Discrimination has been a thorn in the flesh of many countries and especially the United States.

Author

Tutor

Course

Date

Introduction

Discrimination has been a thorn in the flesh of many countries and especially the United States. This may go back to the history of slavery in the 16th and 17th century when certain groups of people were only thought as unfit to have certain rights. However, this seems to have changed with time especially after the enactment of varied Legislations like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among others. Nevertheless, discrimination especially on the basis of one’s color has not been expunged entirely from the United State’s fabric. It has only taken other forms, the most prevalent of which is racial profiling.

Racial profiling refers to a form of discrimination, where law enforcement agencies use an individual’s cultural background or race as the key reason for suspecting that the person has broken one law or another. Evidently, this form of discrimination emanates from stereotypes that certain individuals are more apt to doing something wrong than others simply because of their cultural background or race (Kops 45). There have been concerns that the police are targeting certain groups of people for certain offenses. For example, the phrase “driving while black”, is widely used to define the practice where African American drivers and motorists are incarcerated by the law enforcement agencies for no apparent reason apart from the fact that that they were black. This, therefore, came with certain stereotypes. However, racial profiling became increasingly manifest after the September 11 attacks on the twin towers in Washington DC by a terrorist group that had Muslim affiliations. Since the terrorists were of Arab descent, there have been numerous complaints among Muslim Americans and Arab Americans that they have undergone intense scrutiny in varied locations, especially airports. It is noteworthy that while there are white who may have committed terrorist attacks in the American soil, they are yet to undergo a similar treatment as the Arab Americans. Evidently, that speaks of racial discrimination. It is noteworthy that, as much as the terrorist attacks may have led to the heightening of security measures most of which involve scrutiny, these measures have been targeting certain races more than others.

However, racial profiling is not a new phenomenon in the American society or rather its system of laws. The FBI and RCMP among other agencies have been routinely profiling serial killers in an effort to speed up or increase the likelihood of catching them. More often than not, race has been a fundamental part of the profiling since a large number of serial killers are historically known to be loner white males (Kops 56). Of course, there exists some exceptions to the rule, but profiling of such monsters has been fundamental to their speedy apprehension and may even have helped in saving lives. In essence, the war on terror has been founded on saving lives, as well as preserving the society’s way of life.

The legality of racial profiling

However, the legality of this form of discrimination has come under intense challenge. This is especially considering the United States constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states that no state shall come up with or implement any law that abridges the immunities or privileges of the United States’ citizens without the due process of law. Moreover, it states that no state should deprive any individual of liberty, property or life or even deny any individual within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This language may be interpreted to mean that only citizens of the United States are protected or guarded from laws that might infringe on the immunities and privileges of the US. However, all people are protected or guarded against the deprivation of liberty, property and life without being taken through the due process of law.

In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, individuals are protected against unreasonable seizure and search. They have the right to liberty, security and life and are protected against deprivation of these rights except when the principles of basic justice demand it. In addition, all people have the right not to be subjected to arbitrary imprisonment or detention. In section 15 of this charter, all people are considered equal under the law and, therefore, are entitled to equal protection. They should benefit equally from the law without discrimination regardless of their sex, ethnicity, religion, national origin, color, disability or even race.

However, there exists the National Emergencies Act in the United States, which allows the president to take all the necessary measures to protect and defend the country from external and internal threats until such a time when security has been restored. This is the act that President George W Bush summoned after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, the act comes with a number of safeguards that ensure that this form of constitutional dictatorship is not in place for longer periods than necessary. In addition, the act is subject to reviews by the congress after every six months. In the review process, the congress votes on whether to end or continue the powers incorporated in the act.

It is noteworthy that, the power to enforce racial profiling to eliminate terror threats is available only when the country faces emergency with severe proportions. Nevertheless, once the government has invoked such powers, it should eliminate the existing threat as fast as possible.

The legality of racial profiling may be examined from the aspect of the Fourth Amendment. Racial profiling amounts to a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which has guaranteed all people the right to be safe, and protects them from unreasonable seizure and search without any probable cause. In addition, the Department of Justice in June 2003 came up with report known as Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies. This report forbids the use of race or an individual’s cultural background as the basis for suspecting that the person has broken a law. Quite a large number of states have also come up with certain laws and procedures that are designed to eliminate racial profiling.

The case for racial profiling

As much as racial profiling has come under intense attack from various quarters, some scholars pine that it is for a nation’s own good.

First, racial profiling has been extremely effective in eliminating threats of terrorism in the American soil. It is noteworthy that, since the September 11 attacks, the United States stepped up its efforts to eliminate the possibility of such acts being carried out in the airports again. True to the word, there has never been such an act on the jet liners since that time. In support of racial profiling, the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division came up with Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies. This report stated that, due to the immeasurably high stakes that investigations and prevention of future attacks entailed Federal Law enforcement officers charged with the responsibility of preventing catastrophic events and protecting national security could consider ethnicity and race among other relevant factors as allowed by the constitution and laws. In essence, racial profiling in prevention of terrorist attacks is perfectly within the constitutional and statutory standards.

In addition, Heather MacDonald opines that the crusade against racial profiling thrives on ignorance of policing, as well as a willful blindness to crime demographics. Conversations with law enforcement agents in New Jersey have suggested that some carried out soft racial profiling. They may have pulled over a person because the car driver, as well as the type and number of occupants, exhibit the component of courier profile. Officers’ experience has over time corroborated DEA intelligence reports than minority groups were carrying the largest amount of drugs. In essence, if the police were to be accused of racism each time they follow leads and go where crime is, the United States would be sacrificing its public safety (MacDonald 46).

