Month: March 2017 (Page 4 of 7)

With the rise of the “Black Lives Matter” movement in high gear, the concept of racial profiling is called into question. According to the CQ Researcher, African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately much more likely to be stopped than whites. An example given was by a study conducted in Maryland that found 72% of those stopped by police were African Americans. To see such statistics that back up what I had previously been taught in classes as well as what I have heard from the experiences of others, was truly difficult to grasp. Race is a socially constructed entity so to have based a lineage of criminality on it is a notion I cannot seem to make full sense of.

Racial profiling is very commonly referred to in the context of stop-and-frisks. When asked about the topic, MacDonald stated that the implementation of stop-and-frisk policies led to a decline in crime during the 1990s. She claims that because of this, minority groups benefit and it helps to create a safer environment for low-income areas. However, I have a couple areas of concerns regarding this. The first being there is the possibility that increasing enforcement in these areas can create tension between the residents and law officials. The second being while I do think there is a certain level of law enforcement and policing needed in crime-prone areas, I do also believe there are greater problems that also need some looking into. It’s important to look at why heavier policing is seen as being needed, what does that say and what can be done to fix any potential issues?

The article “Fighting Gangs” indicates that gangs have existed for centuries across many parts of the world. Comprised of the outcasts, and the impoverished of society, they form groups that enable them to fight their way to success. Their success can be measured by territorial control of certain neighborhoods, by financial success through profitable criminal behaviors such as selling drugs, or, more recently, by exerting power and control through the means of social media. What these gangs have in common, regardless of their ethnic make-up or location, is the banding together of underprivileged individuals in society for the purpose of succeeding outside that society. Through aggressive means, these gangs seek to achieve, often illegally and with much force, the goals they wish to attain. They often do this in circumvention of society’s authorized ways of attainment.

For centuries, as long as there have been gangs, the law enforcement agents of their times have not been successful in fighting gangs.  Law enforcement’s attempts to bring down the gangs merely makes them pop up on different street corners, get involved in different criminal activities, and, if anything, may cause them to escalate their fighting techniques to regain their supremacy. I submit that it would be better, as others suggest in this article, to wage peace rather than war with gang members. There can be no winners in a wrestling match between policemen and gang members. Instead, we would all be better served by a two-pronged approach. One method would be to work with potential newly approachable gang recruits to educate them about all the negativities associated with gang membership and to give them alternative approaches by which to succeed. Another method would be to work with those gang members that are already part of the group, by offering them different ways to get out of their gangs and succeed in society. I believe that the best approach to use with respect to engaging the future and the currently enlisted gang members is through the use of gang “interventionists” who have lived the gang life and therefore are aware of what makes people join gangs and the pitfalls of being a gang member. The employment of these interventionists, former gang members, would be helpful in understanding and working with current gang members, since they have lived through the same perils. Moreover, the gang interventionists that would be employed would themselves be supported in their financial and social comeback to society.  In order to help the interventionists succeed (this article brings up that some do not), they would need to be given the right tools to engage in their fight against gangs. Preparing the interventionists properly would lead to their getting involved in creating meaningful educational, mental health, and employment opportunities for those who are not yet accepted members of society. There appear to be two promising laws soon to be enacted by Congress, “The Youth Promise Act,” and the “Redeem Act,” that could strongly support the work of gang interventionists. The “Youth Promise Act” would emphasize educational, mental health, and outreach programs to prevent young people from joining gangs. The “Redeem Act” would help those who are already gang members and have been incarcerated by sealing the records of minors and giving second chances to those who did not commit violent crimes. The best way to fight gangs is not with police force but rather through peaceful social rehabilitation.

This week’s reading of the CQ Reader, regarding gang violence, was extremely troubling, while also being impeccable in its timing.  Coming from Long Island, until very recently it had been my impression that, with distinct exceptions, gang violence was not an issue we suffered with.  These exceptions had always been in lower income areas, such as in portions of Hempstead.  However, within the last week, I was speaking with my mother who works with the Nassau County Legislature, and she told me that there have recently been gangs transplanted from Los Angeles who had been operating within Nassau County, to the point that there are talks to set up a division within the police force simply to combat the gang violence.  This recent news made this week’s reading far more relevant to the area which I come from, piquing my interest to say the least.

