Police Departments’ Use of Racial Profiling Essay

Introduction The model and practice of racial pen by the law enforcement agencies specifically, the police, has drawn the attention and concern of the public including the government. racial write is defined as the practice of targeting individuals for police or security interdiction, detention or former(a) disparate treatment based primarily on their race or ethnicity in the belief that original minority groups are much likely to engage in unlawful behavior (Laney, 2004). Another exposition proposed by Hernandez-Murillo and Knowles is that it is a statistical discrimination as a tool to predict nefariousity and would front more intensely the minorities than if they were of a different race. Thus, the discretion to enforce or not enforce the laws or policies based on categories or race of people have ill effects on those individuals manifold including affecting the publics perception in a negative way (Pruitt, n.d.). It casts doubt to the legitimacy and fairness of the cr iminal justice system and destroys the trust of the people in the law enforcement. It creates negative stereotypes who watch efforts in attaining societal justice(Pruitt, n.d.). Moreover, besides creating erroneous perceptions about the different races, it likewise creates misconceptions about the police. favoritism by a few in the police force is magnified as to be a brand label to all. This demoralizes the many who are fair and do their jobs with honor and dedication. Direct effects are seen on the targeted group, for instance African Americans and Hispanics change their driving habits beca single-valued function they perceived to be the target group in traffic stops (U.S. coitus, 2000). The members of the targeted group become uncooperative and develop disdain and contempt of the police (Pruitt, n.d.). racial profiling for somewhat is appropriate and justified. They believe that it is a sensible, statistically based tool that enables law enforcement to centralize their ener gies more efficiently and it also lowers the cost of obtaining and processing information and thus reduces the overall cost of policing (Kennedy, 2000).They nevertheless claim that the police are justified in scrutinizing more a particular sector or race if in the place where they are assigned, the members of this sector commit a disproportionate numbers of crimes. Similarly, they scrutinise men more than women. The basis for defending racial profiling as appropriate is centered upon its existence empirical and statistical. Moreover, it is claimed that racial profiling prevents crime considering that by make outing the drivers at night time would deprive a potential criminal of anonymity (Garlikov, 2000). Those who argue against racial profiling base their dissent on inbuilt and practical grounds (Kennedy, 1999). racial distinctions are opposed mainly on the violation of the Fourteenth Amendmentthe able protection clause. Even the mashs in exercise of judicial review, have ap plied strict scrutiny enunciating that the use of race in government decision-making gives rise to a presumption of violation of an individuals well-mannered rights (Kennedy, 1999).The use of race in governmental decision making may be upheld only if it serves a compelling government objective and only if it is narrowly tailored to advance that objective (Garlikov, 2000). An analysis of court decisions would reveal that disparate treatment is allowed in making stops provided that race is not the sole cistron in doing this (Garlikov, 2000). On practical consideration, the argument against racial profiling is based on the alienation that it creates. hallucination on the part of the race singled out creates distrust and even hatred towards the police and other elements of the criminal justice system. In so doing, witnesses refuse to cooperate with the police in the investigation (Garlikov, 2000). The different methods of look into occupied in racial profiling are the baseline data and the benchmark data (RCMP weather vane site, 2007). The benchmark data, i.e. census-based data, is derived from information that one tack togethers by stopping drivers. The use of stop data is being employed by more or less 4,000 different agencies in the country (Lamberth, Clayton, Lamberth, Farrell and McDevitt, 2005). Benchmarking data determines the right fortune of those stopped ought to be (Lamberth, Clayton, Lamberth, Farrell and McDevitt, 2005). The benchmark data is compared with the stop data to find out if those stopped by the police are mostly from the minorities based on race or ethnicity.There are devil kinds of benchmark data employed to respond to different issues. External benchmarking is designed to determine what percentage of drivers in a given area ought to be stopped (Lamberth, Clayton, Lamberth, Farrell and McDevitt, 2005). Internal benchmarking on the other mountain is a method of comparing the stop data of an officer with those of other officers who are similarly situated (Lamberth, Clayton, Lamberth, Farrell and McDevitt, 2005). This seeks to identify the differences in the stop practices of the police officers. The baseline data or the baseline comparison data uses comparisons and statistical samplings to determine the demographics of the population. Most often the police agencies employ the services of researchers (Davis, 2001). This is preferred than the benchmark data however, it is more time consuming and it entails expense (RCMP web site, 2007). The move to conduct racial profiling studies and in some states, investigation and inquiry into the different departments practices, has spurred both negative and positive impact on police officers. In a study conducted, it revealed a marked decrease in the number of arrests (Cleary, 2000). This means that focus was make on more serious offenses and therefore, searches and arrests productivity improved. On the downside, it impacted on the police officers morale. Most felt up th at their integrity is put in issue and as a result a personal iniquity to them. This reduced police aggressiveness. By and large, this caused demoralization (Cleary, 2000).Legal Perspective of racial Profiling and Developments Racial profiling violates the Constitution, specifically the Amendments and national statutes. