The Instigator
dxpilot
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
danny445
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points

Should the government allow Police Profiling?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,484 times Debate No: 2976
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (9)

 

dxpilot

Con

First of all, I know many people are racist. They might look at a black man and say he's in a gang. They also might look at a hindu and say he's a terrorist. I'm not saying that all people look at the race of people like this but most do. I know for a fact that not all people are the same. You cant judge a person for his skin color or ethnicity, but if you have proof besides the fact that there whatever race. I dont think that the police, that are supposed to protect people, should use the method of profiling to catch people.
danny445

Pro

I will start by stating that in no way am I a racist. It all has to do with human nature, and probability. If you are a cop, in X-town, and the statistics show that 1 in 4 purple people are going to commit a crime that would face jail/prison time in their life, while a much smaller percentage of the blue-people are going to commit a crime, statistically speaking, if you are patrolling the streets, if you see two suspicious acting people on two separate streets, the smartest thing to do would be to follow the purple person. It really is just a statistical choice, now of course there are racists that don't base it on statistics, but I am referring to profiling people based on statistics. For example, the majority of terrorist attacks around the world are carried out by Muslims, and every person involved in the 9/11 attacks was a Muslim. Does this mean that every Muslim is going to be a terrorist? Absolutely not, but does it mean statistically that every terrorist is going to be a Muslim? sadly according to the statistics, Yes... therefore it is the ugly truth but profiling works. Had profiling been an active policy on 9/11, the terrorists would have been stopped. Are some people going to be humiliated and embarrassed? Sadly, yes. But if it saves thousands of lives over the inconvenience of the few, then that is the cost.

445
Debate Round No. 1
dxpilot

Con

My opponent has made REALLY good arguments, but he forgot that the basis of police profiling is that the police is allowed to conviect someone or put them in jail just for being x race. And yes, statistically it could show that 25% of x race does commit more crimes, but unless you have prove that the person is commiting a crime, the cop shouldn't just follow them or convict them for just being that race.

As for your second point, if we were to have used police profiling during the 9/11 inccident, we wouldv'e prevented the attack, I thought that in America everyone is equal and is supposed to be treated as equals. so they true fault of the 9/11 inccident was the securities fault for not inspectioning the people on that plane.

i would also like to state that because of police profiling, many mexicans who were born in america were put in jail and almost sent back to mexico just for being mexican. and this couldv'e been prevented if we hadn't used police profiling.
danny445

Pro

Arrested and convicted? I don't think so. Racial profiling means that people in airport security are going to be instructed to watch people that would look like those who committed the crimes on 9/11, or that a cop in a gang area would be specifically suspicious of people that are likely to be in a gang according to statistics. Profiling does not cause the CONVICTION, I think you need to go look up what convicted means. That is an entirely different system fault if a person is convicted of a crime based on race, that reflects poorly upon the entire justice system, which is an entirely different topic for debate. As far as being followed around, well as I said, if a purple person in X-town is likely to be in a gang, who is to say that a cop that is simply patrolling and watching for danger shouldn't make sure there isn't a threat?

You said: "As for your second point, if we were to have used police profiling during the 9/11 inccident, we wouldv'e prevented the attack, I thought that in America everyone is equal and is supposed to be treated as equals. so they true fault of the 9/11 inccident was the securities fault for not inspectioning the people on that plane."

You even admitted in this point that profiling would have prevented the attack, and that the fault of the incident was the securities. I think that basically is what my point is. Yeah, it would be nice if everyone in America could be treated equally, but the truth is people aren't the same. Does these mean there should be racism? no, but some people want to fly airplanes into buildings, or shoot cops, so you aren't dealing with people that have a logical or rational mindset and profiling helps weed out these extremists. It is a touchy situation, I will be the very first person to defend American rights, and I hope your argument wont hit a slippery slope, I am simply talking about profiling that entails people being questioned on the street, or pulled to the side in an airport based on statistics. These are inconveniences for people, and can be embarrassing, but it could save thousands of lives.

As for the Mexican issue, I don't think that the police just kicked in the door to an American-Mexican home and "Almost" deported them. The context of that might have been there was intermingling between illegal and legal immigrants, and they were all taken to the station, based on statistics, perhaps there was a problem speaking English? If a police officer took me to the station because he or she thought that I was an illegal immigrant, I would simply say "There is a mistake, I am a citizen" and show him/her my proper identification, and that would resolve the issue.

