RACIAL PROFILING

Racial profiling is a phrase often used in law
enforcement or the court system to refer to the use of a
person's ethnicity or race to decide on whether to
engage in some type of legal proceeding. The act itself
is very controversial and considered by many as illegal
and inappropriate.
Racial Profiling Debate
There are several definitions of racial profiling, including
those established by different offices like the Office of
the Arizona Attorney General. This office defines it as
"Use by law enforcement personnel of an individual's
race or ethnicity as a factor in articulating reasonable
suspicion to stop, question or arrest an individual,
unless race or ethnicity is part of an identifying
description of a specific suspect for a specific crime."
Most definitions are similar in that they identify that
some type of police action is being taken that relies on
the national origin or race or ethnicity of a person rather
than the actual behavior of the person in some manner
of criminal activity.
Racial profiling is also referred to as racially-biased
policing and can be broken up into a narrow definition
and a broad definition. The narrow definition is the most
commonly used definition with regards to a police
officer stopping, questioning, arresting or searching
someone based on his or her ethnicity or race. The
more broad definition looks at racial profiling as
occurring whenever police use race or ethnicity as a
factor when reacting with suspicion and action against
an individual.
Critics of racial profiling look to the Fourth Amendment
of the United States Constitution to challenge the
practice. This amendment protects citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures without probable
cause. The Fourteenth Amendment is also used in legal
cases to support the right of citizens to be treated
equally under the laws of the United States.
In 2001, former President George W. Bush addressed a
Joint Session of Congress and declared that racial
profiling was wrong and that America was going to end
it. He went on to comment that the nation's police
officers need the support of the American people, and
due to the abuses of a few, they were hindered in doing
their jobs properly. Rather than being racially profiled,
law enforcement was being pigeon holed, although it
could be said they were experiencing a similar situation
to that of those individuals who were racially profiled. A
year later, Attorney General John Ashcroft shared
President Bush's sentiment and stated that using race
as an indicator of potential criminal behavior was
unconstitutional and undermined the criminal justice
system. A former policy regarding racial profiling was
issued by the Department of Justice in June of 2003
that forbade the practice by federal law enforcement
officials.
Police Profiling Debate
The racial profiling debate, however, seems to center on
whether or not the practice is really all that bad. Some
in the realm of law enforcement argue that the practice
is necessary and effective. They believe that due to
demographic and socio-economic factors and their
relation to crime, those in a large minority population
have a higher risk of participating in criminal activities.
They argue that ignoring the facts due to moral integrity
is professionally and morally wrong. If law enforcement
officers are to identify and take action against violators,
any information to assist them in being more effective is
crucial. Critics of racial profiling argue that individual
rights are violated when this practice is utilized. Civil
liberties organizations intimate that this type of profiling
is in fact a form of discrimination and undermines basic
human rights and freedoms. Researchers are interested
in collecting data and analyzing trends to see how this
information corresponds to perceptions of racial profiling
and the effects it has on ethnic groups.