Police departments use offender profiles, which is described as a series of behavioral and personal characteristics related with specific offenses, to make predictions regarding the type of person that may commit future crimes. Other reasons why offender profiles might be used are to identify the type of individual that might have already committed a crime for which they have identified no credible suspect or as yet not located an eye-witness to the event.
The term criminal profiling progresses to racial profiling when the defining characteristics used comprise ethnicity, religion or race. Profiling methodologies differ largely because all profilers are not trained equally and they possess varying abilities. Essentially, there are two types of profiling that are performed by criminologists and police departments in the U.S. Each describes very different approaches to this field of study. Inductive Criminal Profiling is theoretically associated with the creation of a psychological pattern of symptoms and the subsequent evidence of symptoms. This method actually involves racial generalizations and deductions based on statistics.
Deductive Criminal Profiling is a less common method of profiling. It can be considered somewhat as, very generally speaking, the Sherlock Holmes method where the profiler maintains an open mind and examines all premises, assumptions and opinions put forth despite how eminent the provider of the information might be. This discussion examines the merits regarding the Inductive and Deductive Criminal Profiling methodologies so as to provide police management a detailed account of the intrinsic worth of racial profiling.
Decisions regarding what person to stop, question, and detain based upon characteristic generalities that are either observable or perceived such as race is based on the inductive profiling method. However, even when generalizations are statistically legitimate, they can be very erroneous in particular cases. Racial profiling is, by anyone’s definition, a rational method of discrimination. Discrimination, no matter how it can be rationalized, causes the victimization of certain minority groups. It leads to malicious stereotyping and generalizations regarding race, religion, gender, etc. which civil liberty-loving Americans have decided is morally reprehensible. It does not matter if these generalizations are well-founded or if by not acting upon them results in a public safety concern. In many instances, police departments are under an enormous pressure to solve cases, especially high-profile cases. If they rely too heavily on the inductive profiling method, high-profile mistakes can be made (Turvey, 1998).
If law enforcement agencies adopt the inductive profiling method, it not only serves to mislead the investigative process, this method lends the factor of pseudo-credibility to the process. This method falsely accomplishes the objective for which it is intended. Moreover, the inductive process of accepting preliminary statistics and the resulting analysis cannot be compared, credibility-wise, to a methodical reconstruction of the crime scene including a victimological evaluation. (Geberth, 1995).
Deductive Criminal Profiling emphasizes a knowledgeable reconstruction of forensic evidence and excludes data regarding offenders of similar characteristics and motivations or those that have committed similar crimes. Deductive Criminal Profiling deduces its conclusions from carefully examining individual behavior and forensic data in addition to reconstructing the crime scene of a singular offender and offense. There are distinct advantages that the deductive offender profiling method has over the inductive method. For police management, this method reduces the chance of errors thus lawsuits and embarrassment for themselves and the department. (Geberth, 1995).
The horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, left an ineradicable mental image in the minds of people worldwide and changed many aspects of life in America not the least of which is the moral, ethical, and legal debate regarding the concept of profiling based on a person’s race or country of origin. The government, police administrators, and various agencies such as the transportation industry, as a response to possible future terrorist attacks, has led an anti-terrorism campaign focused on identifying people of Arab descent extending even to people of the Muslin faith and those who appear to be of Middle Eastern origin.
One of the most obvious tactics in the ‘War on Terror’ is the widespread use of racial profiling. The term ‘War on Terror’ has been continually invoked to justify breaches of the Constitution as well as the basic civil liberties of citizens and foreigners alike. The invocation of this phrase has repeatedly prohibited rational discussions regarding civil injustices such as profiling individuals based on their race. (McDonald, 2001).
The popularly stated position is that racial profiling is a necessary law enforcement tool. Not using it would compromise the effort against terrorism thus sacrificing national security. This argument is fundamentally flawed because it erroneously presupposes that racial profiling is an essential element of this emotion-evoking endeavor. However, the reverse is accurate. Profiling, as a tactic employed by law enforcement, redirects important assets, estranges and enrages prospective allies and, most importantly, is contradictory with the uniquely American concept of equality and freedom.
