Thursday, October 10, 2019
Police Departments’ Use of Racial Profiling Essay
Introduction      The concept and practice of racial profiling by the law enforcement agencies specifically, the police, has drawn the attention and concern of the public including the government. Racial profiling is defined as â€Å"the practice of targeting individuals for police or security interdiction, detention or other disparate treatment based primarily on their race or ethnicity in the belief that certain minority groups are more likely to engage in unlawful behavior†(Laney, 2004).      Another definition proposed by Hernandez-Murillo and Knowles is that it is a statistical discrimination as a tool to predict criminality and would search 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 involved including affecting the public’s perception in a negative way (Pruitt, n.d.). It casts doubt to the legitimacy and fairness of the criminal justice system and destroys the trust of the people in the law enforcement. It creates negative stereotypes who limit efforts in attaining societal justice (Pruitt, n.d.). Moreover, besides creating erroneous perceptions about the different races, it also creates misconceptions about the police. Discrimination 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 because they perceived to be the target group in traffic stops (U.S. Congress, 2000). The members of the targeted group become uncooperative and develop disdain and contempt of the police (Pruitt, n.d.).      Racial profiling for some is appropriate and justified. They believe that it is a â€Å"sensible, statistically based tool that enables law enforcement to focus their energies more efficiently and it also  lowers the cost of obtaining and processing information and thus reduces the overall cost of policing†(Kennedy, 2000). They further 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 scrutinize men more than women. The basis for defending racial profiling as appropriate is centered upon its being empirical and statistical. Moreover, it is claimed that racial profiling prevents crime considering that by identifying the drivers at night time would deprive a potential criminal of anonymity (Garlikov, 2000).      Those who argue against racial profiling base their dissent on constitutional and practical grounds (Kennedy, 1999). Racial distinctions are opposed mainly on the violation of the Fourteenth Amendmentâ€â€the equal protection clause. Even the courts in exercise of judicial review, have applied ‘strict scrutiny’ enunciating that the use of race in government decision-making gives rise to a presumption of violation of an individual’s civil rights (Kennedy, 1999). â€Å"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 factor in doing this (Garlikov, 2000).      On practical consideration, the argument against racial profiling is based on the alienation that it creates. Alienation 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 research employed in racial profiling are the baseline data and the benchmark data (RCMP web site, 2007). The benchmark data, i.e. census-based data, is derived from information that one gathers 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 â€Å"determines the right percentage 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 two kinds of benchmark data employed to respond to different issues. External benchmarking is â€Å"designed to determine what percentage of drivers in a given area â€Å"ought to be†stopped (Lamberth, Clayton, Lamberth, Farrell and McDevitt, 2005). Internal benchmarking on the other hand 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 made on more serious offenses and therefore, searches and arrests productivity improved.  On the downside, it impacted on the police officers’ morale. Most felt that their integrity is put in issue and as a result a personal injustice 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 federal statutes. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments proscribe discrimination on the part of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The Fourth Amendment guarantees protection against unlawful search and seizure (Cleary, 2000). It has been held by the court that traffic/vehicle 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 Act of 1964 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Any agency that receives financial assistance from the federal government is prohibited from discriminatory 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 location 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 program was launched including a proposed Senate Bill 2214 which required 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 House 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 pervade the law enforcement agencies. It also punishes those who deprive one â€Å"of a right, privilege, or immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States†(Section 601 (b) (1), H.B. 2656).      Numerous bills 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 â€Å"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 outline 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 scheduled on racial profiling. A bill was proposed specifically, ‘End Racial Profiling Act of 2004,’ however the bill never became a law. References Cleary, 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. Racial Profiling: â€Å"What Does the Data Mean?†A Practitioner’s Guide to Understanding Data Collection & Analysis. AELE Law Enforcement web site. Retrieved on November 24, 2007, from http://www.aele.org/data.html Garlikov, R. The Concept of Racial Profiling. Retrieved on November 24, 2007, from http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/profiling.htm Hernandez-Murillo, R. and Knowles, J. â€Å"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?c106:H.R.2656.IH: Kennedy, R. â€Å"Suspect Policy.†The New Republic 13 Sept. 1999. Lamberth, K., Clayton, J., Lamberth, J., Farrell, A., and McDevitt, J. Practioner’s 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 Options, CRS Report for Congress 2004. Retrieved November 23, 2007, from http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL32231_02172004.pdf Library of Congress. â€Å"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, from http://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 Â
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.