The Pros And Cons Of Racial Profiling

Racial profiling is a dated and ineffective tactic used by law enforcement to propagate the idea that members of certain races (particularly non-white) are more inclined to commit crimes, than are Caucasians. 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”). This biased practice is highly inadequate in fulfilling its intended purpose, is in opposition to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and yet is still implemented by law enforcement officials all across North America.
Racial profiling dates back as far as
A 2001 U.S. Department of Justice report found that “although African Americans and Hispanics were much more likely than White persons to be stopped and searched, they were about half as likely to be in possession of contraband” (Harris, 73). Racial profiling is not only discriminatory, but also counter-productive. When used, the percentage of discovering unlawful conduct is lower than when racist stereotypes aren’t mixed in with police work. Ethnic profiling is built upon the idea that minorities are more likely to commit crimes compared to white people, and this school of thought is the reason that racial profiling was doomed from the
Therefore, any unusual treatment regardless of the intent of the police can be seen as a violation of the individual’s right. Racial profiling is, by definition, based on a standard of unequal protection. People of color are more likely to be searched by police and less likely to be treated as law-abiding citizens, whereas white people are less likely to be searched by police at all. Racial profiling transgresses against this right as it allows law enforcement officials to intentionally subject people of color to unequal treatment without probable cause or adequate