Day: March 13, 2017

Having read that Black and Latino drivers were stopped at a much higher rate than Whites, and yet they were much less likely to find evidence of crime, is a clear sign that racial profiling is very wrong. I think it goes to show that white people are only pulled over when they are clearly doing something illegal or suspicious. On the other hand, minorities have to fear being pulled over, or stopped and frisked, for the way they look. Not only are they stopped but there have been far too many deaths of unarmed black people, specifically young people.

With Facebook Live, and people filming these horrific events, more people than ever are realizing the issues with policing. The relationship between the police and the black community is strained. There is so much tension. I am a white woman; I don’t have to fear that the police are out to get me. They need to every day. Instead of thinking that the police want to protect them, they are unfairly targeted as criminals. This issue is so difficult because cops need to know that they can protect themselves, but they also need to learn when their unconscious bias is causing them to see things that aren’t there, like a weapon. On a daily basis, officers need to use intuition and logic. A feeling that someone is suspicious should not be based on someone’s skin color.

I’m realizing more and more that there are no simple solutions to these issues. We need to profile, in some capacity, to be safe, and act intelligently. We are constantly judging people based on appearances, age, gender etc. to decide whether we are in a safe or dangerous situation or with dangerous people. However, the gut feeling that cops are following, that people of color are more suspicious, is incorrect. There needs to be extensive training for cops to learn how to pick up on actual suspicious activity, and how to proceed with things without the situation escalating. When documenting the “stop and frisk”, they should have to describe the suspicious activity. It can’t just be a feeling based on the race of the individual.

The United States, in many ways, has a criminal justice system enviable to foreign nations. Operating on the presumption of innocence, and accepting of the inherently true fact that when it is presumed that all are innocent, some guilty will potentially fall through the cracks, the “American way” has been a determination to minimize wrongful convictions and protect the rights afforded citizens in the constitution. Unfortunately, this resolve, noble as it may be, has historically been warped over many of the periods of unrest in the country. In some regards, there is rightly a distrust of the system as minority groups have been the most recent to gain “equality” and have been the first historically to lose certain liberties when they come under attack (ex: Korematsu v USA). The discussion of the role of the court system in respect to racial profiling was, I believe, the most interesting part of the chapter, and is all too relevant in this time of uncertainty in the judiciary.

The Warren Court of the 1960s was the driving force behind innovation in the criminal justice system geared towards equality. Intent on protecting the “rights of the accused,” the Supreme Court of this era erred on the side of caution, ruling that those accused of crimes should be afforded protections not before mandated by the federal government. This decision surely impacted all of those who were accused, but none more than those who did not have adequate schooling or knowledge of their rights in interacting with police.  Though the system did not become perfect, and probably never will, the innovation during this period benefitted marginalized groups en masse. However, the Supreme Court’s reach is only so far– in the day to day operations of police forces, the rulings of individuals holed up in their “ivory towers” cannot be assuredly implemented. For example, there was mention in the chapter of the Arizona case wherein Latinos were being profiled and stopped by police because of a mayor tough on illegal immigration. Though the case was settled against the official who ordered profile based policing, the mere fact that an official policy such as that can be conducted for any period of time is indicative of systemic problems within the criminal justice system, and perhaps suggests the existence of similar policies yet to be challenged in other regions of the United States.

The judiciary today is in flux. With the Supreme Court at diminished power and the disjunction between federal, state, local courts, and the Executive branch, I am concerned about the next steps moving forward as related to anti-profiling and police-reform advocacy groups. As I cannot see the system changing independently of governmental action or formidable opposition, I will continue to put faith in bulwark groups, such as the ACLU, to break down the barriers of racial profiling in policing, and prevent the construction of a greater barrier to justice for minority groups thus.

I found both chapters 5 and 6 to be a continuation of prior knowledge, as well as eye opening to see the background behind the militarization of police and the effects of racial profiling. What I found to be disturbing was that since 1990s, there has been a surplus of military arms being sent to local law enforcement. What is alarming about the information is that it takes about a year, or less depending on the program to graduate from the police academy. That is a shorter training for most careers as well as a shorter training period for military personnel. To entrust local law enforcement to handle such machinery like pistols, and other arms, when they have minimal professional training with these weapons is quite dangerous, which has been proven many times. When officers are put into stressful situations end up hurting innocent bystanders using such heavy machinery because they lack the training to know how to stay calm when in a high intensity scenario. What I did notice in the reading was that they were making the attempts to cut out military tools being handed to local law enforcement as a way to make a distinction between the military and the local police. Although they have changed the tactics, I began to wonder what took them so long to make that distinction? Although I was not able to find the answer for that, I was able to get a clearer understanding of the point of the SWAT team. Although, I am cognizant that the SWAT team is there to serve search warrants, and have to use heavy arms to protect themselves from any violent reactions, I do feel that their part in the “war on drugs,” has led to unfair profiling from all sectors of law enforcement, and the judicial system. Most of the SWAT arrests are drug offenses, many of those in are centered in minority communities, mainly black and Hispanic. Reading and knowing that information, made me question, how fair the law enforcement system is? It brought back the biggest question that I have when I think about law enforcement action towards combating drugs, which is why is it that the “war on drugs” is mainly centered around minorities communities who are live in poor areas, when their white peers who live in upper class neighborhoods do not get arrested or served search warrants, even if they might be distributing drugs at the same level?

