Henderson 1

Kee-Myah Henderson
Dr. Sterling
English 1302
May 2, 2017
No Place for Racism in the System

Racial profiling is when an officer of law targets an individual not on their behavior, but

rather their personal characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion. Racial

profiling has been an issue that dates back earlier than the 1700s. Then when the fourth and

fourteenth amendments were created, some thought racial profiling would simmer down. The

fourth amendment states that the government is prohibited from any unreasonable seizes or

searches; while the fourteenth amendment states that all men are presented with equal protection of

the law. Unfortunately, even with the bill of rights, racial profiling still remained an issue. Recently,

Arizona passed a law known as the show me your papers law, allowing officers to ask anyone who

they found suspicious, to furnish citizenship papers. The law sparked even more controversy on the

already heated issue. Then in September 2001, when terrorists struck the twin towers, more people

that had never entertained the idea of racial profiling, were reconsidering. The controversy gained

more media attention, debating whether or not racial profiling should be allowed at airports as

further security measures to diminish chances of another terrorist attack. As if the debate wasn't

packed with scenarios to motivate each side, the Martin-Zimmerman case occurred in February of

2012. George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old black male. Although

Zimmerman was not an officer of law, it sparked more controversy as people claimed Zimmerman

was racially profiling Martin, a black male wearing baggy clothing in a bad neighborhood. The

result of his neglectful stereotyping ultimately cost a young man his life without just reason. Racial

profiling has always been a recurring problem, and seems as though it will continue the same.

Those that feel racial profiling is necessary, consider it as a filtration system. It is necessary

to essentially filtering out the criminals based on suspicion. Statistically, most criminals are
 Henderson 2

Hispanic or black, while most terrorists are from the middle east. Based on said statistics, they feel

it is a criterion to be met, while patrolling. If a Muslim is traveling at an airport, they are suspicious

solely based on their religion, and therefore require more security measures than the Caucasian

man. If an African-American man presents himself with a baggy shirt, and his pants sagging below

his buttocks, surely his intentions are not anything lawful. Also, the Mexican man driving in

Arizona, just might be an illegal alien, because the border is so close, so surely, he is suspicious.

Law officers are taking racial stereotypes, and applying them in a professional setting towards

individuals to separate the good and the bad of each religion, race, or ethnicity. They feel it is

necessary, to do so because it will save future crimes from happening, or future terrorist attacks.

On the opposing side, racial profiling shouldn't be allowed because there isn't enough proof, to

show its benefiting our society in any way. It makes a mockery out of the Bill of Rights, since it is

a blatant violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendment. Not only that, statistics show that it

doesn't do what it's supposed to. An ACLU lawsuit uncovered police data indicating that while 73

percent of suspects pulled over on I-95 between 1995 and 1997 where black, black suspects were

no more likely to actually have drugs or illegal weapons in their cars than white suspects. (Head)

Racial profiling, is morally wrong, and if allowed would be promoting racial discrimination.

For decades, racial profiling has been the loudest debate in law-enforcement. Which

presents the question, should racial profiling be allowed? With all studies and facts furnished, it's

evident that racial profiling should not be allowed in law enforcement. Even while it may seem

evident, it still seems to cause controversy, and those that believe it is necessary are able to provide

a compelling argument. To their dismay, it doesn't quite uphold towards those that feel it shouldn't
 Henderson 3

be used.

Racial profiling is very costly on the tax payer dollar. With the amendments in place, it is

very easy for an individual that was targeted by an officer of law who was profiling, to make

pursue a lawsuit against the police. Several cases throughout the United States are presented daily.

With these cases, cities pay plenty of millions of dollars in attorney fees, and settlement fees,

draining tax dollars. A lawyer in Oakland, California, John Burris, presented a case in 2005 for a

group that was targeted by racial profiling. John Smith, Kirby Bradshaw, Spencer Lucas V. City of

Oakland, the plaintiffs were pulled over, without any lawful reason, and had their pants pulled

down on a busy street corner. The plaintiffs won their case, and were granted $245,000 in damages.

(Burris) Another case, presented by Burris as well, in 2009 was the case Johnson et al v. Bay Area

Rapid Transit district, in which a black male was fatally shot without justification. The officers

were called to the scene with reports of a fight. The officers, all of which were Caucasian, detained

Oscar Grant, the one who would later be fatally shot, and others that were said to be involved.

