• Stereotypes come from somewhere.

    The argument against racial profiling is that the "hit rate" on searches between white and black are about the same. However, that seems to forget that the same percentage does not equal the same number of "hits." While some police will go too far with racial profiling, a large majority of policemen use it as part of a larger profile of what a criminal looks like. It is more like a criminal profile, and race is a part of that profile. Numbers show that minorities make up a disproportionate number of offenders (especially in urban areas), so the police will take that into account when looking to stop future crimes.

  • Identify the criminal

    Terms need to be identified. Is it racial profiling to identify a suspect by skin color? That is the complaint that I hear against racial profiling and that is not profiling, its identification. News reports do not included skin color of a suspect less someone might cry "racism !". Criminals are getting off because the police were looking for a "black guy", never mine that a black guy did the crime. You don't see that happen when the police make an arrest when looking for a " white guy ". Now if we are talking statistics, then like any other intel, they have some value and if they lead to a suspect ; good. Other statistics are used to profile and work, it is about catching the bad guy. By the way, regardless of color we are the human race and if you are not, then the authorities should be checking you out along with all the other illegal aliens

  • Yes, it saves time.

    Yes, racial profiling is a defensible public policy, because it allows law enforcement officers to maximize their efficiency. If a law enforcement officer knows that a crime was likely committed by someone of a certain race, age, or other demographic, there is nothing wrong with them focusing law enforcement efforts on these groups. It is the best use of our law enforcement dollar.

  • It is indefensible

    Firstly, I don't believe races of people exist. But using these ignorant labels only causes misunderstandings. In the first place, people feel that so called 'black people' are more likely to be drug abusers yet a study conducted by Duke University and published in Time magazine says so called 'whites' are more likely to abuse drugs than 'blacks' So initially we stereotyped the blacks as drug addicts, which in fact was wrong, now we should stereotype the whites because they are now the drug addicts which is also equally wrong. I know many self identified 'white' and 'black' people who don't do drugs, so you'd be wrong every time if you went with racial profiling and ridiculous labels that have been debunked from the turning of the 20th century.

  • Not very fair

    Racial profiling is based on stereotypes and assumptions made based on "statistics." I understand that certain races are responsible for more crimes than others, but we need to understand that these statistics are just numbers and are completely anonymous. If some percent of a race does something, we can't just go out and assume that the random people we see are part of that percentage. As an African American I have never stolen ever, and I don't know anyone who has. Is it fair to say that just because a certain percentage (not even the majority) of my race does crime that I'm automatically part of this statistic?

  • No racial profiling

    Racial profiling should not be public policy because it imposes a huge cost on many people for the actions of a relatively small subgroup in a population. The efficacy of racial profiling is questionable at best (and harmful at worst), and far more effective measure can be taken with less abuse of personal freedom.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.