Research and evidence shows that racial profiling, also known as, “racially biased policing,” does exist in America today. Author Rick Garlikov suggests that the racial profiling and segregation is still taking place among the African American population. Garlikov (n.d.) goes on to report that many Americans today still follow the Jim Crow Guidelines, including those in the law enforcement field.
The initial rules or guidelines established by Stetson Kennedy requires that White Americans are to follow a set of rules when conversing with or are in the presence of an African American individual; these set of rules and guidelines are known as the Jim Crow ediquette (Dr. Pilgrim, 2000). In general these eight rules suggested that the White population is superior to the Black population. The same author of the Jim Crow ediquette, known as the Jim Crow guide, created another set of rules; this set of rules was specifically targeted for the African American community, in which Kennedy highlights the rules around how to approach and converse with a White individual (Dr. Pilgrim, 2000). Dr. Pilgrim (2000) proclaims that, “Many Blacks resisted the ingredients of Jim Crow, and, far too often, they paid for their bravery with their lives.”
Garlikov (n.d) claims that, “Racial profiling is prevalent in America. Despite the civil rights victories of 30 years ago, official racial prejudice is still reflected throughout the criminal justice system. For people of color in cities large and small across this nation, north and south, east and west, Jim Crow “justice” is alive and well.” Garlikov (n.d.) goes on to report on the current ACLU lawsuit, White v. Williams, which involves numerous motorists who have been racially profiled and stopped by law enforcement. Among the ACLU lawsuit participants is Dr. Randolph. Dr. Randolph, who drives a luxury car, reported that he has been stopped by police officers approximately 100 times without ever receiving a ticket. Garlikov, (n.d) states, “Dr. Randolph was subjected to searches of his car and interrogations about his profession and how and where he bought his car on numerous occasions.” Unfortunately evidence suggests that the Jim Crow mentality is still being adopted and followed by Americans today, even among the law enforcement community.
Reference:
Garlikov, R. (n.d.) Is Jim Crow Justice Alive and Well in America Today? The concept of racial profiling. http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/profiling.htm Retrieved date: January 31, 2009
Based on the material presented above, it seems more often than not that racial profiling is indeed present. The argument can be made that if white upper class citizens’ conduct and demeanors were scrutinized with the same intensity as those that are typically profiled, a comparable amount of criminal behavior would definitely be discovered. When the focus is present on a specific group, much like placing an object under a microscope, then of course crimes will be detected within that particular group. Crime is an equal opportunity employer and criminals come from all types of backgrounds.
Like Lynn Webb noted in her post, white-collar crime is far more detrimental economically to our society, yet it has not been of primary interest to law enforcement. Instead we focus on street crimes, which typically take place within the lower class. (Webb). When we engage in unwarranted racial profiling, we are violating an innate right to equal protection under the law. “Using race… as a proxy for potential criminal behavior is unconstitutional, and it undermines law enforcement by undermining the confidence that people can have in law enforcement” (Ashcroft, 2003, pp. 2).
The concerns about profiling by law enforcement officers are many. I think that sometimes they are misguided. Issues of racial profiling certainly exist, but I think that patrol officers – if that is who we are talking about – use the tools that are available to them to reduce crime. Larger investigative agencies and task forces have resources to piece together trails of evidence of crime that are not available to street cops. Patrol officers must make discretionary judgments whether to further investigate a subject based on limited information that can seem like politically incorrect assumptions.
A Sheriff’s Lieutenant once asked me, ‘what is the first thing that comes to mind if you see a skinny white middle-aged male on a really nice bicycle?’ I didn’t tell him that I see myself. I am a thin middle-aged white male that rides pretty nice road bikes around town. But he was talking about another type of guy, he’s talking about a tweaker, a meth-head, who probably stole the bike, who just doesn’t fit.