The point is, profiling is effective. Its sad, but true. It is not a reflection on the purple people, or on Muslims. It is just a sad reflection of human nature, and how people are afraid and seek out loyalties among other people who they can relate to, even people that are in gangs, or even people who want to wage a jihad. To avoid abuse, I think that police officers or airport security officers should be well qualified, and should take personality tests to determine if they would be at high risk of abusing profiling activities.
Debate Round No. 2
dxpilot

Con

Okay, I would like to say, your right. Police Profiling doesn't cause the conviction. I meant to say that it could lead to the false conviction of an innocent person. And police profiling doesn't just apply to airport security, it applies to every branch of safety. From the school security to the F.B.I. Police Profiling applies to every type of security there is.
There is one comment I would like to quote from what you said.

"That is an entirely different system fault if a person is convicted of a crime based on race, that reflects poorly upon the entire justice system, which is an entirely different topic for debate."

When a person is convicted of a crime based on race, they are being convicted because of racial profiling. This occurred many times in the 1880's-1960 because of the Jim Crow Laws. Racial profiling is illegal but POLICE PROFILING isn't. These are both to different topics but police profiling is when any type of security (such as a cop) arrests or questions a person because they are x race.

And you also said, "As far as being followed around, well as I said, if a purple person in X-town is likely to be in a gang, who is to say that a cop that is simply patrolling and watching for danger shouldn't make sure there isn't a threat?" When a cop is FOLLOWING x person, he is just watching and perusing that 1 person. When he PATROLS the neighborhood he is watching everything, such as the people and the environment.

You also said that I admitted that racial profiling was effective. That was a bad grammar use in my statement. I was basically summarizing your response. Now, I know that no one is truly equal, but according to t he 14,15, and 16th amendment, we are. That is the good that came out of the civil war.

When the police pulls you aside, not only is it embarrassing, it is humiliating, it degrades your honesty, and it causes inconvenience. If you show that you weren't doing anything wrong, it would've been a HUGE inconvenience.

And you're saying that with the Mexican issue all you have to do is show the cop your papers, correct?
Well, I was watching the news today and they were saying how a Mexican-American citizen ( born from Mexican parents but also born in the U.S.) got deported from the U.S. and after five years they let him come back. And he showed them him papers but all they did was accuse him of having false papers.

I would also like to point out that when the police uses police profiling, they are violating the 14,15, and 16 amendment. So how could police profiling possibly be legal?
danny445

Pro

--You said: "Police Profiling doesn't cause the conviction. I meant to say that it could lead to the false conviction of an innocent person."

Alright, once again conviction is an entirely different stage of the justice system than profiling. If a cop questions an innocent person, that is one thing, if a judge sentences an innocent person, entirely different.

-- You said: "When a person is convicted of a crime based on race, they are being convicted because of racial profiling. This occurred many times in the 1880's-1960 because of the Jim Crow Laws."

Notice where your end date was... 1960, we are talking about present day, so present day law has been reformed to prevent this.

-- You said: "Racial profiling is illegal but POLICE PROFILING isn't...police profiling is when any type of security (such as a cop) arrests or questions a person because they are x race."

I believe this statement very well might be the one that buries your argument. You make the difference between racial profiling and police profiling, separating racial profiling as being negative. This debate however is on POLICE profiling, which you state to be legal. Very interesting.

you said: "When a cop is FOLLOWING x person, he is just watching and perusing that 1 person. When he PATROLS the neighborhood he is watching everything, such as the people and the environment."

I don't see how this really opposes anything that I said, you are wasting characters here with this point. I think that a cop patrols an environment and the people within it, until one of the people sticks out by doing something wrong or by being deemed at risk according to statistics.

You said "You also said that I admitted that racial profiling was effective. That was a bad grammar use in my statement. I was basically summarizing your response."

Unfortunately in the world of debating, bad grammar counts against you, especially when it makes a statement say something that you don't intend, however, in this case I think the followers of this debate, and myself must take everything you say for exactly what it says and nothing less or more, so you effectively supported my argument.

With the news story that you heard, how was that a case of police profiling? Just because our country deported someone that was innocent, does not mean that they were police profiled. Once again that is just the reflection of a mistake higher up in the justice system, and does not prove that they were profiled as being a criminal, it may have been a mistake with documents, etc, there isn't enough information provided to know the full story.

You said: "I would also like to point out that when the police uses police profiling, they are violating the 14,15, and 16 amendment. So how could police profiling possibly be legal?"