While most would have agreed prior to September 11 that racial discrimination is morally wrong and cannot be justified for any reason, those following the tragic events which killed more than 3000 Americans and the continued threat of terrorism have made this practice more palatable and even desirable. Had the terrorists that committed these acts not been of Arab descent, then the profiling of airplane passengers and the widespread fear of this particular ethnic group would not be a matter of discussion. Profiling Arabs is an easy sell to a country made up principally of non-Arabs.
Following the Oklahoma City federal building bombing in 1995, there was no public outcry to profile white men. Virtually all persons of Arab descent who are detained at airports, kicked off airplanes, have their bags searched, or are looked at with suspicion almost everywhere they go are not terrorists. Racial profiling contains racist overtones that send a clear message to the rank and file of a police department; racism is tolerated if used in the line of duty. Undoubtedly, if profiling in the name of terrorism has not been proven effective, the profiling of black citizens in the name of ‘getting tough on crime’ is not effective as well and causes more harm, ultimately, than whatever good may come of it.
“Racial profiling in any manifestation is a flawed law enforcement tactic that is in direct conflict with constitutional values” (McDonald, 2001). In addition, racism is an immoral and a social sickness that is difficult to eradicate because of the selfish predispositions of human nature and should not be allowed to proliferate in any police agency. A police department’s function in society is to reflect the values of that society. If it does not, it becomes despised by the public and eventually irrelevant therefore unsuited to perform its duties. All of these considerations should be of utmost importance to police management.
Comparative criminal justice studies are dedicated to illustrating how ethnic minorities and immigrants are treated within the criminal justice system on a worldwide basis. Without exception, the incarceration rate in the U.S. demonstrates that the incarceration rates of minorities far exceed that of the particular majority ethnicity. In addition, minority members that experience a high crime or incarceration rate generally belong to economically and socially deprived social groups. Furthermore, minority groups experience heightened discriminatory bias in decisions regarding pretrial confinement and sentencing guidelines (Tonry, 1997).
Overt discriminatory practices during all phases of the criminal justice system concerning ethnic minorities, especially those of African-American or Hispanic descent have been well-documented throughout the history of the country (Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997). Racist techniques such as racial profiling create an antagonistic relationship between the public and the police department attempting to serve it. A situation not conducive to effective police enforcement. Racial profiling is not only morally and constitutionally wrong, it is not pragmatic or ultimately valuable for police operations and potentially disastrous for police administration.
Whatever the people of the U.S. decide on the question of racial profiling even during these fearful times of uncertainty and terror, generations that are yet to come may judge what we do now as reprehensible mimicking what those of us now think of past generations of Americans that thought it proper to imprison innocent Japanese-Americans in internment camps during the Second World War (Colb, 2001). Perhaps Americans of all ethnicities should endeavor to exercise the moral responsibility that paves the way for the rights and freedoms we enjoy. Civil rights should be extended equally to all and not merely to certain groups at certain times.
Harassing, detaining or intruding on the liberty and privacy of individuals who are of a certain ethnic group will undoubtedly cause a certain amount of personal detriment to countless numbers of people who haven’t caused any reason to justify such an intrusion. The reality of the situation will not totally convince those the majority of police department officials who presently argue that profiling is effective and helps keep the public safe.
Works Cited
Colb, Sherry F. “The New Face of Racial Profiling: How Terrorism Affects the Debate.” Find Law. (2001). Web.
Geberth, Vernon. “Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques.” (3rd Ed.). Boca Raton, FA: CRC Press. (1996).
MacDonald, Heather. “The War on the Police … and How it Harms the War on Terrorism.” Supra. Vol. 7, I. 16. (2001). Web.
Sampson, R.J. & Lauritsen, J.L. “Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal justice in the United States.” Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration: Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives. M. Tonry (Ed.). Chicago, Chicago University Press. (1997).
Turvey, B. “Deductive Criminal Profiling: Comparing Applied Methodologies Between Inductive and Deductive Criminal Profiling Techniques.” Knowledge Solutions Library. Electronic publication (2001). Web.