While it did interest me to learn that women were becoming increasingly involved in gangs, as well as the fact that our military bases suffer from gang activity as well, the portion of the reading regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of injunctions being used to prevent gang activity fascinated me.  This issue plays very well off of last week’s reading regarding racial profiling.  The issue in my mind is sticky for two reasons, the first being that these injunctions are primarily used with a racial undertone, so that very specific communities are targeted.  On top of this concept comes into play the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of assembly.  This means that there is no inherent problem with gangs.  The issue comes into play when gangs begin to partake in criminal activity, which is both a crime at the federal and state level.  So a fine line is being danced when broad injunctions are issued to stop gang assembly, while also trying to ensure that a) these gangs are partaking in criminal activity b) the enforcement of the injunction is not being used to target specific groups.  With these two thoughts in mind, especially after having read last week’s reader, I am not convinced that injunctions being used to stop gang violence is an acceptable practice, much like stop and frisk.  While both may be effective, it is a slippery slope when we allow the rights of others, Constitutional rights, to be taken away, simply for our own peace of mind.

On another note, I’ve decided that every issue which our society seems to face nowadays, be it environmental, profiling, gang violence, etc. is either preventable or at least able to be alleviated in some form, by an increase in education.  With this in mind, I apply this concept to the gang issue as well.  Practically speaking, as per the reading, it doesn’t seem that there is the man power within the police force to arrest every gang member, and even if there was, it doesn’t seem that arrests are an effective way of stemming the tide of gang violence.  As such, it would behoove us as the greater community, and future leaders of the City of New York, to work to lessening the causes which lead one to join a gang. The first way to do this would be to work to ensure that children within communities that gang members traditionally come out of are set up with the best possible chance to improve their socio-economic status, if they so desire.

As I began reading this chapter on fighting gangs in Urban Issues, the first thing that came to mind was that I take a lot for granted. I have lived in a decently safe neighborhood in Queens from the time I moved to New York and I also attended schools and now college in relatively safe neighborhoods as well. Hence, it never really occurred to me how big of a problem gangs really are in the United States. According to Urban Issues, gangs have posed a serious threat in the United States especially as the number of gang related crimes are on the rise. This is particularly due to social media which makes it much easier for gang leaders to recruit new members. It was quite surprising to me how there is an increase in the number of women and girls who are involved in gangs since police are least likely to suspect women as criminals. It was even more surprising to me that some of them actually take up leadership roles in gangs. It was also surprising to me that military bases also have gang related activity especially dealing with prostitution. In addition, one thing I found interesting was that prison gangs tend to operate street affiliated gangs from inside their institutions. This is supporting evidence that there needs to be even stricter security in prison facilities to prevent gang related operations. However, there will always be limitations in how much guards can see and scrutinize.

One major systematic flaw I noticed from reading this chapter was the fact that sometimes crimes are reported as “gang-related” even when they aren’t since states receive extra funding to fight gang crime through state and federal programs. This seemed corrupt to me but at the same time maybe the funding that states receive in the first place to deal with their current gang situation isn’t merely enough and so they find the need to “trick” the system. However, when they do “trick” the system, it’s unclear whether or not a gang problem actually does exist or they’re just doing it to get additional resources, as Urban Issues states. To fix this discrepancy, I think the federal government should come up with a more defined provision of gang related activity that is applicable to all states and the state government should come up with its own.

Another issue I found quite interesting was the use of injunctions to stop gangs. According to Urban Issues, injunctions restore neighborhoods by clearing out gangs that intimidate residents. However, I think injunctions don’t exactly fix the problem. This is due to the fact that affiliates in gangs can easily move elsewhere and start up their gang there and at which point gang activity would have been displaced and not stopped as was intended. The solution therefore to stop gangs in communities, is to provide more resources and greater job opportunities so that people wouldn’t have a reason to turn to gangs in the first place. The main cause of gangs in neighborhoods is poverty and to combat this issue, there should be more programs that stress the importance of education and facilities that offer vocational training.