This is very interesting, and I think this proves to be icing on the cake. You say that police profiling violates the 14th, 15th, and 16th amendments to the constitution. Here is some information:

--The 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

This is obviously not violated by police profiling, and proves to be a rather large mistake on your part, when you cite something within a debate, its always a good idea to have your facts correct.

--the 15th Amendment: "governments in the United States may not prevent a citizen from voting based on that citizen's race"

Once again, profiling does not prevent a person from voting based on race. It is evident that you knew the number was a civil rights amendment and tossed it in for good measure, but it was once again a critical factual mistake.

Lastly the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment is an amendment that promises due process to the citizens. This means that a citizen can not be convicted or sentenced purely because of his or her race. This amendment actually protects people from racial profiling going from a necessary evil level, to the level that you exaggerated it to already be at, or to have already been at before the 1960s. Due process means that everyone gets a trial, and has to go through a due process, before having their rights of life, liberty, or property (i.e. putting someone into a prison sentence, etc) taken away. This clause is in our constitution under the assumption that the police very well might unintentionally suspect innocent people for committing crimes. However,in this country you are innocent until proven guilty, but this doesn't mean that you will not have to go through the processes to prove it, and its very existence establishes the legality of profiling. It essentially allows someone to be questioned, and accused, but separates that from a person being convicted, arrested, and having their rights of life liberty and property taken away. Therefore, profiling does not violate the 14th amendment, rather the 14th amendment protects its people from police profiling going to a level that would rob a citizen of their rights of life, liberty, or property.

It is evident that you tried to connect racial profiling with the civil rights movement, unfortunately all three of the amendments you cited worked against you, and 2 of them were completely off of our topic, while the last actually makes profiling safer than it would be without the 14th amendment. I want to live in an America where we don't need racial profiling. But almost every terrorist attack in the world is committed by a Muslim, and every terrorist involved in the 9/11 attack was a Muslim. Profiling would have prevented thousands of lives from being lost in the past. Is it going to catch criminals every time? No, people will be embarrassed, and asked questions when they are innocent. But the lives that it will save have to be kept in mind, and we have to learn some humility, and be able to make a sacrifice for our nation by answering a few questions when security officers are doing the best job they can to protect us, simply by following the patterns and statistics that are sadly correct all too often. We must walk taller knowing that the stereotypes out there do not describe who we are at all, and be proud to answer questions. Every time a police officer questions a purple person, and that purple person is innocent, the statistical stereotype against them goes down one number. Lets try to eliminate it one number at a time until all statistical ratios are at zero, until then, while there is holy war jihad being waged, and drive by shootings, cop killings, and armed robberies are plaguing or cities, profiling is the most logical approach.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by candice 8 years ago
candice
Touchy subject. If your in a certain part of town, and see black, white, hispanic males, whatever... wearing colors associated with a gang, I think the cop should use that knowledge to practice more caution. There's a difference between racism, and using inteligence. It's sad that the law breaking of some can effect an entire race.
Posted by kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
It gets taken too far. I don't think police should target a certain race but I also don't think someone should get away with breaking the law. For example they wanted to start a law in MA that people can be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt. Minorities in the state argued that then there would be racial profiling and the law wasn't passed. I think that is ridiculous. Also a few young 20 somethings were in the middle of the street , just stopped their cars right there and got out. They were all arguing. The cops approached and all were drinking. They started attacking the cops , there were witnesses. The girl bit the cop and was kicking him. So he used pepper spray and then restrained her. They were all arrested. They turned around and sued the city for racial profiling , and said the cops stopped and then did this because they are Asian. I don't think that is right. if I was stopped in the middle of the road drunk with my xcar right there in the middle of a busy street, yelling and fighting , you can bet cops would approach and if I bit a cop and kicked him you can bet he would pepper spray me and arrest me and i am white. (and female)
Posted by danny445 9 years ago
danny445
I will be posting my first argument as soon as possible, in the next couple of hours, very good topic, this should be interesting.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
dxpilotdanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
dxpilotdanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 8 years ago
PreacherFred
dxpilotdanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
dxpilotdanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by candice 8 years ago
candice
dxpilotdanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by dxpilot 8 years ago
dxpilot
dxpilotdanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by believer_720 8 years ago
believer_720
dxpilotdanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by THS 8 years ago
THS
dxpilotdanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by danny445 8 years ago
danny445
dxpilotdanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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