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments proscribe discrimination on the part of federal, state and topical anaesthetic law enforcement agencies. The Fourth Amendment guarantees protection against unlawful search and seizure (Cleary, 2000). It has been held by the court that traffic/fomite stops initiated by law enforcement violates the Fourth Amendment unless there is probable cause (Wren v. U.S., 116 S. Ct. 1769 (1996). Moreover, the Court ruled that these vehicle stops are most often a pretext for a search and this circumvents the Constitutional guarantee. It also violates federal statutes such as the Civil Rights moment of 1964 and the double-decker Crime Contro l and Safe Streets put to work of 1968. Any agency that receives pecuniary assistance from the federal government is prohibited from loaded acts based on color, race or origin (Cleary, 2000). The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 prohibit discriminatory acts based on color, race or origin and religion when committed by agencies receiving federal financial assistance. However, the Attorney General was given the power to prosecute those who discriminate regardless of whether they receive funding from the federal government (Cleary, 2000). State laws may not be as effective to prevent racial profiling (Cleary, 2000). For instance in Memphis, vehicle stops are usual because of the drug problem in that area. Its localisation principle is ideal for drug traffickers and heroine and cocaine are actually transported in private vehicles (Cleary, 2000). By reason of the public uproar, Public Chapter 910 chopine was launched including a proposed Senate Bill 2214 which requ ired traffic highway patrol officer to gather data and information for every vehicle stop (Cleary, 2000). In 2000, Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 1999 was introduced in the 106th Congress as sept Bill No. 2656 (Library of Congress web site, n.d.). It seeks to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which provided among others the prevention of police misconduct and the initiation of studies to remedy issues that dawn the law enforcement agencies. It also punishes those who deprive one of a right, privilege, or imm social unity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States (Section 601 (b) (1), H.B. 2656). Numerous street arabs were proposed to eliminate racial profiling and the latest of which was End Racial Profiling Act of 2001. There was a hearing on this proposed bill as called for by the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights of the Judiciary Committee during the 107th Congress (Laney, 2004). It required that any state or governmental unit that applied for funding under a covered federal program would have had to certify that program participants had effective policies and procedures to eliminate racial profiling and to stop practices that encouraged racial profiling (Laney, 2004). The proposed bill however, failed to compendium the specific disciplinary procedures for those who violated the provisions. The House Committee on Government Reform, on the other hand proposed the use of technology to eliminate racial profiling, i.e. video technologies (Laney, 2004). In the 108th Congress, there was no hearing schedule on racial profiling. A bill was proposed specifically, End Racial Profiling Act of 2004, however the bill never became a law.ReferencesCleary, W. Racial Profiling Studies in Law Enforcement Issues and Methodology Minnesota House of Representatives 2000. Retrieved November 24, 2007, from http//www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/raceprof.pdf.Davis, R. Raci al Profiling What Does the Data Mean? A Practitioners Guide to Understanding Data assemblage & Analysis. AELE Law Enforcement web site. Retrieved on November 24, 2007, from http//www.aele.org/data.htmlGarlikov, R. The Concept of Racial Profiling. Retrieved on November 24, 2007, from http//www.garlikov.com/philosophy/profiling.htmHernandez-Murillo, R. and Knowles, J. Racial profiling or racist policing bounds test in aggregate data International Economic Review, August 2004.House Bill No. 2656. Library of Congress. Retrieved on November 23, 2007, from http//thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106H.R.2656.IHKennedy, R. Suspect Policy. The New Republic 13 Sept. 1999.Lamberth, K., Clayton, J., Lamberth, J., Farrell, A., and McDevitt, J. Practioners Guide for Addressing Racial Profiling. Retrieved on November 23, 2007, from http//www.lamberthconsulting.com/about-racialprofiling/documents/Report_PractitionersGuide.pdf.Laney, G., Racial Profiling Issues and Federal Legislative Proposals and O ptions, CRS Report for Congress 2004. Retrieved November 23, 2007, from http//www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL32231_02172004.pdfLibrary of Congress. Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 2000. House Report 106-517. 106 Congress 2d Session. 13 March 2000.Pruitt, T. From Anecdotes to Analysis A Look into Racial Profiling in Memphis Traffic Stops. Retrieved on November 23, 2007, fromhttp//rhodes.edu/images/content/Academics/Tim_Pruitt.pdf.Royal Canadian Mounted Police web site 2007. Racial Profiling in the United States. Retrieved on November 23, 2007, from http//www.rcmpgrc.gc.ca/ccaps/racial_profiling_goff_e.htm