The Instigator
fuzala
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Haroush
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Racial Profiling Allows Certain Criminals to Get Away and Promotes Discrimination

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Haroush
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,461 times Debate No: 40726
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

fuzala

Pro

I am of the position that racial profiling allows certain criminals to get away, and it promotes discrimination. My opponent argues that this is not so.


First round is acceptance only.
Haroush

Con

Racial profiling is not discrimination and helps law enforcement to find the suspect they are looking for. How could you not racially profile and figure out who a suspect is? One of the first questions a cop asks you when any criminal activity takes place is, what did the suspect look like? When describing what a suspect looks like, you have to tell them their height, weight, their physical attributes as far as abnormalities they may have, skin color or race, the clothing they were wearing, and anything else that may help to describe them.

If there was no such thing as racial profiling, you wouldn't be able to report their skin color or race. This being said you could explain what the suspect is wearing, but still not know who it is. Take this example for instance. The suspect was a male with blue jeans, black boots, a dark colored t-shirt, and had a slender build. By the time, the cops go looking for him he could of changed clothes or got rid of his clothes. Then what do you do?

Very rarely does racial profiling end up in getting the wrong suspect. Racial profiling is only part of the search for a suspect.
Debate Round No. 1
fuzala

Pro

I think there has been some misunderstanding. I stated that the first round is acceptance only.

Also, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I'll define racial profiling from the American Civil Liberties Union: Racial profiling "...refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin."
https://www.aclu.org...

Ending racial profiling does not mean one cannot report the skin color of a person. That's not what the concept means according to the definition I provided. Ending it means not being able to discriminate against a person for their skin color. After a suspect is caught, one can still describe their skin color and the like.

The definition itself includes the act of discrimination.

Also, racial profiling allows those who do not "fit the profile" to get away.

It allows certain criminal to get away.

"Racial profiling has undermined some high-profile criminal investigations. Take the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995. In that case, officers initially investigated the bombings with Arab males in mind as suspects. As it turned out, white American men committed the crime."
http://racerelations.about.com...


Another point to make is that racial profiling is definitely not necessary.
"Moreover, because OFL has resulted in no terror-related convictions, the program is also a clear example of how racial profiling uses up valuable law enforcement resources yet fails to make our nation safer.52"
You can see more details in depth at this link: http://www.civilrights.org...
Haroush

Con

My apologies for the misunderstanding. Though, I must say, there are many people who think racial profiling on the basis of their skin color. As far as the first round being for acceptance only, I didn't understand what that meant. I am new to this debating website. Though thank you for being courteous to my novice.

Let me start with the fact law enforcement is an equal opportunity work force. For example, the majority of the Baltimore city police department is black, but still black people are mainly being locked up.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com...

This just goes to prove racial profiling is justifiable. At least the "racial" profiling I know of..

The Broader Definition
Under the broader definition, racial profiling occurs when a law enforcement officer uses race
or ethnicity as ONE of several factors in deciding to stop, question, arrest, and/or search
someone. An example of racial profiling under this broader definition would be a police stop
based on the confluence of the following factors:

" age (young);
" dress (hooded sweatshirt, baggy pants, etc.);
" time of day (late evening);
" geography (in the "wrong" neighborhood); and
" race or ethnicity (black or Hispanic).9
Under this broader definition, then, racial profiling occurs whenever police routinely use race
as a factor that, along with an accumulation of other factors, causes an officer to react with
suspicion and take action.

The term "profiling" refers to the police practice of viewing certain characteristics as indicators
of criminal behavior.4
Profiling is reportedly an established law enforcement practice throughout
the nation, having evolved during the past few decades with the incorporation of social science
theory and statistical methodology into law enforcement"s crime solving and crime prevention
strategies. Although not a panacea, profiling has been shown to be a successful supplement to
older and more fundamental policing strategies.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us...

Now, it's obvious the majority goes by the definition according to the ACLU. Though, I believe this is misleading especially when considering my example and info. It seems to me "racial" profiling is more based off of key criminal characteristics based off of a certain culture. This being said, "racial" profiling is perfectly constitutional and helps detain the actual criminals.

Racial profiling simply assumes that an individual may more likely be the perpetrator of a crime because their appearance matches the race of a suspect. Just like the more recent event that took place in New York city. Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis attempted to bomb a Federal Reserve building.

http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
fuzala

Pro

No problem. It's understandable.


The problem with racial profiling is that it creates a "profile" of a criminal. The profile also fits countless innocent people. It is discriminatory and unfair for the innocent who outnumber the criminals. Criminals come in many shapes and sizes. That is how racial profiling lets many criminals get away. Those who don't fit the profile slip through the cracks. Many criminals are clever and know the strategy of racial profiling.

