Is Racial Profiling Justified

Can Racial Profiling in the United States Be Justified?

Racial profiling and the various problems that arise as a result of it bring up many controversial issues. Racial profiling is a topic that weighs heavy on the minds and opinions of many in this country. It has been the subject of many disagreements as to whether or not it actually exists. Some argue that certain races can’t see it because they never experience it, but a case can be made that all races experience it at some point. One of the most controversial is the debate of whether or not racial profiling is justified. One of the hindrances to finding an answer to this question is the fact that many agencies and departments in law enforcement refuse to cooperate with studies to

determine its prevalence. Some of them even deny it exists. This becomes a bigger problem you combine these issues with the fact that such a large portion of “public opinion” is driven by the media. As the pros and cons are debated in the national media all the time, it results in a powder keg of public resentment and distrust of the police and other law enforcement by certain segments of society. In turn, this leads to an even bigger divide in society.
In short, racial profiling is a form of prejudice. It is allowing a person’s nationality or racial characteristics to be a determining factor in whether or not they are in the act of committing a crime. It deals with the “imagery” associated with criminal acts. Many people think about gang violence and drug sales and associate them with African Americans or Latinos; organized crime is associated with Italians and Irish. It is the assumption that a person would be predisposed to a certain form of criminal activity based solely on their race.
In June of 1999, the ACLU issued a report titled “Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on Our Nation’s Highways.” This report detailed and analyzed problem of racial profiling of minority motorists. In fact, they stated that practice was “restoring Jim Crow justice in America. (Weeks, 1999) The report cited actual statistics from the police on traffic stops, ACLU Lawsuits, government reports and stories in the media from all over the nation. The conclusion drawn by David Harris, a professor at the University of Toledo Law School, was that skin color was being used as a substitute for evidence and grounds for suspicion.
Professor Harris stated, "The key factor in DWB is that the courts have moved the law in the direction of allowing police more and more discretion to stop drivers, in order to fight the war on drugs; and police have used this discretion to stop more and more drivers in racially disproportionate ways." In the report, he explained how racial profiling had already been a serious problem in this country for several years, but it mainly affected minorities, with white people rarely seeing the problem.
This sentiment is why the argument on whether or not racial profiling actually takes place is why is so difficult.

Racial profiling is largely one-sided, affecting mainly minorities. So many non-minorities, especially in law enforcement, refuse to admit or accept the fact that people are profiled based on racial criteria time and time again. However, the DEA developed a program called Operation Pipeline that began in 1986. Under this program, also addressed in the ACLU report, police officers were trained and instructed to target individuals that drove certain types of vehicles in certain parts of town based on their age and

race.
The problem that this creates is that the fact that this practice seems to be contradictory to the equal protection clause that is included in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

This act went into effect in in 1868 and states that no state can deny anyone within its jurisdiction equal protection of the law, nor can it make or enforce any law that will infringe on the rights or liberties of any citizen of the United States. Racial profiling is an act of prejudice. It involves making a presumption of (probable) guilt based on the person’s ethnicity. This violates the fact that as citizens of this country, there is a presumption of innocence unless guilt of fault is proven in a criminal case.

To define equal protection, we must assume that all persons must have the same access to the law and courts and be treated equally by those institutions in all matters of the law. This topic was addressed in the court case, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954. In this case, Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that “separate but equal” facilities for educating blacks were in fact not equal and thus unconstitutional. His reasoning was that the segregated school system did not give all students equal rights under the

law.
There is a segment of society that believes racial profiling is a necessary defense mechanism that our government and law enforcement have available to them. Many of these arguments stem from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. After investigating the terrorist attacks, it was undeniable that they were perpetrated by a group of foreigners of Middle Eastern decent. This prompted law enforcement to focus future investigative measures on foreign nationals of Middle Eastern decent, sometimes with no regard to any factors other than their ethnicity.
This practice is not unlike the response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. After the Pearl Harbor bombings, American residents of Japanese decent were essentially profiled due to their ethnicity. In fact, California’s Attorney General Earl Warren, the eventual Chief Justice presiding over the “Brown v. Board of Education” case, instructed that a map of all Japanese-owned land in California be designated on a map. He then called for the state’s district attorneys to enforce the Alian land Law against all Japanese-American Land owners in California. Eventually, he even advocated for the exclusion of all Japanese from within 200 miles of California or its coast. His reasoning was that their presence allowed for a repeat of the bombings at Pearl Harbor. (Siggins, 2002)
It can be argued that racial profiling has a negative effect on more than just the resulting victims. In fact, racial profiling can affect society as a whole in a negative fashion. In October 2014, Jamil Jivani gave a speech on the subject at the Tedx Conference in Toronto. In his speech, he outlined an incident he was involved in, when 2 white police officers approached him while he was on a phone call outside of his apartment building in a predominately black neighborhood. He was on the call receiving career advice from a mentor at work. The officers ended up questioning him and even asked for each of his addresses for the past 10 years, even though he had given them proof that he currently lived in the apartment building he was in front of. When they finally ran out of questions and realized they had no reason to hold him, they sent him on his way. (Jivani, 2014)
Situations like this leave a large segment of society not trusting law enforcement. This distrust grows into a belief that the government, who controls the law enforcement, is only working for a small segment of society and doesn’t really care about the rest. A recent result of tensions like this can be seen in the violence in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore after recent race related deaths involving white police officers. (Jivani, 2014)
Is racial profiling a necessary evil? That is the question that must be asked and answered when debating the justification of racial profiling. However, before that question can be posed, it must be determined that is actually does exist. The answer to that question if fairly evident. Look at the government’s response to Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks as well as New York City’s “Stop and Frisk” policy and existence of racial profiling is undeniable.
With the existence being proven, it must be determined next if there are actual benefits of racial profiling. It must be determined whether or not the possible improved safety and security is worth stripping citizens for their dignity and violating the Fourteenth Amendment. What cost is too high for these increased security provisions?
These are issues that cannot be resolved by one person or even a small group of people. These are answers that can only come by open and honest dialog between the citizens and governing powers