Potential demerits while using secondary data must also be kept in mind. The fundamental issue calls for the persistent problem of validity. When one researcher gathers data for one specific purpose, it cannot be assured that those data will be suitable for other research work as well. Generally, secondary data are to the lowest degree helpful for assessment studies. This is because valuations are contrived to serve specific questions about specific plans. It is always probable to reanalyze data from valuation studies, but secondary data cannot be used to assess a completely different program (Maxfield, 2008).
Secondary researchers (like Maxwell, Garner, and Fagan, 2001) liked to affirm or re-evaluate determinations from the pilot studies. But it is not likely to use those data to answer inquiries about domestic ferocity interventions other than take into custody or to assess arrest policies in new metropolises where the tries out did not take place.
Racial profiling is nothing but police officers using the race or ethnicity of a person to initiate contact. This is the racial profiling in its simplest form. According to Harris (2002) racial profiling is a key disagreement in the relationship between the police and the community in recent years. Thus ethnic identification is consequently, the exercise of police officers to stop drivers only due to their race or ethnicity and not for any genuine law infringement.
Whether certain racial or ethnic people are targeted for investigation or for traffic stops? In reality this query had gained national interest during the late 1990s. Racial profiling is now an extremely mooted issue because several cities were alleging and complaining that the police officers were paying closer notice to minority group members when conducting traffic stops or carrying on investigatory stops.
The racial profiling debate calls for very intricate matters associated with finding out