Racial Profiling Summary

The article “Should Racial Profiling Be Accepted as a Law Enforcement Practice?”, published by ProCon.org discusses the pros and cons on if racial profiling should be practiced by the law enforcement. Those in favor of this practice admit that people of color are targeted more by law enforcement agencies because they are the ones who usually commit crimes. When officers practiced racial profiling, the reports that had been made showed that minorities were the ones mostly committing crime. Those opposing this proposition explain why racial profiling is an inefficient strategy. Many minorities arrested due to racial profiling, who are falsely convicted and imprisoned end up being innocent. Let’s face it, racial profiling is an excuse, disguised as a reason, for law enforcement agencies to target people of color/minorities. Who are the ones randomly selected at an airport for an extra security check? It’s usually someone from an
One could also argue that the president of the U.S, Donald Trump, claimed that the use of stop and frisk reduced crime in NYC. However, what Johnson and Trump fail to realize is that the data they are referring to is all inaccurate because it was based on racial profiling. The use of stop and frisk proved that officers focus more on skin color rather than the behavior of an individual, proving that criminological data will mostly always be inaccurate. According to the accurate data presented by Christopher Mathias, nearly 80% of stops were blacks and Latinos and 13% of them were whites yet, “a weapon was found in only 1.8 percent of blacks and Latinos frisked, as compared to a weapon being found in 3.8 percent of whites frisked.” Over 70% of the stops were blacks and Latinos and still whites had a higher percentage of carrying a weapon, which is over 50% of the cause for