If a law enforcement officer was to stop me on my bike due to me riding at dusk without a headlamp or blowing through countless intersections, a records check would lead to nothing. I would get a ticket and the neighborhood would feel the presence and positive deterring effect of a police activity. The same ‘traffic stop’ of the tweaker could lead to warrants, probation or parole status, physical search, drug and/or weapon possession…
Police hunt. If they didn’t there would be only calls for service, warrant service, community policing and the lucky run in with a crime in progress. Police hunt, with training and insight that Debra Lindberg refers to above, in a very specific street environment, for the criminals that are available to them. Tonry (1994) writes of the racial disparities regarding arrests, jail and prison populations – the racial disparities cited by critics of police profiling – with an environmental explanation that points to the difficulty patrol officers encounter in contacting working-class and middle-class criminals: “Drug arrests are easier to make in socially disorganized inner-city minority areas than in working – or middle –class urban or suburban areas… because arrests are fungible for both the individual officer’s personnel file and the department’s year to year statistical comparisons, more easy arrests look better than fewer hard ones.”
Above, Lynn Webb cites different statistics but we come to the same conclusion regarding the imbalanced cost of white collar crime over street crime: Worral (2008) notes that vandalism – a very visible crime – costs around $1.7 billion per year, versus securities and commodities fraud, which costs around $40 billion per year. Many crimes just aren’t visible to street cops.
The FBI, ATF and so many other task forces are well suited to in depth profiling, surveillance and case building of organized crime and on less visible crime (middle-class crime?). But the law enforcement category that is so often criticized for profiling – street and community law enforcement – is equipped with little more than a keen sense of what looks out of place in their community. Is it a tweaker on a trick bike, a kid that can barely see over the dashboard of a very expensive car, a beater pickup with a full bed of construction equipment, a house that gets visits at all hours of the day…? Maybe a new kind of law enforcement is needed to proactively target less visible crime. But how?
Tonry, M. (1994). Racial Politics, racial Disparities, and the War on Crime. Crime and Delinquency. 40: 475-497.
Worrall, J. (2008). Crime Control in America: What Works? Pearson, Boston.
The reliance on racial profiling persists despite overwhelming evidence that it is misleading. Whites are more likely to be found with drugs in the areas in which minority group members are disproportionately targeted. Nationwide, 80 percent of the country’s cocaine users are White, but law enforcement tactics concentrate on the inner-city drug trade. (Schaefer, 2006)
There is a self-fulfilling prophecy to racial profiling. If, overwhelmingly, Blacks and Latinos are investigated, they will account for the majority of successful arrests. This is definitely a matter to be concerned about. Our criminal justice and correctional systems rely on specific data to calculate trends in criminal activities and locate who (i.e. class, race, gender) is committing such activities. The problem is, is that such data is seriously flawed because of policing styles such as profiling.
This is evidenced by data presented in 1999 indicating that Blacks constitute 13 percent of the country’s drug users, 37 percent of those arrested on drug charges, 55 percent of those convicted and 74 percent of all drug offenders sentenced to prison (Schaefer, 2006).
Not only are there concerns in profiling data, there is also an increasing issue of fear of crime. People become fearful of crime through the mass media and reality television shows, leading viewers to believe that crime is more prevalent than it really is (Worrall, 2006). This fear of crime can lead to withdrawal from the community and a breakdown in social relations among people (Worrall, 2006). Assuming that arrest and conviction rates are disproportionately higher for minority groups, it is reasonable to conclude that these rates are portrayed by the media and entertainment groups as well.
Resources
Schaefer, R, T. (2006). Racial and Ethnic Groups. Tenth Edition. Pearson Education Inc. Upper Saddle River NJ p 45
Worrall, J, L. (2006). Crime Control in America: An Assessment of the Evidence. Pearson Education Inc. Boston MA p 11
Although there are some who claim that “racial profiling” doesn’t exists. There are many stories and statistics that tell a different story. As an example Chad Thevenot wrote in the “Crises of the Anti-Drug Effort, 1999” that 76 percent of the motorist stopped on a 50 mile stretch of I-95 by Maryland’s State Police Special Traffic Interdiction Force (STIF) were Black. Blacks account for 25 percent of Maryland population and only 20 percent of Marylander’s with a driver’s license. If this is not racial profiling, then how else can the Maryland State Police explain the over representation of Blacks in their stops?
