Racial Profiling Sociology

Racial Profiling Examined Through Different Aspects of Sociology

Racial profiling is the practice of targeting a particular individual or group of individuals by law enforcement authorities or other authoritative figures based not on their behavior, but rather on their personal characteristics (“What is Racial Profiling”). This is something that is practiced in the United States far more than most people know or would like to admit. Racial profiling is often used by airlines, police, and government agencies. It targets people of color for humiliating and often frightening detentions, interrogations, and searches without evidence of criminal activity. It can be based on perceived race, ethnicity, national origin or religion (“Racial Profiling”).

The following report will discuss the power, judgments made on first impressions, imagery, and racism in the problems that have risen, consequences of decisions that were made, and injustices in the system when it comes to racial profiling.
Through the use of racial profiling, many problems have arisen or have been exacerbated throughout the country.

One practice that has become common in larger American cities that has caused many to question its legality is the “Stop and Frisk” procedure. Due to the Fourth Amendment, the law requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before they may stop a suspect. If the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk on the person (“Stop and Frisk”). The issue with this is that people are stopped solely due to imagery, which gives one a perception of something without necessarily having any suspicion based on an actual episode based in reality. This also means that those in law enforcement are subject to using generalities in their judgments, based on limited reason. This in turn may result in racism and bigotry in their actions whether intentional or

not.
Another practice that has begun to pose problems is the use of TSA screenings. Through these screenings, racial profiling is often used to choose an individual to search at random. This practice, as referred to in “The Trouble with Airport Profiling”, does not make citizens of our country any safer and many think that it is not worth the cost. Even more strongly, security isn’t our society’s only value. It seems that the full power of government is acting out our stereotypes and prejudices (Schneier). The practice of airport security searching people from Arab decent more often and thoroughly is naïve, dangerous and is just playing on American’s fears since 9/11. Muslims can be black, white, Asian, and everything else, but most Muslims are not Arab (Schneier).
Racial profiling can often prove to have very detrimental effects, as seen in the cases of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. The use of racial profiling has forced law abiding citizens of all colors to question the motivation of law enforcement and those acting in its name when something seems to go wrong. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed seventeen year old that was shot and killed in the town of Sanford, Florida on February 26, 2012. The alleged shooter and neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was charged on April 11, 2012 with second-degree murder and claimed self-defense in Martin's death (“Fla. Teen”). Trayvon was followed and actively pursued because he was wearing a hoodie and was deemed suspicious for walking in a predominantly white neighborhood after dark. This neighborhood was in fact where his family resided and he was not accused of any crime or wrong-doing.
On a similar note, Michael Brown was shot multiple times and killed in a high profile incident that was also claimed to be self-defense after being stopped by police officer Darren Wilson, for walking down the middle of the road and fitting the description of a perpetrator of a crime that had just been committed at a nearby store.

The circumstances surrounding Michael Brown’s death have caused people around the world to take sides. Many believe the officer was well within his rights to shoot the unarmed teen numerous times, including multiple wounds to his head. Others believe this is just another example of how people of color receive a different standard of law enforcement and are deemed “thugs” and more dangerous and expendable than their white peers. It seems that people in a position of power frequently and sometimes unintentionally do use stereotypes and created images in their minds about others, to jump to rash decisions. This is one example of cultural hegemony in society, because the racism and bigotry, which have been produced by members of society, have influenced peoples’ behavior patterns and decisions through ways of ignorance among the citizens of the United States. Most times the consequences of these decisions go unnoticed by the average population, but when the consequences are dire they force a spotlight to be shone on the practice of racial profiling. This forces mass media to cover an epidemic that most would prefer not to admit exists. While people