When an officer was restraining Grant, who was prostrate and unarmed, a fellow officer drew his

gun, and opened fire upon Grant. An enormous $25 million wrongful death suit was filed in Grants

name. (Burris) Many protests resulted because of the incident, claiming racial profiling. With racial

profiling eating away at so much money, it is a wonder why officers still participate in such

discrimination. On the contrary though, those that feel it is necessary say that the inconvenience it

presents, does not outweigh the benefits. Believers of racial profiling tend to argue that a life lost,

or money spent does not compare to the lives that are being saved using this system by filtering out

criminals, or money that is saved by removing illegal citizens that have been draining the economy.
 Henderson 4

They feel an unjust inconvenience is truly worth the outcome being provided.

Years and years of statistics, show that racial profiling is not producing the results

anticipated. If it's not giving what is wanted, why is it still a pressing issue? Statistically, a black or

Hispanic individual is actually less likely to be in possession of drugs or weapons., than a white

person. A study conducted off of LAPD data in 2003-2004 found that searches Blacks were 37

percent less likely to uncover weapons, 23.7 percent less likely to uncover drugs, and 25.4 percent

less likely to uncover any other type of illegal contraband than consensual searches of Whites.

They also found that Hispanics were 32.8 percent less likely to uncover weapons, 34.3 percent less

likely to uncover drugs and 12.3 less likely to uncover any other type of contraband than

consensual searches of Whites. Not only that, the data usually presented, is impartial. Most law

enforcement agencies do not track or count the stops and searches that do not result in finding

evidence. This means that we have almost no information about the impact that these police tactics

have on innocent citizens. Police departments simply do not collect this data in any kind of

systematic way. (Harris 87) With the data that is present, it is evident that Blacks and Hispanics, if

anything, are less likely to have illegal substances on them. Although, statistics show it isn't

producing the expected results, those in favor believe if they were allowed to use the practice, it

would be more effective. Those in favor of the practice feel that since it is not legally allowed, they

cannot properly practice racial profiling.

All people should get equal treatment, hence the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. These

two amendments go against everything racial profiling stands for. They suggest no one is subject to

unreasonable searches and seizes, and offer equal protection, respectively. In his article, Tom Head
 Henderson 5

voices his opinion on the topic. Racial profiling, is by definition, based on a standard of unequal

protection. Blacks and Latino's are more likely to be searched by police and less likely to be treated

as law-abiding citizens; whites are less likely to be searched by police and more likely to be treated

as law-abiding citizens. This is incompatible with the concept of equal protection. (Head) Then

David Harris, a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law writes, "In a society

dedicated to the ideal of equal justice under the law, forcing one group of citizens to put up with

disparate treatment because of the color of their skin is positively abhorrent. (Harris) The actions

conducted by law officers, in targeting people of color, are undoubtedly blatant violations of

human rights.

On the contrary, those in favor of racial profiling will suggest, preventing future crime,

comes before any human rights. There is often very little denial that they are in fact violating

rights, they just choose to look past it, in belief that their system works. Racial profiling is the first

stage in a criminal justice process in which institutional racism works to the disadvantage of people

of color. At every stage, persons of color are treated more severely than their white counterparts. A

policy of treating all citizens like criminals in order to catch the offenders favors crime prevention

over all other values, even people's civil rights. (Hartigan 6) In her article, Effective Racial

Profiling Legislation, Susie Hartigan says that crime prevention is more important than the rights

supposedly guaranteed to every citizen.

Racial profiling distracts law enforcement from working with the community. It's crucial to

have a good relationship between the community and the police, but with racial profiling that is not

possible. But racial profiling tends to alienate black and Latino communities, reducing the ability
 Henderson 6

of law enforcement agencies to investigate crime in these communities. If police have already

established themselves as enemies of a low-income black neighborhood, if there is no trust or

rapport between police and residents, then community policing can't work. Racial profiling

sabotages community policing efforts, and offers nothing useful in return. (Head). Russ Leach, a

former chief of police, also speaks of the issue, The practice of racial profiling has no place in law

enforcement. It is an activity that undermines the public trust vital for an effective community

policing organization. Police must be perceived as both providers of public safety and deferential

to the civil liberties of those they have sworn to protect and serve...To restore public trust and

improve community/police relationships, law enforcement agencies must address both the

concerns of the community at large that are relevant to discriminatory policing, and the allegations

of racial profiling made by ordinary citizens. (Leach 1) If a police officer can admit that trust

between the community and law enforcement is so critical to the system, why is the issue such a

debate? Those in favor of the policy, though, feel that the bad reputation is reasonably given. They

suggest that statistically, blacks and Latinos are more likely to commit crime. After all, if young

black males are your shooters, then it ought to be young black males whom the police stop and

frisk. Still, common sense and common decency, not to mention the law, insist on other variables

such as suspicious behavior. Even still, race is a factor, without a doubt. It would be senseless for

the police to be stopping Danish tourists in Times Square just to make the statistics look good

(Cohen).

