Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments against racial profiling essay
Arguments against racial profiling
The impact of racial profiling on the community
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments against racial profiling essay
Racial Profiling is law enforcement and private security practices that disproportionately target people of color for investigation and enforcement. Racial Profiling occurs across the United States and an overwhelming number of Hispanics and African Americans, including children, are being stopped. Some may say “racial profiling is an ineffective and degrading practice that violates civil rights” while others say that it is “necessary to counter terrorism and reduce crime.” In my opinion, stop and frisk is unfair and against citizens constitutional rights therefore, making it illegal and horrible, but I do believe it’s a tactic taken by police to ensure no crimes are happening and it is also an effective way to counter terrorism. Everyone is created equally and should be treated equally. I believe Police should not stop someone based upon their race unless, suspicious behavior occurs.
Racial Profiling or stop and frisking highly occur in the state of New York. The New York City’s Police Department stop and frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, privacy rights, and illegal stops. The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast 84 percent of the stops are black and Latino. People say that stop and frisks are reasonable because they help reduce crime and protect citizens, but stop and frisks do not reduce crime rates and do not keep people safer. There has never been a research that has proven the effectiveness of New York City’s stop and frisk tactic, and the small number of arrests, summonses, and guns recovered demonstrates that the practice is ineffective. Crime Statistics also do not support the claim that New York City is safer because of...
... middle of paper ...
...ctivity, or statistics. If “an officer sees someone acting in a manner that suggests a crime is afoot, he or she has an obligation to stop and question that person” (‘Stop and Frisk’ is not racial profiling). If someone is acting suspicious and is questioned, why is that considered racial profiling? It is part of their job to stop someone who is acting suspicious to be safe. Just because someone of colored is stop due by a police does not mean they were necessarily discriminating them, there is simply more behind it.
Racial Profiling exists and there is no possible way to fully stop it. People are naturally capable of judging someone based off their ethnicity and will continue to do it. I fully understand racial profiling is happening and I don’t agree with it, but I do believe that in some cases, it is beneficial to stopping terrorism and preventing crimes.
The Stop and Frisk program, set by Terry vs. Ohio, is presently being implemented by the New York Police Department. It grants police officers the ability to stop a person, ask them questions and frisk if necessary. The ruling has been a NYPD instrument for a long time. However, recently it has produced a lot of controversy regarding the exasperating rate in which minorities, who regularly fall under assault and are irritated by the police. The Stop, Question and Frisk ruling should be implemented correctly by following Terry’s vs. Ohio guidelines which include: reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed, identifying himself as a police officer, and making reasonable inquiries.
First of all, racial profiling is unfair to its victims . Racial profiling is seen through the police in “Hounding the Innocent”, which is unfair since a person shouldn’t be pulled over more because of their race and that many of these stops have little to no connection to an actual crime. “Young black and Hispanic males are being stopped, frisked, and harassed in breathtaking numbers” (Herbert, 29) This is unfair to all victims of racial
Stop and Frisk is a procedure put into use by the New York Police Department that allows an officer to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they consider her or him to be. The NYPD don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. Officers solely need to regard you as “suspicious” to violate your fourth amendment rights without consequences. Since its Beginning, New York City’s stop and frisk program has brought in much controversy originating from the excessive rate of arrest. While the argument that Stop and Frisk violates an individual’s fourth amendment rights of protection from unreasonable search and seizure could definitely be said, that argument it’s similar to the argument of discrimination. An unfair number of Hispanics and
While the stop and frisk program ultimately seems like a great idea and that it will help residents of New York City feel safer while on the streets, there has been much controversy with this program. The issue of racial profiling is largely discussed when talking about NYPD’s stop and frisk program. Besides police officers targeting lower income neighborhoods, more stops are of African Americans or Latinos than of whites. These stops often end up with a higher arrest rate. Of the 685,784 stopped last year, 92% were male and 87% were African American or Latino (Devereaux, 2012).
Racial profiling is the tactic of stopping someone because of the color of his or her skin and a fleeting suspicion that the person is engaging in criminal behavior (Meeks, p. 4-5). This practice can be conducted with routine traffic stops, or can be completely random based on the car that is driven, the number of people in the car and the race of the driver and passengers. The practice of racial profiling may seem more prevalent in today’s society, but in reality has been a part of American culture since the days of slavery. According to Tracey Maclin, a professor at the Boston University School of Law, racial profiling is an old concept. The historical roots “can be traced to a time in early American society when court officials permitted constables and ordinary citizens the right to ‘take up’ all black persons seen ‘gadding abroad’ without their master’s permission” (Meeks, p. 5). Although slavery is long since gone, the frequency in which racial profiling takes place remains the same. However, because of our advanced electronic media, this issue has been brought to the American public’s attention.
Imagine driving home, on a pleasant evening, after a tedious day at work. Just as you are about to arrive to your neighborhood, you notice blue and red flashing lights and pull over. It seems the police officer has no reason for stopping you, except to search your vehicle because of your suspiciously perceived skin tone. This unnecessary traffic stop, designed for people of colored skin, happens on numerous occasions and has been termed Driving While Black or Brown. Racial profiling is the act of using race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed a crime.
... to occur in predominated areas. People might say they’re being racially profiled, but if it’s in an area where mostly Hispanics, or African Americans live, then it’s not. Whatever the situation is, an officer must articulate the facts and see if there is reasonable suspicion to stop someone.