From recent history I feel that the “war on drugs” became the catalysts for racial profiling in the inner city areas, as the stigma that centered inner city minority areas led to more officers being around, as well as more prejudice towards young black and Hispanic men. I found it disheartening that black teens were fatally killed at a rate of “31.17 per million in comparison to white teens who are killed 1.47 per million” (CQ Researcher). Not only are they killed at a higher rate, but they are stopped and frisked, arrested, jailed, and sentenced at a higher rate than white people for the same and or lesser offenses. What makes it terrible is that they can not afford lawyers who can spend time on their case, and do to prejudice within the justice system they receive harsher sentences that their white counterparts. Although, government officials have called for the use of cameras on cops to ensure that they are taking the right steps when arresting, that does not stop the whole system. Even with cameras, many cops are still prejudice, and if they have a boss who supports them, they can hide evidence when a racial profiling case comes about. Also, we can not focus on the lower level law enforcement when dealing with racial profiling, we also need to think about how we are going to ensure that young minority men are not being steered to take high plea deals, or that the judges presiding over their case is not prejudice. The entire law enforcement and Judicial system needs to be changed, but I feel that no one from the national to local government is taking that initiative to change a racists, and unjust system.

Racial Profiling and the associated issues that branch from it have caused issues that have rocked this country multiple times in recent memory, and have been a nearly constant source of tension between ordinary minority citizens and the police supposed to protect them and enforce the laws that keep them safe. From the high-profile killings of unarmed black individuals by police to the controversy of stop and frisk, racial bias in law enforcement is not a trivial issue whatsoever.

I find it sort of baffling that although white people who are stopped and frisked are more likely to be carrying contraband (perhaps because the black constituents of the sampling are already generally more wary because of this issue), blacks are stopped and risked at increased numbers. If this were truly about deterring crime by statistics and reasonable thinking, I would think police would skew their checks toward white subjects, or at the very least even it out, but I guess old and irrational fears, or at worst racism, still drive their behavior in this case.

Regarding the killings; I believe that every case must be looked at individually, for it’s own details. I do not think all of the killings that have sparked protests were out of racism, although BLM may disagree with me. There is a danger in lumping cases like this together, especially ones so emotionally charged, and flying into outrage without looking at things individually. That being said, the culture between minorities and law enforcement certainly aggravates this issue, and inroads need to be taken to mend the ties between minorities and the people who are meant to protect them and enforce the law among them.

Racial profiling has a long history in the past. Since the ratification of Thirteenth Amendment, African-Americans did not receive the proper respect within the society. They fought against the Jim Crow laws and protested to earn their civil rights. Hispanics and Mexicans also had to fight against injustice when Texas became a state. Even though they were the indigenous people there for generation, the white imperialism over their land made them like the foreigners. The treaty after the Mexico-America War did not grant them citizenships right away. White settlers treated them unfairly and deported them as illegal immigrants.

In today’s society, Hispanics and African-Americans are still the main population subjected to racial profiling. For example, “… 53 percent of those stopped were African-Americans and 32 percent Hispanics.” (384) under New York’s Stop-and-Frisk law. These numbers are alarming high for two minority groups. Some experts argued that this law helped New York to lower the murder rate. But in reality, there is not much difference in murder rate with and without the Stop-and-Frisk law. This law can only build more distrust between police and minority community. The development of distrust is bad for the growth of the society overall. When the people started to doubt the integrity of police, this caused people to question the motive of police for anything. This is hard for police to perform their services and start more active patrolling.

Court’s involvement in racial profiling is helpful to set up a statement for the public. Nevertheless, it is up to police to enforce the decision. Often times, the police tends to ignore the statement because they are very “stressed” on the job. It is easier to write on paper than acting it out. I agree with a statement in Urban Issues, “… some racial profiling critics say remedies may be more effective if crafted by law enforcement agencies themselves.” (387) If the police department can set up the requirements to stop a person, then it will become more lucid to every police. Police departments should also trained police more strategy to de-escalate the situations. Body camera can also help the police force to learn from their actions. Many cases in Black Lives Matter movement can be de-escalated. I strongly believe that a police’s life is as important as a citizen’s life. With more friendly approaches, many cases can be solved with no causality. Personally I just found Tamir Rice case outrageous. How can possibly a 12 years old hurt anyone even with a real gun? Any 12 years old would be scared if a police tells them to do anything.

Racial profiling will not end unless there is no more prejudgment in this world. We can only try to reduce racial profiling with more police training and technology to check the power of police.