Racial profiling distracts law enforcement from more useful approaches. Profiling based on

race evolved from criminal and behavioral profiling. Behavioral profiling, profiling based on ones

behavior and actions, has proved beneficial when applied appropriately. There are essentially two
 Henderson 7

kinds of profiling, inductive and deductive. Inductive profiling, uses statistical probability and

behavioral clues from previous offenders to create cookie-cutter profiles and predict the likelihood

of a future crime. Deductive profiling involves analyzing the evidence a tire track, DNA, a

bloody knife after the crime occurs in order to create a profile of that offender and use it to

catch him. Behavioral clues, on the other hand, can range from the physical to the ethereal. For

example, the possession of cold medicine, mason jars, rubber tubing, coffee filters and brake fluid

would quickly lead investigators to suspect someone of intending to produce methamphetamine.

(Kershaw) Sarah Kershaw, writes that there are other ways to catch a suspect, even if it's after the

crime has been committed.

On the opposing side of the argument, they will argue that race is simply a criterion to be

met. They will suggest that it is not discrimination or racial profiling. That, they in fact, are simply

profiling, and race is only one criteria out of the many that qualifies somebody to be stopped on

reasonable suspicion. Those in favor of the tactic deny that it is even racial profiling being

practiced.

Should racial profiling be allowed? Some feel it's a necessary filtration system that will help

separate out criminals, illegal aliens and terrorists, and reduce future crime. On the contrary, it's

argued that it's an unjust inconvenience that's morally and ethically wrong. Ultimately data shows

that racial profiling should not be allowed.

It's unmistakable that racial profiling should be prohibited. Research and data collected

show no specific race, religion, or ethnicity to be more of a danger than another. Those in favor of

the discriminatory practice feel if allowed, it would be effective in preventing and reducing petty
 Henderson 8

crime, illegal aliens and terrorist, although data shows that allowed or not, law enforcement in fact

uses racial profiling. The sole fact that it used, and the desired results have not been provided,

should be reason enough to stop. If law enforcement wishes to profile, it should be on the basis of

behavior. The idea of racial profiling in America is belittling and makes a mockery of the Bill of

Rights. With no concrete evidence that it works, it has no place in the justice system.

Racism has always been an issue in the United States. If superior figures are practicing racially

motivated tactics, that is teaching the nation that it is okay to judge one another solely on

appearance. This debate has cost lives of great historical figures, and continues to slowly eat away

at the credentials of Americas justice system. It needs be prohibited for the Americas reputation,

and to regain societies trust.

 Henderson 9

Works Cited

Burris, John. "Representative Cases."Northern California Civil Rights Attorney: Police

Misconduct, Discrimination, Injury Lawyer Oakland, CA. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 April. 2017.

Cohen, Richard. "Racism vs. Reality."Washington Post. The Washington Post, 16 July 2013. 24

Apr. 2017.

Harris, David A. Profiles in Injustice: Why Racial Profiling Cannot Work. New York: York,

2002. Print.

Hartigan, Susie. "Effective Racial Profiling Legislation." Editorial. Southern Changes 2002: 6-7.

Beck Library. 25 Apr. 2017.

Head, Tom. "Racial Profiling in the United States." About.com Civil Liberties. N.p., n.d. 22 Apr.

2017.

Kershaw, Sarah. "Acting Like A Usual Suspect." NYTIMES. N.p., 21 Oct. 2007. 25 Apr. 2017. .

Leach, Russ. "Racial Profiling: A Police Managers Perspective."Risk Institute. N.p., n.d. 25 Apr.

2017..

Lever, Annabelle. "What's Wrong With Racial Profiling." Academia.Edu. N.p., n.d.. 22 Apr.
 Henderson 10

2017. < http://www.academia.edu/219357/Whats_Wrong_With_Racial_Profiling >.

"Restoring a National Consensus: The Need to End Racial Profiling in America." Editorial. The

Leadership Conference Mar. 2011: 9-12. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human

Rights. 25 Nov. 2017.

"Should Racial Profiling Be Accepted as a Law Enforcement Practice?"ProConorg Headlines.

N.p., 23 June 2008. 22 Apr. 2017.