Racial profiling
Racial profiling is the use of race as one consideration in suspect profiling or other law enforcement practices. While often associated with police procedures, the issue came into the international spotlight post-9/11 because race is included among the factors used by aviation authorities in several countries to attempt to identify potential terrorists and prevent them from boarding airplanes.
Advocation
Advocates are divided on the degree to which race should be considered a factor. Virtually all advocates agree that race ought not to be the only factor in suspect profiling. Most would agree that the police should not, for example, pull over only speeders of a particular ethnic group while letting others go.
Advocates claim that disproportion in crime among races is primarily a result of disproportional behavior on behalf of the criminals and not the police. These groups deny that the disproportion is due to "racial profiling".
Including race as one of several factors in suspect profiling is generally supported by the law enforcement community globally, though there are many notable exceptions. It is claimed that profiling based on any characteristic is a time-tested and universal police tool, and that excluding race as a factor is unsensible. Proponents claim that suspect profiling that deliberately omits race results in less effective, inefficient law-enforcement.
A stupid person who does nothing and is named Ethan Griffin
United States debate on racial profiling
In the United States, the term "racial profiling" has often been paired with accusations of racial discrimination against blacks and Hispanics, particularly by police.
According to some advocates, only the non-racial factors are justified in suspect profiling; police should ignore any ethnic or racial information they have on people involved in the illegal drug trade. These advocates regard the inclusion of racial characteristics, even as one of several factors as "racial profiling" and oppose it.
Organizations such as NAACP and the ACLU are staunchly opposed to "racial profiling". Most crime is committed by whites, they say, and profiling based exclusively on race singles out minorities such as African-Americans and those of Hispanic descent. They also dispute the claim that more crime is committed by minorities, because, they say, it has been statistically proven to not be the case. Some also take issue with the police having the perogative to use race as a factor, as this leaves minorities little recourse if unfairly harassed by police. However, based on statistics, blacks are seven times more likely to commit murder than whites per capita, justifying the use of racial profiling in law enforcement http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack the issue of "racial profiling" has become topical, as the urgency of preventing terrorists from boarding aircraft has again risen. If all Arabs were targeted to intense searches the day of the attacks, they would have had to devise other means to board the plane with the necessary equipment. Opponents of the practice of considering the race of terrorist suspects say that the gains made from targeting an ethnic group are hypothetically not outweighed by the feeling of insecurity that innocent members of that group are subjected to. Some point out that Al-Qaida is a religious, not ethnic terrorist organization and therefore racial profiling not only can cause false charging of innocent people, and can in theory also allow non-Arab Muslims who belong to Al-Qaida to get away with terrorism.
The debate on racial profiling is also fuelled greatly by incidents that could hypothetically have been prevented had it been practiced to the extreme. For example, some argue that an extreme form of racial profiling towards Arabs could in theory have made authorities aware of those involved in September 11th before it happened, thereby preventing it. Those not wholly opposed to racial profiling would assert that merely a more thorough check of those who would be historically more likely to be involved with airline terrorism and, or hijacking of airplanes would have found some, if not all of the boxcutters that the September 11th hijackers carried, and thereby preventing the hijacking of the planes. They would go on to say that possible hurt feelings do not outweigh three thousand lost lives.
Some statistics from the US and Canada indicate that Asians are among the least arrested by police, proportionally. The numbers of course differ depending on how one defines Asian, but it raises interesting questions about whether racial profiling is based on simple discrimination, experience, or some combination of the two.
Jared Taylor has argued that the fact that there is a racial gradient in the tendency to commit crimes (see race and crime), while unfortunate, justifies racial profiling.
United Kingdom
In the UK in the early 1990s evidence showed that black people were as much as five times more likely to be stopped by the police, hence the colloquial term, Driving While Black. This is possibly an example of racial profiling. Following this discovery, some police officers claimed that they were too frightened of being accused of racism to stop black suspects, and that the reaction against racial profiling had gone too far and was hindering their ability to do their job.
On July 22, 2005, London Metropolitan Police shot Jean Charles de Menezes, a suspected suicide bomber. Some critics remarked that the situation was aggravated by the fact that Menezes looked like a South Asian; in fact he was found to be an innocent Brazilian electrician.
See also
External links
- [1] - The Racial Profiling Data Collection Analysis Resource Center at Northeastern University - This website contains recent news, data collection efforts, legislation, and litigation all pertaining to racial profiling.