Introduction
Racial profiling is one of the serious sociological issues facing the world today and more so the united states of America. It is a controversial issue that touches on societal matters such as of discrimination, security and individual freedom. What is racial profiling? While there may not be a generally accepted definition for racial profiling, it may be viewed as the inclusion of a subject’s race as a factor in deciding the likelihood of the person committing a crime (Amnesty International, 2009). It has been used in Britain to identify terror suspects for example (Kops, 2006). This matter has been the subject of heated debate. People have taken different stands on the matter with some opposing it while others are for it.
Discussion
The opponents of racial profiling have advanced several arguments to support their stand against it. Among some of the arguments advanced by this group of people is the argument that racial profiling is inconsistent with constitutional principles (Harris, 2002). They argue that racial profiling negates the principles of equality and fairness. It is also argued that racial profiling alienates communities. The communities who could have otherwise cooperated with law enforcement authorities fail to do so. It causes the people involved emotional pain and suffering. An example of this is said to occur when members of the black minority are stopped by traffic police primarily because of their color for whatever objective reason. This is seen as a clear case of prejudice based on color and in turn it builds resentment towards law enforcement authorities (America Civil Liberties Union, 2004).
Another argument advanced against racial profiling is that it is an inefficient method of ensuring that members of the public are safe. this is because when law enforcement is conducted based on general characteristics such as race may result in the commission of errors as it overlooks the possibility that the actual individual who committed a particular crime may in fact be of a race that is quite different from the one predicted (Harris, 2002). Another possibility is that with the authorities expecting a security threat to come from a particular group for example expecting terrorists to be of Arabic origin, may in fact lead them not to scrutinize a non-Arab who may at that time be a threat that is much real. One such case that is given as an example is that of Richard Reid who in spite of not fitting the profile was a shoe bomber in the United Kingdom. They also argue that race profiling wastes resources because they are ineffectively allocated.
A good number of personnel that is more than necessary are set to a limited area whereas some of them could be put to good use elsewhere (Zetter, 2009). It is also argued that there is a possibility that there are those who might use racial profiling to excuse outright racial discrimination (America Civil Liberties Union, 2004). Besides racial profiling is degrading to the involved race and could even qualify as an assault for some people. To further advance their arguments, people opposed to racial profiling say that it could lead to the victimization of innocent individuals citing the case in Britain where an innocent Brazilian man was mistakenly shot (Zetter, 2009). They argue that profiling is based on broad stereotypes which are mostly inaccurate. Racial profiling may encourage offenders who do not fit the profile to act with impunity knowing that they are unlikely to be investigated by law enforcement authorities (Harris, 2002).
Those who support the use of racial profiling in law enforcement argue from a security standpoint claiming that with the threats the United States is facing, the method is necessary(Taylor, 2001). They argue that terrorist attacks on the United States make it imperative for racial profiling to be used. Those who support racial profiling argue that the United States had to choose between two evils, that of offending some individuals psychologically and that of allowing terrorist threats to be executed. With this dilemma, according to them America has little choice but to accept the better of the two evils which happens to be racial profiling (Taylor, 2001). They claim that it is better to presume that an individual is for example a terrorist and to realize later about the falsehood of the assumption, than to presume otherwise only to realize when it is -too late to act the individual was actually a terrorist. They also argue that racial profiling is indeed an effective law enforcement procedure that has prevented many potential threats of criminal activity from being actualized (Taylor, 2001).
The two arguments differ on the effectiveness of racial profiling as method of law enforcement. Those who are for it argue that it is effective while those against it argue different. The two arguments also differ on whether or not it is acceptable to use race in this manner regardless of the results. There is also a common point in the two arguments as regards to the need to provide security for the people. They both seem to agree on a need to have effective law enforcement but only differ on the method of achieving this.
Conclusion
It is clear that there may be benefits of using racial profiling in law enforcement. However it still is a violation of the principles of fairness and equality among other disadvantages. It is necessary therefore that in order to have good security a more efficient method such as using behavior rather than general characteristics should be used.
Bibliography
Amnesty International Racial Profiling: 2009. Web.
America Civil Liberties UnionACLU Applauds Introduction of ‘End Racial Profiling Act’ As ACLU Releases Report on Racial Profiling: 2004. Web.
Harris, David Profiles in Injustice: Why Racial Profiling Cannot Work: 2002.
Kops, Deborah Racial Profiling: Marshall Cavendish: 2006.
Taylor, Stuart The Case for Using Racial Profiling at Airports: 2001. Web.
Zetter, Kim Why racial profiling doesn’t work: 2009. Web.