The Background Of Racial Profiling International Law Essay
Racial profiling is a type of discrimination whereby the police force uses an individual’s race or ethnic background to judge or suspect if the person has committed a crime. The expression â€œdriving while blackâ€ resulted from racial profiling; this is because African American motorists regularly complained that detectives used to pull them over without a reason, but because of their race.
Racial profiling makes all Americans citizens believe that they are judged according to their skin color. The act has harmed the criminal justice system because it has eviscerated the trust that is very essential if the police force is to efficiently protect American citizens (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/racial_profiling_fact_sheet.pdf).
The majority of states in America presently have reporting requirements. For instance, Texas obliges all agencies to present annual reports to Texas Law Enforcement Commission. The condition started when the State of Texas approved a law which required all law enforcement agencies inside the State to start collecting specific data about traffic as well as pedestrian stops which started on January 1, 2002, the law was endorsed on September 1, 2001. After the data was collected, the law permitted police agencies to hand in a report to the law enforcement agencies’ administration starting March 1, 2003 and every subsequent year before March 1. Moreover, on January 1, 2011, the Texas Commission started receiving annual reports from all the law enforcement agencies. The presented reports are available on the State Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education Commission’s website for public assessment (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Against-Racial-Profiling.htm).
Historical or Intellectual Background:
America has a history of racial profiling, moreover in some circumstances, the incidents were very egregious. During the Second World War, the U.S. administration, being afraid of potential Japan spies, it sent several Japanese Americans to incarceration camps in southern California. The majority of the incarcerated Japanese were American citizens. The Court consequently made a very unwise decision in justifying the incarceration of the Japanese Americans (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/racial_profiling_fact_sheet.pdf).
During the attacks which were in September 11th, nineteen Middle Eastern terrorists executed a terrorist plot of which the results were the demolition of the World Trade Center inside New York, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. was seriously damaged, furthermore lots of lives was lost. After the terrorist attacks, America announced that it would embark on a serious war against terrorism, which incorporated enhancements in the capacity of law enforcement workforce to follow, question, moreover even arrest any person suspected of terrorism.
After the terrorist attacks, federal officers detained or apprehended over 500 people. Several foreigners were as well questioned. A big majority of those detained were Arab Americans or American which came from Middle Eastern states. Some analysts have proposed that the questioning of the suspects from Middle East backgrounds is vindicated because the majority of the terrorists are either Arabic or from the Middle Eastern. Nevertheless, civil rights factions have condemned the practice of subjecting people to questioning founded mainly on their race or background.
End Racial Profiling Act.
End Racial Profiling Act of 2010 (ERPA) will do away with law enforcement exercises of singling out individuals for keen scrutiny, according to their ethnicity, race, denomination and nationality. After a number of years of thorough consultation with both the civil rights association and the law enforcement, the End Racial Profiling Act will ensure that the federal is committed comprehensively to healing the fracture caused by racial profiling;
II. Support for claim
All the law enforcement agencies must ensure that they implement the End Racial Profiling Act. This is the most efficient way to ensure that racial profiling activities are brought to an end. The act will as well restore the confidence in the public regarding the criminal justice system generally.
Most of the Americans believe that racial patterns like racial profiling mainly originate from individual prejudices and chauvinistic attitudes. Conversely, socio-political background indicates that discrimination is due to organizational customs that have unpremeditated racial outcomes and are founded on cognitive biases associated to social stereotypes. Bernard Kramer hints that prejudice can exist on three different stages: emotional, cognitive, and action orientation. â€œThe cognitive level of prejudice encompasses a person’s beliefs and perceptions of a group as threatening or nonthreatening, inferior or equal,â€ (Parrillo, 506). The law enforcement often profile specific types of persons who have a higher probability of perpetrating crimes. The majority of these suspects are profiled on account of activities monitored by police officers. For instance, if an individual who is poor is regularly seen in a more prosperous region, such an individual possibly will be profiled as somebody with possible unlawful intention. Similarly, if there is a wealthy person living in a poor neighborhood, he may accordingly be profiled for being involved in criminal activities such as drug trafficking or theft (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/25/nation/na-racial-profiling25).
America has a moral responsibility of prohibiting racial profiling. Race-based suppositions in law enforcement bring about negative ethnic stereotypes that are dangerous to American’s diverse democracy; furthermore they greatly impair Americans efforts to uphold a fair and just civilization. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft racial profiling forms a â€œlose-loseâ€ condition because it obliterates the potential for fundamental trust that is supposed to maintain the administration of justice as a communal purpose, not just as a police force objective (Fausset and Huffstutter, 5).
