1275-1381.
Lee, K., Quinn, P. C., & Pascalis, O. (2017). Face race processing and racial bias in early development: A perceptual-social linkage. Current directions in psychological science , 26 (3), 256-262.
Lever, A. (2005). Why racial profiling is hard to justify: A response to Risse and Zeckhauser. Philosophy & Public Affairs , 33 (1), 94-110.
Sesardić, N. (2018). Is Racial Profiling a Legitimate Strategy in the Fight against Violent Crime?. Philosophia , 1-19.
Simmons, K. C. (2011). Beginning to end racial profiling: Definitive solutions to an elusive problem. Wash. & Lee J. Civil Rts. & Soc. Just. , 18 , 25.
Spann, G. A. (2005). Terror and Race. Washburn LJ , 45 , 89.
