Arguments Against Racial Profiling

Back in the 1960s, African Americans were promised that the United States of America would no longer judge people by the color of their skin. Today, nearly fifty years later, the issue of double standards pertaining to race and ethnicity still remains quite controversial. One of the many ways the problem manifests itself is the practice of racial profiling, which is “any arbitrary police-initiated action based on race, ethnicity, or natural origin rather than a person’s behavior.”1 In an attempt to fight the war on drugs, or, more recently, on terrorism, federal and local governments are searching for more effective policies, which can have unintended racial consequences. Racial profiling happens to be one of them. More specifically,
To prove the racial neutrality of policing, he refers to the data on crime rates and arrests by race. He claims “that higher levels of arrests and incarceration in the U.S. by ethnicity result substantially from higher levels of crime, not racial bias.”3 Johnson further relies on research on traffic stops that concludes that there are ethnic differences in driving behavior that explain higher stop rates for black drivers. He addresses the issue of equal hit rates among disproportionately targeted population by saying that this is a natural outcome of police “focusing on legitimately suspicious behavior.”4 Moreover, he argues that the restrictions on profiling will have an adverse effect on minority groups who experience higher rate of crimes. Therefore, Johnson concludes that racial profiling is a reasonable and effective practice in modern
He argues that such law enforcement technique allows police to use high-discretion methods in detaining and searching people without, possibly, a probable cause. Furthermore, according to Harris, “In a society dedicated to equal justice under law, such a practice also undermines our commitment to individual civil rights.”5He claims that reliance on race and ethnicity to enforce law contradicts the Constitution and American political culture. He also points out that racial profiling is detrimental to the partnership between police and the citizens, and that such practices alienate members of minority groups reinforcing damaging stereotypes. Harris also draws on statistical data to support his standing. He questions the effectiveness of racial profiling by claiming that “the hit rate for drugs and weapons in police searches of African Americans is the same as or lower than the rate for whites.” In other words, he implies that the only way racial profiling could be justified if we had higher hit rates among targeted minorities. But since the rates are almost equal or lower, the reliance on race doesn’t make sense. Harris attempts to dismantle the notion of racial profiling as a legitimate and effective institutional practice that is “based not on real evidence but on distorted ideas about crime and an overly narrow view on how to attack it.”6 He calls for a change in