Most of federal police officers are dedicated public servants who execute a dangerous job with commitment, fairness and admiration. Nevertheless, when law enforcement structures are perceived to be prejudiced or unfair, the whole public, and particularly minority group of people, are less willing to rely and confide in police officers, report felonies, act as witnesses during trials, or serve on panel of judges.
III. Anticipated Objection
Ever since the terrorist attacks which occurred on September 11, 2001, the President of the united states ordered the federal law enforcement persons to make use of every legal tool to prevent potential attacks, to ensure that they protect America and prevent those who would cause destructive harm to America as well as its citizens through the use of destructive weapons, mass execution weapons and suicide hijackings.
The racial profiling guidance acknowledges that ethnicity and race can be used during terrorist identification; this is only permitted so long as it is within the Constitution and America’s set of laws. The policy guidance stresses that the use of generalized stereotypes should continue, within the national security perspective even the constitution has banned racial profiling.
All the federal law enforcement structures must be devoted to the limitations compelled by the constitution. In examining or preventing dangers to national security as well as other catastrophic proceedings together with the performance of responsibilities related to air transportation precautions, or in implementing laws protecting the honor of the country’s boundaries, federal law enforcement officials might not consider race it may do so if and only if it is allowed by the Constitution of the united states (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/racial_profiling_fact_sheet.pdf).
United States constitution forbids consideration of race or ethnicity when making decisions regarding law enforcement except for the most exceptional cases. Given the immensely high stakes concerned in such explorations, federal law enforcement officials who are looking after national security or avoiding catastrophic proceedings together with airport security screeners might consider race, background and ancestry. Constitutional requirements limiting government act regarding race are extensive and provide significant protections within every step of the exploratory and judicial procedure. Consequently, this policy will respect the rule of law furthermore promote vital protection of America’s national security (Wachtel, 425).
Federal law enforcement is supposed guard the country against uncertain fear of Terrorism. Since terrorist organizations may aim to participate in unexpected acts of tragic violence in any vacant part of the state certainly, in multiple places concurrently, preferably, there can be no probability that the information might be specific to a definite environment or even to a specific identified scheme.
Racial profiling as well turned out to be a problem for Muslim and Arab Americans after the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001. Since the people behind the crime were of Arab lineage, all Arabs in United States complain that they are heavily inspected at airports as well as other places (Parrillo, 513). Even though whites have executed various domestic terrorist attacks, white Americans have never been profiled but Arabs in America have often been profiled. Racial profiling is wrong and will not be tolerated.
Because of the gravity of racial profiling, A number of have been taken to prohibit racial profiling by the justice department. President Bush formally ordered that racial profiling to be banned in his Address to a Joint Session of Congress on 27th February, 2001, he said that racial profiling is should be ended in America because it is wrong. President Bush ordered the Attorney General to assess the use by federal police authorities of ethnicity as a factor in executing stops, searches as well as other police investigative processes. The Attorney General, consecutively, told the Civil Rights Division to build up guidance for the police force to guarantee an end to racial profiling in United States federal law enforcement (Bush, 2).
This guidance formed by the Civil Rights Division prohibits racial profiling in the police force practices without obstructing the important efforts of America’s public safety officials, predominantly the intensified anti-terrorism attempts triggered by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Racial profiling is inefficient. Profiling in the police force is mainly based on ethnicity, race, as well as national heredity of the person. â€œThe distinction of race has always been used in American life to sanction each race’s pursuit of power in relation to the other,â€ (Parrillo, 532). Statistics indicates that there is a higher chance of African Americans being incarcerated than white Americans. There is a myth that racial profiling can work and some agencies are exercising this and blaming it on civil rights (Parrillo, 516). On the contrary racial profiling is not effective since despite the fact that black Americans were the main suspects in drug trafficking, the Public Health Service uncovered that 70% white Americans are drug users whereas 15% black Americans were drug users and 8% were Latino. Nevertheless the Department of Justice revealed that amongst those incarcerated on drug charges, 45% are black Americans, and 26% are white Americans whereas 21% are Latinos. This clearly indicates that racial profiling is inefficient (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Against-Racial-Profiling.htm).
In conclusion, racial profiling is morally wrong this is because it promotes the internal separation of suspects in the minds of detectives; furthermore it builds a second-class nationality for black Americans and Latino Americans. This is evidence which shows how racial profiling is wrong and will not be tolerated (Steele, 415).
Racial profiling is as a consequence a blatant violation of the United States Fourteenth Amendment law. The law clearly states that every state has to avail to its people equal protection of the law where as racial profiling is principally based on racism and unequal protection. This practice can steer up racially-provoked violence. The Amidou Diallo’s case, who is an unarmed African migrant who was killed by 41 bullets after trying to show the NYPD his driving license this caused anxiety and aggression (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/racial_profiling_fact_sheet.pdf).Order Now