The underlying debate of racial profiling is essentially how much do we sacrifice and compromise on for the sake of national security. Do we scrutinize some people more than others for the sake of our communities and society or do we treat everyone on equal footing regardless of religion, race, gender etc. While the latter sounds more fitting for a democratic country and is certainly more socially acceptable, there is credible evidence that minority groups such as Hispanics and blacks tend to have a higher rate crime than the average white person. Therefore, given the racial disparities in criminal activity, it is logical for police officers/ law enforcers to practice “racial profiling” in order to effectively provide protection for those communities.

I think the real problem of racial profiling is the feelings of distrust and degradation that arise from this type of proactive policing, whether it be between citizens or between police officers and the subjected minorities.  However, this is something that naturally stems from this practice. In a similar vein, law enforcers are faced with the problem of either being called a racists or not protecting the community enough. Moreover, in times of crisis and fear such as the attack on the twin towers, the Orlando shooting etc, community members request more police protection and better security; overall this issue is difficult to know where to draw the line.

Nonetheless, it is important to remember that we are one country, built by immigrants, minorities, different religions and cultures, which ultimately built our nation to what it is today. Our differences can divide us or they can open our minds to new ideas and cultures and make us a more accepting nation.

(Note to the Reader: Based on the language presented in the Racial Profiling section of the Eighth Edition of Urban Issues: Selections from CQ Researcher,  crime in this article refers to blue collar crime such as burglary or other property crimes, theft crimes, sex crimes, assault, and drug crimes.)

It is without any doubt that racial profiling exists throughout the American law enforcement agencies. I’ve seen it myself around my neighborhood. But one’s view on the quantity in which racial profiling exists can change based on the lens one uses. There are different statistics one can use to define the un-balanced ratio  between whites stopped by law enforcement and minorities stopped by law enforcement. By changing the data lens, one will still see that racial profiling is prevalent, but may be more in tune to why that is and what are better ways to manage it.

In the Racial Profiling section of the Eighth Edition of Urban Issues: Selections from CQ Researcher, Heather McDonald is quoted saying, “Police actions continue to be measure against population ratios instead of crime ratios. The relevant measure is not overall population ratios but where crime is happening and where officers are more likely to be encountering criminal forces.” One cannot compare arrests to population for a simple, logical, and mathematical reason: there is no basis to say that crime occurs at an equal rate, or at an equal magnitude, among demographics. With that in mind, a ratio made from arrest and crime data, one could argue, will more accurately represent the levels of racial profiling within law enforcement.

When one changes the data used to determine these ratios, racial profiling is still evidently prevalent, however, there is a little more logic to it. It makes more sense to stop a Mexican near the border than a white man in suspicion of smuggling. But what could be a more efficient way to determine who to stop?

Something I would suggest is training officers in body language to help better spot suspicious individuals. In Israel, police and soldiers are taught how to spot dangerous individuals based on how those individuals carry themselves, walk, look around, etc. While American law enforcement isn’t necessarily dealing with terror threats, or even violence at all in some cases, these skills still transfer over. Most people who commit a crime, especially anyone in middle of committing a crime, will stand out from the crowd to a trained eye. And perhaps, with training the eyes of the law enforcement, we can help lower the number of instances where cops stop an individual solely because of race.

Reading this week’s CQ reader chapter, I found it interesting to actually place statistics around information which I had general ideas existed.  Considering the recent racial issues within our country, the activities of Black Lives Matter and the race riots included, had obviously been influenced by some type of action which raised flags amongst these offended communities, it was somewhat refreshing to put a face to these offenses.

The most interesting portion of this section was the piece regarding the success of prosecutors in convicting the police involved with these racial shootings as of late.  As far as charged litigations go, these cases are seeming dynamite, in that whatever verdict, an entire community is likely to be outraged.  This is a primary issue with the racial profiling problem, that it pits two communities, that of law enforcement and their supporters against those victimized by racial profiling. So, that a focus in moving towards progress should be education towards both communities, where everyone is given an understanding of the law, and what they can expect from their interactions with each other.

