Argument Against Racial Profiling

Living in a world of uncertainty law enforcement officials must be equipped with necessary tools to protect themselves and those around them. Behavior and body language speak a universal language understood by almost anyone. If an individual is suspicious chances are that their behavior will show it in many forms such as heavy sweating, and/or no eye contact when spoken too. However, racial and/or criminal profiling isn’t always exactly fair to the individuals under suspicion however if conducted appropriately can be effective in weaving through possible suspects moreover, identify and prevent future possible criminal activity. Furthermore, necessary security measure to pick up the slack where other security measures have failed. Looking a racial profiling through this lends in a sense is smart law enforcement. Knowing that potential risk comes from a specific group of individual’s behaviors, actions, and body language logically reinforces to focus on that specific group of individuals.
Beginning con’s to Racial Profiling
Naturally, racism is embedded in society; moreover, historically as human selfishness, enslaving, and advantage in efforts to be superior to other races. Social constructs in efforts to change this view
for the better gave open possibility to the end of racism and oppression (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Social construct gives the open possibility of changing this view through humans being capable of evolving and changing behavior. Racial profiling should not be permitted because it’s racist and discriminates toward races of color by singling out individuals based on one’s skin color, physical features, moreover, is discriminatory and unconstitutional. The risk of racial profiling are more than the benefit and should not be permitted by law enforcement officials because racial profiling stereotypes, it’s unconstitutional, and fails to promote law enforcement. Moreover, targeting individuals of color in turn has escalated to “driving while black” the persecution of innocent individuals of color and search and seizure; additionally, unconstitutional in the violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment civil right. Lastly, racial profiling fails to promote law enforcement resulting in racial difference in Michael Brown shooting and protests in Ferguson, Missouri.
Racial profiling discriminates toward certain races moreover; it’s unconstitutional.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice (2003), racial profiling sends the dehumanizing message to our citizens whom they are judged by the color of their skin and harm the criminal-justice system by eviscerating the trust that is necessary if law enforcement is to effectively protect our communities”. (Justice, 2003, para. 3)
Racial profiling is unethical as Americans it’s discriminatory, moreover, taints the criminal-justice system.
As Attorney General John Ashcroft, stated, racial profiling created a "lose-lose" situation because it destroys the potential for underlying trust that “should support the administration of justice as a societal objective, not just as a law enforcement objective. (Justice, 2003, para. 4)
Attorney General John Ashcroft, makes an excellent point in destroying trust because distrust in law enforcement officials diminishes the reporting of crimes resulting in law enforcement officials unable to successfully maintain order.
In theory, the building block of the justice system is that everyone received equal and fair treatment moreover, innocent until proven guilty. However, when racial profiling individuals are already presumed to be guilty. The risks outweigh the benefits associated with racial profiling because it violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment civil right, and fails to promote law enforcement. Unfair subjection of racial profiling towards minorities is embarrassing, humiliating and ineffective form or racial
profiling.
Stereotyping is a misconception based on assumption of a specific group of individuals. Racial profiling has adopted the term “Driving while Black” and has defined the practice of racial profiling. According to ACLU (2015), “war on drugs” has much to blame for the abuse of power regarding “driving while black.” Both, lawmakers and administrator's misguided crusade have created an additional war between the people and their constitutional rights of minorities being targeted. Routine traffic stops, resulting in looking like a drug criminal based solely on the color to their skin. In the minority community, this has been named “driving while black." The Fourth Amendment states that law enforcement agents cannot stop an individual without sufficient evidence to do so in other words probable cause. However, recent Supreme Court rulings have given a loophole in searching for probable cause for law enforcement agents to use routine traffic stops in order to “fish” for evidence. Moreover, African Americans and Hispanics are targets. No individual of color is invisible to this treatment. In addition, law enforcement uses the color of an individual’s skin as “evidence” against minorities (ACLU, 2015). In other words, since the early days, the war on drugs has targeted individuals of color in turn escalated to “driving while black” furthermore, the persecution of innocent individuals of color and search and seizure. This notion of African Americans are drug dealers; example African American has a nice car, so he must sell drugs, no way he or she can afford that car on his salary. Why can’t he or she or a family member has good credit and received a reasonable deal on the car, possible cosigner, or may be saved his or her money and put a down payment? The point is, just, because an African American has a nice car doesn’t mean he or she is a drug dealer. Additionally, it doesn’t give law enforcement officials probable cause to search the car. Furthermore, law enforcement officials persecuting African Americans reinforce enslavement repression and inequality by doing more harm than good.
As Americans, we have the right to protection of our constitutional right. According to the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. constitution protects individuals against illegal search and seizures; additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. constitution makes racial profiling illegal (Bill of Rights, 1791). The Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendment state that as American individuals have the right for the protection of civil rights. Why have law enforcement agencies been allowed to go against the protection of civil rights and racial profile? The answer there is a power imbalance between law enforcement officials and minorities; given that racial profiling is a controversial issue. However, the focus around racial profiling has centered on race despite the risks and benefits.
Racial profiling fails to promote law enforcement. According to the Justice Department statistics, based on the Police-Public Contact Survey, African American drivers are thirty one percent more likely to be pulled over than whites; moreover, twice as likely to be subject to police searches as white drivers; additionally, twice as likely to have no reasoning behind the traffic stop (N/A, 2011). These numbers underestimate the racial difference in Michael Brown shooting and protests in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael Brown was an unarmed African-American 18-year-old teenager which was shot and killed by a white law enforcement agent. Previously to a law enforcement agent pulling up alongside Brown, walking down the street, and allegedly told him to “get the f*** on the sidewalk” (Lee, 2014). Before any version of the alleged version to the story, Brown reached into the car, and the officer shot him, or Brown put his hands in the air and was shot by the officer, nevertheless, African American’s in Ferguson had plenty reason mistrust and dislike the police force. According to Vehicle Stop Report for Ferguson (2013), a total of fifty three law enforcement officers in Ferguson, only three are African American; eighty six percent of all traffic stops involved African-American even though consisted of sixty seven percent of the city’s population. On the other hand, white drivers, represented thirteen percent of the traffic stops in Ferguson and making up twenty nine percent of its population. Additionally, African-American drivers represented ninety three percent of the arrests and whites, seven percent; furthermore, when Ferguson's police conducted a search and seizure, contraband was found on more than a third of whites and a fifth of African Americans (Zengerle, 2013). The blatant unnecessary lethal force against Michael brown in turn causing riots in Ferguson due to the people of Ferguson tired of the treatment and lack of trust they have towards law enforcement officials. It clearly states that racial profiling can never be justified and clearly exists.
Law enforcement official using racial profiling is an effective when conducted appropriately; efforts in strengthening the prevention of terrorist attacks, policing, and ethically appropriate. On the other hand, when racial profiling isn’t performed appropriately and singles targets of a specific race sends the message that if one’s from a certain decent, race, skin color or practice a specify religion may be a target. In turn it violates the fourth and fourteenth Amendments right for the protection of civil rights; furthermore, failing to promote law enforcement resulting in racial difference in Michael Brown shooting and protests in Ferguson, Missouri. Mistrust leading to serious consequences between law enforcement officials and the people. As a result, the chillingly effects of racial profiling have left the people hanging not knowing to mistrust or trust law enforcement officials. Moreover, led us to question a more chilling answer: should we wait for more dangerous and life-threatening effects to arise before we can take action? Or stand up and allow law enforcement officials to do whatever is necessary to maintain order, and perform to the best of their ability?