Category: Response Papers (March 13) (Page 1 of 2)

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 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.

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.