To proceed from this point, as it is evident to me from the facts given over that our law enforcement does have a racial profiling problem, is to work with law enforcement in order to find a method of enforcement, where is not nearly as much distrust between the communities, where the police are still comfortable enforcing the law.  This can be done through education primarily, simply because it will take time in order to shift the instincts which people have at their disposal, and at this time, those instincts lean towards distrust of minorities and a quick trigger finger as a consequence.  However, and this is the key issue in my mind, it would be far more damaging to law enforcement as a whole if we were to begin convicting all officers charged of these crimes, in that it would disillusion the officers from their given tasks. If this were to happen, our communities would be in much worse shape than it currently is in.  Paul Butler, Professor of Law at Butler University asserts that even though there is racial profiling taking place, this is not necessarily against the law.  If this assertion is correct, it is quite important that we do not begin locking up police officers simply to appease the protesting masses, as in the long run, this will cause an increase in the adversarial relationship between the communities involved.

Of the issues, which we’ve been speaking of in class until now, this seems to me to be the most complex, as it involves nuances within nuances.  One of the only courses of action to be taken, which costs little but may yield high results, is to increase education amongst every community involved.  Law enforcement must become comfortable interacting with these minority communities, while these communities must be made comfortable and acknowledge that generally, with very distinct outliers, the law enforcement community is simply trying to keep the public safe.  We must move towards a future where these facts are appreciated and acknowledged.

Racial profiling is an issue that unfortunately continues to be prevalent in today’s society. According to Chapter 6 of CQ Researcher, racial profiling has existed since the Jim Crow era. During this period of time, African Americans were faced with abusive treatment and unjust proceedings in court by police officers. Also, Mexican – Americans in Texas and the Southwest were subjected to residential and education segregation just as African Americans. In addition, in the 1930s the U.S. forced two million people of Mexican descent to leave and there was also the implementation of the Chinese Exclusion Act. There is no doubt that the root of racial profiling lies in the discriminatory polices against minority groups throughout U.S. history. However, what’s even more mind boggling, is that racial profiling is ongoing in the present day. Based on a study presented in the CQ Researcher, 72 percent of those stopped in Maryland were African Americans with a vast majority of motorists stopped, also being African Americans. Currently, we see how Muslims are being treated and discriminated against with the immigration policies in place, we see how young, innocent African – American men are being treated harshly upon arrest even for minor felonies. Because of such unfair practices, we’ve witnessed the immense levels of civil unrest in states where racial profiling has become an immense problem.

Given the moral and social effects racial profiling has on minority groups, how exactly do we go about managing it or having our law enforcement held accountable for their actions? The first obvious answer to this question would be our courts. According to CQ Researcher, the courts have the obligation and the moral and legal duty to respond to concerns that the community has with racial profiling. However Jim Bueerman, Police Foundation President, states that “You don’t easily change a police department culture with a judicial ruling.” This is indeed true because despite the fact that police officers have been tried time and time again with racial profiling, there has still been a growing number of cases where law enforcement has been linked to discriminatory practices. In addition, the legal process is often so lengthy as Judge Cohen discussed in his last presentation, that it would just delay the punishment officers would have to face and so many unheard cases of racial profiling could be going on in the process. So if the courts are unable to fix the problem entirely, it then comes down to the structure of law enforcement. According to CQ researcher, “The officers should not be faulted, because their actions reflected the training they received.”  Hence, the problem lies within the system itself  as CQ researcher suggests and therefore to avoid going to the courts every time a case involves racial profiling, mayors, city governments and state legislatures should be more involved in implementing processes that would prevent racial profiling to begin with. Moreover, racism is an issue that will exist regardless but it’s up to us to become more open minded as a society, more accepting and not take anything at face value. This is easier said than done especially since it’s a social factor but it’s not impossible. Civil rights leaders, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., all fought during the 1960s against issues like these and they actually got somewhere. We live in a much easier time yes but it is also very possible that we have become so complacent when it comes to certain issues that we have taken a lot for granted. Hence, if we want to avoid a segregated America again, we need to start opening our eyes as to what’s really occurring around us.

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.