Racial Profiling in America - Term Paper Example

? Racial Profiling in America Outline and Table of Contents Introduction p. 3 Background p. 3 Due Process Model Crime Control Model Problems with Racial Profiling / p. 6 Racial Profiling after 9/11 / p. 7 Arguments in favour and why they're wrong / p. 8 What Must be Done / p. 9 Conclusion / p. 9 Abstract This paper explores a number of issues relating to racial profiling. It argues that racial profiling is a scourge and brings justice into disrepute. It studies how profiling has changed since 9/11 and why some people are in favour of it. It suggests that profiling undermines social cohesion, is unjust, and should be stopped. Introduction Racial profiling is a controversial subject that is increasingly on the minds of both minorities and the police. This is a common practice by which people of a certain ethnic background are targeted by the security apparatus on the belief that they are more likely to commit or be involved in illegal activity. There is no other probable suspicion except for their skin colour, and because of it they are subject to search or even detention. There are some that suggest this needs to be done in order to protect our security and to cut down on costs. However, racial profiling is inherently unjust and unAmerican. It is not a useful or acceptable practice and it may even have negative consequences for security. Background To properly understand the role played by racial profiling in the criminal justice system it is important to take a step back and look at the various theories that underlie the system we live in. There are two main models that are used to frame the criminal justice system. These two models are excellent illustrations of the thinking behind a great deal of the policy discussion relating to racial profiling. The first model is called the Due Process model. In this system, the standard to arrest and convict a person is very high. There are numerous safeguards in place to ensure that no innocent person is ever subject to any sort of invasive treatment. Everyone, no matter what the crime or the nature of the evidence, is treated with kid gloves. Not until the judge weighs in with the final conviction is the suspect sent to prison. Trials, under this model, last for a very long time and every scrap of evidence is reviewed. The problem with this model is that it is impracticable. It is very expensive and time consuming. It uses up a lot of resources in a system with limited or finite resources already. It may also permit guilty people to game the system to some extent. This system is often promoted by people on the left of the political spectrum. There is a second model called the Crime Control model. Under this system, the police have a great deal of power to act as they see fit. They are empowered to stop people without suspicion and hold people without charge. The prosecutors are usually presumed to be right. The presumption of innocence is somewhat limited. There are few protections regarding the civil rights of those accused under this model. An accusation is similar to a conviction. Trials and investigations are short; everything is aligned against the suspect. Suspicion is akin to guilt. Criminals have few rights and little evidence needs to be presented in order to convict someone. This model is often promoted by people on the right. These two models are good illustrations of the politics behind racial profiling. They also represent two poles, neither of which are an appropriate way to run a criminal justice system. We see that racial profiling falls into the Crime Control model, where suspects have fewer rights, but community security is the ultimate good. Preserving limited resources is important. Rather than randomly searching people, under racial profiling ethnic background is taken to imply a likely disposition to commit a crime or type of crime. Race is used as an investigative shortcut. This is an unfortunate extreme. A much better position is between the two models. Problems with Racial Profiling There are many possible reasons why racial profiling is a bad thing. To begin with, there are serious consequences to racial profiling. As one expert has astutely put it: It is clear that, given the power and discretion available to police, the experience of being subject to racial profiling can lead both to a feeling of being harassed and to a sense of alienation from the legal system and the wider society. For victims of racial profiling, the intention of the policing agent is not an issue; the sense of injustice and insecurity is what stays with them. Over a long period of time, negative experience such as racial profiling can lead to specific ethnic groups’ losing confidence in the police (Chan, 75). By undermining trust in public institutions, racial profiling can destroy the social bonds that keep communities cohesive. This is truly a negative consequence. We need to be able to believe that our justice system represents us. One of the highest ideals of any system is the assurance that justice will not be brought into disrepute. People need to trust their institutions to act fairly so that they know that the rule of law prevails over all. The truth is that racial minorities are misrepresented in the criminal justice system (Muffler, 31). A much higher proportion of these people are imprisoned. Because of this, there is a deep unease and suspicion of the institutions that make up the system. It is indisputable that American institutions in the past have been racist. Indeed, slavery was permitted in the 19th century, and many laws had racial overtones and disenfranchised blacks. The United States has a long history of treating its racial minorities improperly, and this has lead into deep suspicions about the institutions that govern public life, especially the police. African-Americans in particular feel singled about by the police for suspicion. It is therefore important for those who represent the system to be above approach on these kinds