Most of the current protestors against racial profiling are not looking at the root cause of this practice. If we really want to end racial profiling we need to address the root cause, the drug laws and the “get tough on crime” policies. These laws and policies encourage law enforcement officers to produce high numbers of arrests in these areas. Blacks, Hispanics, and other disenfranchised populations are easy targets for pretext stops (traffic violations) which lead to uncontested searches. As a result this demographic is arrested much more than the White population.
Reference:
Anderson, W., Callahan, G., The Roots of Racial Profiling: Why are the police targeting minorities for traffic stops? (August 2001)
Based on the information provided by this week’s group, it seems that the issue of profiling is still a very controversial topic among law enforcement. Every study that was included showed some sort of racial profiling was occurring. In the survey done by Barlow and Barlow in Milwaukee County thirty eight percent of the officers that responded to the survey had been profiled in the past year. This is still a large number despite the increased concern over the practice. The study showed that a small percentage of the officers surveyed actually believe that racial profiling is a useful tool and use it on the job.
Even given all of the controversy over profiling and the studies that have been done, I still can’t help but wonder if it is even possible to completely eliminate profiling. The question states that “officers might say their training and experience gives them certain insights as to which types/conduct/demeanor/etc. have a high likelihood of involvement in criminal behavior” however couldn’t that be used as the reasoning behind any profiling? As much as profiling may not be something that is ethical or that is particularly helpful in law enforcement, it is something that will most likely never be completely eliminated.
Reference:
Barlow, David E., & Barlow, M.H. (2002). Racial profiling: A survey of African American police officers. Police Quarterly, Vol. 5 (3), pp. 334-358.
Briana Valencia Team 3 wrote,
Research and evidence shows that racial profiling, also known as, “racially biased policing,” does exist in America today. Author Rick Garlikov suggests that the racial profiling and segregation is still taking place among the African American population. Garlikov (n.d.) goes on to report that many Americans today still follow the Jim Crow Guidelines, including those in the law enforcement field.
The initial rules or guidelines established by Stetson Kennedy requires that White Americans are to follow a set of rules when conversing with or are in the presence of an African American individual; these set of rules and guidelines are known as the Jim Crow ediquette (Dr. Pilgrim, 2000). In general these eight rules suggested that the White population is superior to the Black population. The same author of the Jim Crow ediquette, known as the Jim Crow guide, created another set of rules; this set of rules was specifically targeted for the African American community, in which Kennedy highlights the rules around how to approach and converse with a White individual (Dr. Pilgrim, 2000). Dr. Pilgrim (2000) proclaims that, “Many Blacks resisted the ingredients of Jim Crow, and, far too often, they paid for their bravery with their lives.”
Garlikov (n.d) claims that, “Racial profiling is prevalent in America. Despite the civil rights victories of 30 years ago, official racial prejudice is still reflected throughout the criminal justice system. For people of color in cities large and small across this nation, north and south, east and west, Jim Crow “justice” is alive and well.” Garlikov (n.d.) goes on to report on the current ACLU lawsuit, White v. Williams, which involves numerous motorists who have been racially profiled and stopped by law enforcement. Among the ACLU lawsuit participants is Dr. Randolph. Dr. Randolph, who drives a luxury car, reported that he has been stopped by police officers approximately 100 times without ever receiving a ticket. Garlikov, (n.d) states, “Dr. Randolph was subjected to searches of his car and interrogations about his profession and how and where he bought his car on numerous occasions.” Unfortunately evidence suggests that the Jim Crow mentality is still being adopted and followed by Americans today, even among the law enforcement community.
Reference:
Garlikov, R. (n.d.) Is Jim Crow Justice Alive and Well in America Today? The concept of racial profiling.
http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/profiling.htm Retrieved date: January 31, 2009
Pilgrim, D. PhD. (2000, September) What was Jim Crow? Ferris State University.