The kind of racial profiling I'm speaking of was defined in the first round. That is the type of profiling I am speaking out against.

Another issue with racial profiling is that it gives people the mindset that only certain types of people commit crimes. That certainly is not true. It causes racial tension in communities. The races that are targeted feel oppressed and unwelcome.

Thus, I still hold the view that racial profiling lets certain criminals go away. I gave a source an example of this. I also think that the meaning of racial profiling has its roots in discrimination as defined in the first round. I don't view that definition as misleading. It accurately represents how racial profiling works. My source from the civil rights page also explains how racial profiling has failed to make the nation safer. http://www.civilrights.org...



Haroush

Con

Ok, so let me start with my rebuttal.

"The problem with racial profiling is that it creates a "profile" of a criminal."

"Another issue with racial profiling is that it gives people the mindset that only certain types of people commit crimes. That certainly is not true. It causes racial tension in communities. The races that are targeted feel oppressed and unwelcome."

Is it that the criminals create a "racial" profile or is it that these "criminals" are being racially discriminated against?

That's the question. My answer is these criminals create a "racial" profile. Though my problem with the whole idea "racial" profiling is discriminatory. I beg to differ because these law enforcement tactics are used on all races, ethnic backgrounds, and religions.

Did you ever hear about that mosque that got burned down in one of those southern states of the U.S. ? Well, guess what? They caught the criminals who did it through "racial" profiling against christian groups around the area. And it was the people who did it too!

"Thus, I still hold the view that racial profiling lets certain criminals go away. I gave a source an example of this. I also think that the meaning of racial profiling has its roots in discrimination as defined in the first round. I don't view that definition as misleading. It accurately represents how racial profiling works. My source from the civil rights page also explains how racial profiling has failed to make the nation safer. http://www.civilrights.org...;

Ok, I understand your point of view, but I still don't understand how it is accurate. That is considering this...

"The term "profiling" refers to the police practice of viewing certain characteristics as indicators
of criminal behavior.4
Profiling is reportedly an established law enforcement practice throughout
the nation, having evolved during the past few decades with the incorporation of social science
theory and statistical methodology into law enforcement"s crime solving and crime prevention
strategies. Although not a panacea, profiling has been shown to be a successful supplement to
older and more fundamental policing strategies."

So, basically "racial" profiling doesn't discriminate those of any particular race or ethnicity. It just simply, uses key criminal characteristics to fit the crime that was just committed. Whether it'd be a White, Jew, Muslim, Christian, black, hispanic, Asian, and etc.

"Racial profiling simply assumes that an individual may more likely be the perpetrator of a crime because their appearance matches the race of a suspect"

The term "appearance" refers to the criminal characteristics represented in the crime.

Now for my evidence "racial" profiling is accurate.

For one, the JFK assassination. They used "racial" profiling in that case and in finding all the domestic and foreign terrorist who conspired against the U.S. through terror accurately.

Let's not forget my evidence in round two as well.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
Either way, this was a good debate.
Posted by fuzala 3 years ago
fuzala
I didn't just talk about feelings. I provided a source on how racial profiling fails to keep the area safer.
Posted by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
Technically, since there was a misunderstanding in the beginning, This debate only has two rounds. That is 2 and 3.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Doesn't con say the next round that he already gave his fair share of rounds? In my experience that's what happens...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
fuzalaHaroushTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed the effectiveness of racial profiling, while fuzala just gave feelings and nothing more.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
fuzalaHaroushTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued in the first round when it was declared to be a "acceptance round." Con claims he is new here, but he should have not argued in the last round because of his mistake, as he ended up having an extra round to argue when Pro used her first round as an introductory round. Therefore, he loses the conduct point. Topic: "Racial Profiling Allows Certain Criminals to Get Away and Promotes Discrimination." The winner of this debate is the person who supported his position based on that topic which has two parts, (1) Criminals getting away and (2) Discrimination. Con offered no evidence whatsoever that racial profiling prohibits criminals from getting away, while Pro offered a trust citation from http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/the-reality-of-racial.html. Con undermined Pro's claims that it causes discrimination, but not to an effective degree as he used another definition of Racial profiling than the one she intended to use.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
fuzalaHaroushTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job to both Pro and Con. I think Con focused more on the line-by-line response, and showed that racial profiling is necessary for finding a criminal. I think without it we would not find criminals as easy, wheter black, white, hispanic,etc.