In a January 2003 article that was titled “Better Unsafe Than (occasionally) Sorry?”, Scott Johnson argued that the thesis underlining the anti-profiling complaint, that disparities in the rates of crime and arrests among races is a reflection of racially biased policing, is shredded by fundamental criminological data. He stated that centrally to the commonly held views, racial variations in law enforcement are a reflection of the racial disparities in the rates of crime. There exist racial disparities at varied stages of the criminal justice system. However, scholars have studied these disparities and come up with the conclusion that the increased levels of incarceration and arrests in the United States based on ethnicity and race have resulted to substantially high crime levels in these areas. In essence, the police appear to be concentrating on behavior that is legitimately suspicious rather than simply picking on individuals by race or ethnicity (Johnson 46).

In addition, scholars have stated that if homicide statistics are accepted as the yardstick for violent crimes, which are the crimes that officers should focus most on, the truth is that out of over 600 murders carried out in 2002, in Los Angeles, approximately 90 percent were carried out by Latinos and Blacks (Dunphy 34). Each of these groups was responsible for approximately 45 percent of the homicide crimes. In essence, when police officers are deciding whether they should order an individual from a vehicle or even carry out a search, the information they are relying on may be coincidental to the color of the skin but not entirely dependent on it.

The case against racial profiling

The basis for racial profiling has been attacked for quite a long time. These attacks have mainly been founded on the morality and illegality of the act itself.

In an opinion article that went by the title “The Fallacy of Racial Profiling” in December 2001 in the San Francisco Chronicle, Jack Glaser stated that since racial profiling entails pursuing individuals based on their ethnicity and race while there may be other factors that may serve better than such basis, it is inefficient. He felt that criminals from other groups would be acting with impunity since their chances of even being targeted are relatively lower than those of the targeted groups (Glaser 34). In addition, quite a large number of Muslims and Arabs who have been detained for the sole reason of their race are eventually found innocent, yet they would have endured suffering without any probable cause or even court appearance. This violates the United States’ constitutional principles.

In an article that went by the title “Wrong Then, Wrong Now, Racial Profiling Before & After September 11 2001”, Civil Rights Org stated that arguments against conventional profiling are also applicable to terrorist profiling. Terrorism profiling is founded on extensive and inaccurate stereotypes pertaining to the propensity of certain religious, ethnic and racial groups to carry out certain criminal activity (Civil Rights Organization 25). In addition, racial profiling is an inadequate and crude alternative for behavior-based enforcement. It also tends to alienate communities that are otherwise natural allies of the law enforcement agencies.

In its February 2004 report, the American Civil Rights Union stated that racial profiling is inconsistent with the United States’ core constitutional principles of fairness and equality. The union argued that any law enforcement that is based on characteristics such as religion, national origin and race amounts to an ineffective and inefficient strategy for safeguarding public safety. This is especially having in mind that racial profiling alienates groups whose cooperation is necessary for gathering essential intelligence (Civil Rights Organization 26). In addition, if law enforcement agencies apply racial profiling, they may not look as hard at individuals from other races, which could lead to a breach of security.

Lastly, anti-profiling crusaders opine that if the efforts the concentration of police on certain groups of people were successful, then the return on investment in law enforcement should be better than that of traditional policing (Haris, 29). However, racial profiling has only ended up sweeping vast numbers of people into the net of law enforcement agencies. This is because ethnic and race are extremely inappropriate behavior predictors. It has made law enforcement agencies spread their activities too indiscriminately and widely with disastrous results. The alienation of most minority groups from the policy amounts to a critical, strategic loss as far as the fight against crime is concerned. This is because the war against crime depends on the full support and cooperation of the people being served.

In conclusion, racial profiling has become the new face of discrimination in the United States. It refers to a situation, where law enforcement agencies use an individual’s cultural background or race as the basis for suspecting that the person has broken or is going to break the law. This has become increasingly pronounced in the United States after the September 11 terrorist attacks with Arab Americans and Muslim Americans becoming the key victims. While there are legislations that seem to allow for racial profiling especially when there is a real terror threat, it is noteworthy that racial profiling is by its sheer nature illegal. Those who support racial profiling opine that it has led to a reduction of terror attacks especially affecting American airlines. In addition, they opine that since some ethnic groups have been known to commit certain crimes more than others, relying on race would not be a misguided effort. However, anti-profiling crusaders argue that racial profiling is against the fundamental constitutional principles of the United States. In addition, it only ends up alienating minority groups whose support and goodwill is crucial as far as the war against crime is concerned.

Works cited

Harris, David. “Flying While Arab: Lessons from the Racial Profiling Controversy” Civil Rights Journal. 2002. Print

Civil Rights Organisation. “Wrong Then, Wrong Now Racial Profiling Before & After September 11, 2001. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. 2001

MacDonald, Heather. “The Myth of Racial Profiling”. City Journal. 2001. Print

Johnson, Scott W.”Better Unsafe Than (Occasionally) Sorry?” The Claremont Institute. 2003

Dunphy, Jack. “No Surprises in LAPD Traffic-Stop Data” National Review Online. 2003

The US Department of Justice’s (USDOJ) Civil Rights Division. “Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies” 2003. Print.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “Sanctioned Bias: Racial Profiling Since 9/11”: 2004. Print

Glaser, Jack. “The Fallacy of Racial Profiling,” San Francisco Chronicle. 2001

Kops, Deborah. “Racial Profiling, Volume 21”. New York: Marshall Cavendish. 2006 Print