such as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown may not have truly posed a threat to anyone, the people that held the power used quick judgments, based on imagery, which resulted in making decisions that ended their lives.
The issue when it comes to racial profiling is that people often use aversive racism to identify those that they deem a threat to them. Aversive racism is a form of contemporary racism that manifests at the individual level. Compared to the traditional form of racism, aversive racism operates, often unconsciously, in subtle and indirect ways. People whose behavior is characterized by aversive racism sympathize with victims of past injustice, support the principle of racial equality, and regard themselves as nonracist. At the same time, they possess negative feelings and beliefs about blacks or other groups that are different than their own (“Aversive Racism”). While a person may not identify themselves as being a racist, or feel hostility or hate towards a certain race, they may still feel discomfort, uneasiness, or disgust towards someone that is a different race than them, due to stereotyping. Under these circumstances, aversive racists may engage in behaviors that ultimately harm blacks, but they will do so in ways that allow them to maintain their self-image as nonracist. This insulates them from recognizing that their behavior is not color-blind. On the other hand, when a person holds power, or has authority over another individual and is faced with such a situation, their choices can have even stronger impacts on those around them (“Aversive Racism”).
The basic concept of aversive racism is that many people understand the proper way to act to other races and will go out of their way to insure that they do not treat anyone in a manner that could be identified as racist. Aversive racists value the other races and truly believe that they should be treated fairly. They understand the past mistreatment and so they act appropriately in their relationships with other races. The problems arise in situations where latent mistrust and feelings of uneasiness towards other races finally manifest themselves in a manner that is easily rationalized when they are expressed in subtle or indirect ways. In situations where this is the case, unwarranted fear of another race can lead to inappropriate behavior. For instance, discrimination will occur in situations in which normative structure is weak, when the guidelines for appropriate behavior are vague, or when the basis for social judgment is ambiguous (Hewstone 319). This is perfectly exhibited when you listen to people discuss the Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown scenario, they are quick to blame them for their circumstances, and refer to them as “thugs” and say they deserved what they got. It is also prevalent when people rationalize that Muslim is a violent religion because a small percentage of Muslims have acted in a destructive manner. In addition, discrimination will occur when an aversive racist can justify or rationalize a negative response on the basis of some factor other than race (Hewstone 319).
The consequences of the decisions made through the uses of racial profiling and stop and frisk, and also in the cases of Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown, are diverse in severity from humiliation, and loss of trust and security, to loss of life. In the case of stop and frisk the consequences are often embarrassment and humiliation, fear, improper arrests, and police brutality. The practice in and of itself is a way for police officers to protect themselves from harm, to determine that a suspect is not a threat, to reveal if they are carrying a concealed weapon. It is when this legitimate law is combined with racial profiling that its relevancy is questioned. The use of stop and frisk on citizens that are only deemed “suspicious” because of the color of their skin or because of what neighborhood they are walking in, seems excessive and even unconstitutional to many. The use of stop and frisk laws have recently been deemed unconstitutional in New York City. Judge Shira A. Scheindlin found that the Police Department resorted to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as it increased the number of stops in minority communities. That has led to officers routinely stopping “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white” (Goldstein). Discrimination will occur when an aversive racist can justify or rationalize a negative response on the basis of some factor other than race. Under these circumstances, aversive racists may engage in behaviors that ultimately harm blacks, Hispanics and Muslims.
Lastly, and most of all, racial profiling proves to have many injustices in the way that it is used. Racial profiling targets large groups of people with nothing more than skin color, race or nationality in common. Its practice is based on the idea that you are more likely to commit a crime if you were born within these common traits. Unfortunately, these practices fail to protect a very large portion of our nation’s citizens from illegal search and seizures, and allow them to live their lives on a daily basis without the fear of being accused of a crime simply because they fit a profile. The killers of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown both got away without any punishment for their actions, when two people lost their lives. Even worse, is that many people in the United States completely agree with their actions and think that killing people for such reasons is an acceptable thing to do. Many people can easily rationalize the death of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown because of aversive racism. They believe that Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were faced with the consequence of death, because of their actions. It was rationalized that Trayvon Martins death was justified as self-defense, even though the man that killed him initiated contact with the deceased. It is believed by many that Trayvon was actually the one acting in self-defense. Michael Brown may not have been as innocent, but it is hard for many to believe that the excessive use of fire arms and ultimately the outcome of the events on August 9, 2014 would have been the same if he was not black.
Racial profiling in stop and frisk can prove to be unjust due to the fact that it occurs every day, targeting people of color for humiliating searches. In fact, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin cited violations of the Fourth Amendment through the use of stop and frisk, because it violates the constitution’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure (“NYC”). Studies have shown that police targeted Blacks in 63.3% of encounters in Boston, while Blacks make up less than a quarter of Boston's population (“Black”). This statistic shows that the race of someone has to at least play some part, if not a large part in stopping them to be frisked. It seems that people may find others suspicious, solely based on their race, rather than what they are actually doing, or if they are a true threat. This may be related to the individuals being stuck in a pattern of behavior and way of thought. Such patterns of behavior may be comfortable for the individual but limiting them to see other options and ways of thinking.
Through power, judgments on first impressions, imagery, and racism in racial profiling, one can see the problems that have risen, consequences in decisions that have been made, and injustices in the system. Racial profiling has proven to be an issue in several recent scenarios, it is common among regular citizens, including those that have to power to determine whether someone lives or dies. Using different aspects of sociology to examine this issue, one can see that minorities are still often disadvantaged in America’s system and that the use of imagery, judgments and racism can often strongly influence people in the place of power to make rash, sometimes undeserved, decisions. The treatment of minorities in everyday day life has changed significantly for the better in the past fifty years. The average American citizen understands the past hardships that have been endured centuries. Most Americans do not consider themselves to be racist and truly believe that all citizens regardless of color deserve all of the freedoms and opportunities that our country provides. The problem that still exists for minorities is not always the outright racism of the past, but the aversive racism that many do not even know they are contributing to and the way that the government has allowed the people that are assigned to protect our rights and ensure our safety to be using a system of profiling minorities that causes humiliation, fear and ultimately the distrust of our government and the population as a whole.