of issues. Advocating racial profiling only harms relations between different ethnic groups. Social cohesion is extremely important for all countries to function properly and fairly. Racial Profiling After 9/11 In recent years, racial profiling has taken on a new dimension. The terrorist of attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. (as well as a field in Pennsylvania) on September 11, 2001, dramatically increased the controversy associated with racial profiling. The debate exploded into the public discourse. While still a civil rights issue, profiling now took on a different tone. Perhaps by profiling people of Arabic descent, the United States government might be able to save the country from another terrorist attack. Many of the attacks were carried out by people from countries in the Middle East. But the case was not so open and shut. Opponents of the notion of racial profiling people in response to terrorist threats suggested that security officers would be limiting their investigations if they only targeted Arabs, and that the real terrorists would know this and use different means. Racial profiling might create a climate of false confidence. Proponents of racial profiling for terrorism do not always make a lot of sense. Legal scholar Robert Bork has this to say: Ironically, it is the very randomness of the new security checks that has generated so much skepticism about their efficacy. Old ladies, children, Catholic priests—all have been subject to searches of San Quentin-like thoroughness despite being beyond rational suspicion. According to the authorities, this randomness is itself a virtue, preventing would-be terrorists from easily predicting who or what will draw attention. But it is far more probable that frisking unlikely persons has nothing to do with security and everything to do with political correctness. Frightening as the prospect of terrorism may be, it pales, in the minds of many officials, in comparison with the prospect of being charged with racism (Bork, 27). The unnecessary political jibe against liberals say it all. This is an attack on opponents of racial profiling based purely on politics and not on policy. Arguments in favour and why they're wrong Others have more substantial arguments, but are nevertheless incorrect. Some argue in favour of racial profiling, at a recent academic conference, some commentators stood up to suggest it was a good policy: [these critics] argued that what are claimed as the evils of racial profiling—which they identified as "the feeling of resentment among minorities, the sense of hurt, and the increasing loss of trust in the police"^—do not suffice to justify opposition to it. They offered two reasons for this. First, most of the harm allegedly caused by racial profiling is in fact attributable to pre-existing racism. Profiling expresses rather than contributes to that harm. And second, such harm as is caused is outweighed by the benefits of profiling.” (Klenig, 3) This is an interesting perspective, but it is a false one. Profiling is not merely an expression of racism. By permitting it to be used as a technique, the government and the police are implicitly endorsing racism. A climate of impunity and injustice is being created and sustained by the authorities. This does more than express racism, it also condones it. It creates a climate where racism is permissible and will thus flourish. Others suggest that racial profiling is simply part of the terrain. It cannot be ignored and should be changed. It is simply another tool in the policeman's toolbelt. As one critic puts it: “Yet officers interviewed by Satzewich and Shaffir (2009) had repeatedly defended profiling practices as routine criminal profiling unrelated to racism. This suggests that cognitive bias and stereotyping is a feature of police cultural knowledge that is not easily changed given the nature of police work as currently structured” (Chan 77). These efforts to divorce the technique from its consequences or the ideas that underpin are not convincing. There is obviously a huge racial component to the practice. Ignoring it will not make it go away. Furthermore, it may be an expensive proposition for police to continue. Victims of racial profiling may be able to sue police officers and win large civil awards (MacAllister, 98). What must be done We need to come together as a society and begin to work on problems of prejudice. Simply denying that these problems exist is not going to get us anywhere. We need to work hard to confront the past and look at how it informs and shapes the present. The United States has had a very difficult time with racial issues in the past. Racial profiling merely propagates these problems and spreads them into the present day. The practice is ineffective and racist and it needs to stop. It undermine social cohesion and a sense of unity. No one should be judged because of their skin colour or ethnicity. We need to stop this practice now. Conclusion Racial profiling is unjust. It is unacceptable in a country that respects civil rights and believes all groups are equal before the law. There are many problems with it. It undermines community cohesiveness. It may mislead police in their hunt for legitimate suspects. It makes people doubt the very institutions they are supposed to trust to keep them safe. For all of these reasons we must say no to racial profiling and do everything we can to turn back its pernicious tide. Work consulted Bork, Robert. (July 2003). “Civil Liberties after 9/11.” Commentary. Chan, Janet. (January 2011). Racial Profiling and Police Subculture. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice. Klenig, John. (January 2007). Racial and Ethnic Profiling. Criminal Justice Ethics MacAllister, David. (January 2011). “The Law Governing Racial Profiling: Implications of Alternative Definitions of the Situation.” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Muffler, Steven. (2006). Racial profiling: issues, data, and analyses. Nova Publishers. Read More