Racial profiling is simply this, the color or race of a person while making a decision regarding that person. Usually when being racially profiled you are automatically marked as the worst example of your race. It is amazing the amount of things that a person can make up about your race. Most of the things they say are not true at all. You can't just say, “well all black people carry guns and eat chicken and watermelon.” You're racially profiling this person because of what you've observed among other black people. In this case, this is just morally wrong. Despite color a person of any creed can carry a gun, eat chicken, and watermelon. This statement would make you look completely idiotic...
Despite the fact racism has been around for hundreds of years, upcoming generations are becoming more open minded and less likely to publicly berate minorities; racial profiling, however, is the one loophole of racism America overlooks. Police officials often use the practices of racial profiling to discretely single out minority races. A common approach to this is through traffic patrols. According to a statistic based in San Jose, CA, nearly 100,000 drivers were stopped; during the year ending in June 2000; and of these drivers less than 32% were white, the remaining 68% of drivers were a...
Before any argument can be made against racial profiling, it is important to understand what racial profiling is. The American Civil Liberties Union, defines racial profiling as "the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin"(Racial Profiling: Definition). Using this definition we can determine that racial profiling excludes any evidence of wrong-doing and relies solely on the characteristics listed above. We can also see that racial profiling is different from criminal profiling, which uses evidence of wrong-doing and facts which can include information obtained from outside sources and evidence gathered from investigation. Based on these definitions, I will show that racial profiling is unfair and ineffective because it relies on stereotyping, encourages discrimination, and in many cases can be circumvented.
Every day you see and hear about minorities groups complain about cops and their tactics against them stopping them while in traffic taking them in to custody or even getting kill over nothing. Racial Profiling is a common thing in this community and it is causing a lot of trouble. According to Minnesota House of Representatives analyst Jim Cleary, "there appear to be at least two clearly distinguishable definitions of the term 'racial profiling ': a narrow definition and a broad definition... Under the narrow definition, racial profiling occurs when a police officer stops, questions, arrests, and/or searches someone solely on the basis of the person 's race or ethnicity... Some ways to stop it is find out who is guilty of it, look at their
Law Enforcement policy is designed to help law enforcement agencies cut down on the amount of crime in communities and give structure to the agency. It also helps lessen the number of certain cases in certain areas, as well as from a certain group of people. There are several policies that I disagree with, but there is one policy I will be discussing. Law enforcement officers sometimes stop and frisk people based on gender, race, financial status, and social ranking. It is a very controversial issue because anything dealing with race and ethnicity can cause a lot of disagreement and discord. According to a New York judge on dealing with the stop and frisk laws, "If you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don't you bring a lawsuit? You can certainly mark it as related . . . . I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit" (Carter, 2013, pp.4). The stop and frisk law is one reason I do not believe in law enforcement profiling. Even though some law enforcement officers allow personal feelings and power to allow them to not follow policy, some policies are not followed morally because I do not feel that officers should be allowed to frisk someone who is innocent and has not committed a crime because it takes the focus off real criminals and onto innocent people; it causes emotional stress. I know because I have been through this several times.
The stop-and-frisk program, devised on the basis of the broken windows theory, seems to be a great solution to preventing and addressing crime in New York City. The broken windows theory is based on the concept that if one can detect and monitor smaller crimes, then larger, more serious crimes will be prevented (Hopkin). So why has this program with a goal of preventing larger scale crimes and promoting proactive policing caused so many controversial issues leading to lawsuits? By law and protected under the Fourth Amendment, in order to stop and search someone, the officer is required to have “reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime” (Rosenthal). However, many searches have begun with no reasonable suspicion and have ended with the officers coming up with a reason at a later time (Rosenthal). The main issue here, though, is not in the fact that they are searching people without reasonable suspicion as much as it is the type of person, specifically, that is being searched. After watching the documentary, The Scars of Stop-and-Frisk, which follows the story of an 18-year-old boy named Tyquan Brehon, I realized a major fault in this program. Many officers are structuring the basis of their search more on the color of one’s skin than having actual reasonable suspicion. Through examining racial profiling and the reasoning behind determining the perfect suspect, I will argue whether the stop-and-frisk program is creating its desired effects.
Although some would believe that racial profiling does not occur and if it does it is used to keep the society safe, it is more correct to say that it disrespects and mistreats innocent citizens. More and more people are being stopped each year for crimes they did not commit and being singled out because of their race. Being racially profiled, harassed and mistreated is something that Latinos, Asians and African Americans go through every day. I believe that people should not be stopped and judged because of physical appearance. This is something that takes away ones individual’s rights and is very disrespectful.
...al profiled. The way is by the color of their skin. People say that racial profiling is a good way to stop terrorism and violence and stolen merchandise, but they don’t know the affect it has to the other minorities. If you were a minority you wouldn’t want to have people look at you differently or even make assumptions about you. To stop racial profiling we should stop judging how people look and stop recalling what happened in the pass with their ethnicity. Witherbee Amy ebscohost.com stated “Those who would defend racial profiling admitted that the policy bound to infringe upon the rights of African Americans who were targeted because of their appearance, but claimed that profiling made sense based on statistics that showed blacks and Latino Americans were more likely to be convicted with drugs crimes.” Would you make an effort to put an end to racial profiling?