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/what.htm Retrieved date: January 31, 2009
Link | January 31st, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Angelica Mejia-Rutland Group 3 wrote,
Based on the material presented above, it seems more often than not that racial profiling is indeed present. The argument can be made that if white upper class citizens’ conduct and demeanors were scrutinized with the same intensity as those that are typically profiled, a comparable amount of criminal behavior would definitely be discovered. When the focus is present on a specific group, much like placing an object under a microscope, then of course crimes will be detected within that particular group. Crime is an equal opportunity employer and criminals come from all types of backgrounds.
Like Lynn Webb noted in her post, white-collar crime is far more detrimental economically to our society, yet it has not been of primary interest to law enforcement. Instead we focus on street crimes, which typically take place within the lower class. (Webb). When we engage in unwarranted racial profiling, we are violating an innate right to equal protection under the law. “Using race… as a proxy for potential criminal behavior is unconstitutional, and it undermines law enforcement by undermining the confidence that people can have in law enforcement” (Ashcroft, 2003, pp. 2).
References:
Department of Justice. (2003). Racial Profiling Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved January 31, 2009 from http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/racial_profiling_fact_sheet.pdf
Link | February 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Theo Krause - Group 2 wrote,
The concerns about profiling by law enforcement officers are many. I think that sometimes they are misguided. Issues of racial profiling certainly exist, but I think that patrol officers – if that is who we are talking about – use the tools that are available to them to reduce crime. Larger investigative agencies and task forces have resources to piece together trails of evidence of crime that are not available to street cops. Patrol officers must make discretionary judgments whether to further investigate a subject based on limited information that can seem like politically incorrect assumptions.
A Sheriff’s Lieutenant once asked me, ‘what is the first thing that comes to mind if you see a skinny white middle-aged male on a really nice bicycle?’ I didn’t tell him that I see myself. I am a thin middle-aged white male that rides pretty nice road bikes around town. But he was talking about another type of guy, he’s talking about a tweaker, a meth-head, who probably stole the bike, who just doesn’t fit.
If a law enforcement officer was to stop me on my bike due to me riding at dusk without a headlamp or blowing through countless intersections, a records check would lead to nothing. I would get a ticket and the neighborhood would feel the presence and positive deterring effect of a police activity. The same ‘traffic stop’ of the tweaker could lead to warrants, probation or parole status, physical search, drug and/or weapon possession…
Police hunt. If they didn’t there would be only calls for service, warrant service, community policing and the lucky run in with a crime in progress. Police hunt, with training and insight that Debra Lindberg refers to above, in a very specific street environment, for the criminals that are available to them. Tonry (1994) writes of the racial disparities regarding arrests, jail and prison populations – the racial disparities cited by critics of police profiling – with an environmental explanation that points to the difficulty patrol officers encounter in contacting working-class and middle-class criminals: “Drug arrests are easier to make in socially disorganized inner-city minority areas than in working – or middle –class urban or suburban areas… because arrests are fungible for both the individual officer’s personnel file and the department’s year to year statistical comparisons, more easy arrests look better than fewer hard ones.”
Above, Lynn Webb cites different statistics but we come to the same conclusion regarding the imbalanced cost of white collar crime over street crime: Worral (2008) notes that vandalism – a very visible crime – costs around $1.7 billion per year, versus securities and commodities fraud, which costs around $40 billion per year. Many crimes just aren’t visible to street cops.
The FBI, ATF and so many other task forces are well suited to in depth profiling, surveillance and case building of organized crime and on less visible crime (middle-class crime?). But the law enforcement category that is so often criticized for profiling – street and community law enforcement – is equipped with little more than a keen sense of what looks out of place in their community. Is it a tweaker on a trick bike, a kid that can barely see over the dashboard of a very expensive car, a beater pickup with a full bed of construction equipment, a house that gets visits at all hours of the day…? Maybe a new kind of law enforcement is needed to proactively target less visible crime. But how?
Tonry, M. (1994). Racial Politics, racial Disparities, and the War on Crime. Crime and Delinquency. 40: 475-497.
Worrall, J. (2008). Crime Control in America: What Works? Pearson, Boston.
Link | February 1st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Katie Hayes Group 2 wrote,
The reliance on racial profiling persists despite overwhelming evidence that it is misleading. Whites are more likely to be found with drugs in the areas in which minority group members are disproportionately targeted. Nationwide, 80 percent of the country’s cocaine users are White, but law enforcement tactics concentrate on the inner-city drug trade. (Schaefer, 2006)
There is a self-fulfilling prophecy to racial profiling. If, overwhelmingly, Blacks and Latinos are investigated, they will account for the majority of successful arrests. This is definitely a matter to be concerned about. Our criminal justice and correctional systems rely on specific data to calculate trends in criminal activities and locate who (i.e. class, race, gender) is committing such activities. The problem is, is that such data is seriously flawed because of policing styles such as profiling.
This is evidenced by data presented in 1999 indicating that Blacks constitute 13 percent of the country’s drug users, 37 percent of those arrested on drug charges, 55 percent of those convicted and 74 percent of all drug offenders sentenced to prison (Schaefer, 2006).
Not only are there concerns in profiling data, there is also an increasing issue of fear of crime. People become fearful of crime through the mass media and reality television shows, leading viewers to believe that crime is more prevalent than it really is (Worrall, 2006). This fear of crime can lead to withdrawal from the community and a breakdown in social relations among people (Worrall, 2006). Assuming that arrest and conviction rates are disproportionately higher for minority groups, it is reasonable to conclude that these rates are portrayed by the media and entertainment groups as well.
Resources
Schaefer, R, T. (2006). Racial and Ethnic Groups. Tenth Edition. Pearson Education Inc. Upper Saddle River NJ p 45
Worrall, J, L. (2006). Crime Control in America: An Assessment of the Evidence. Pearson Education Inc. Boston MA p 11
Link | February 1st, 2009 at 10:01 pm
David Killeen wrote,
Although there are some who claim that “racial profiling” doesn’t exists. There are many stories and statistics that tell a different story. As an example Chad Thevenot wrote in the “Crises of the Anti-Drug Effort, 1999” that 76 percent of the motorist stopped on a 50 mile stretch of I-95 by Maryland’s State Police Special Traffic Interdiction Force (STIF) were Black. Blacks account for 25 percent of Maryland population and only 20 percent of Marylander’s with a driver’s license. If this is not racial profiling, then how else can the Maryland State Police explain the over representation of Blacks in their stops?
Most of the current protestors against racial profiling are not looking at the root cause of this practice. If we really want to end racial profiling we need to address the root cause, the drug laws and the “get tough on crime” policies. These laws and policies encourage law enforcement officers to produce high numbers of arrests in these areas. Blacks, Hispanics, and other disenfranchised populations are easy targets for pretext stops (traffic violations) which lead to uncontested searches. As a result this demographic is arrested much more than the White population.
Reference:
Anderson, W., Callahan, G., The Roots of Racial Profiling: Why are the police targeting minorities for traffic stops? (August 2001)
Dave K
Link | February 1st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Christy Holodnak - Group Two wrote,
Based on the information provided by this week’s group, it seems that the issue of profiling is still a very controversial topic among law enforcement. Every study that was included showed some sort of racial profiling was occurring. In the survey done by Barlow and Barlow in Milwaukee County thirty eight percent of the officers that responded to the survey had been profiled in the past year. This is still a large number despite the increased concern over the practice. The study showed that a small percentage of the officers surveyed actually believe that racial profiling is a useful tool and use it on the job.
Even given all of the controversy over profiling and the studies that have been done, I still can’t help but wonder if it is even possible to completely eliminate profiling. The question states that “officers might say their training and experience gives them certain insights as to which types/conduct/demeanor/etc. have a high likelihood of involvement in criminal behavior” however couldn’t that be used as the reasoning behind any profiling? As much as profiling may not be something that is ethical or that is particularly helpful in law enforcement, it is something that will most likely never be completely eliminated.
Reference:
Barlow, David E., & Barlow, M.H. (2002). Racial profiling: A survey of African American police officers. Police Quarterly, Vol. 5 (3), pp. 334-358.
Link | February 2nd, 2009 at 12:18 am