the criminology and criminal justice network
How does racial profiling affects community policing?
Views: 267
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jeffrey P. Rush on -
It is rare for cops to stop people for "no apparent reason." Cops stop people for a variety of reasons, some serious, others not so much. The Supremes have already established that stopping someone for a violation of A, when you think violation B might also be involved is OK.
As a result, pretextual stops are OK and do no amount to racial profiling, which cops don't do anyway.
-
Permalink Reply by Prof. Dano Kraig Fernandez, MJA on -
Great response Jeff. Thus, the post 9/11 terrorist attacks racial profiling becomes part of police and law enforcement routines. Federal law enforcement officers or even State law enforcement officers have conducted many stops (because he or she fits the description of a certain group who belongs to the 9/11 perpetrators' looks and race) with or without apparent reasons. According to Section 412 of the Patriot Act the premise states that, "it permits the Attorney General of the United States to detain aliens he certifies as threats to national security for up to seven days without bringing charges. The standard to establish grounds for detention is the familiar reasonable suspicion standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in Terry. The certification by the AG must set forth that he has "reasonable grounds to believe" the person being detained will commit espionage or sabotage, try to overthrow the government, commit terrorist acts, or otherwise engage in acts that would endanger national security" (Retrieved from http://www.acluva.org/publications/patactmanualFeb2006.pdf). At the conclusion of seven days, the detention may continue in the event the alien is charged with a crime or violation of visa conditions. But if circumstances prohibit the repatriation of a person for an immigration offense, the detention may continue indefinitely so long as certified by the attorney general every six months. Under the USA Patriot Act, the prospect exists that a person who is confined for a violation of conditions of entry into the US, but cannot be deported to his or her country of origin, may be indefinitely confined here without criminal charges ever filed against them.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeffrey P. Rush on
-
First I'm OK with this, if that's what the Patriot Act says.
With respect to terrorism, especially international, we know who the primary perpetrators are. Profiling is done by many professions, including criminal justice. It just makes sense. It's criminal profiling, not racial profiling, where race is a consideration, a factor but not the only or even the primary factor.
When the vic tells us a b/m raped her, does it make any sense to begin stopping w/m's or a/m's or even h/m's? I think not.
-
Permalink Reply by mario a garcia on
-
it depends on who's authority the stopping was made and as to what purpose of the stopping.
in today's situation where global security is threatened by terrorism, countries around the globe promulgates their domestics laws to check on suspicious or foreign nationals entering the country. given for example, country A, by intelligence report, there are terrorist who successfully entered the country and are given the mission to create chaos, the the government orders its law enforcement to stop and check anybody foreigner or local citizens for verification purposes, the order is general hence, there maybe no specific reason. the stopping is not a discriminatory one.
nevertheless, in a country which has a close border policy, declares among others to crack on non citizens for the purpose of any charges to compel them to leave the country, then the stopping is pretextual or pre-designed.
-
Permalink Reply by Rashid Aziz on -
This is a problem in London also, speaking to ethnic minority youths in some areas, they feel they are unfairly targeted for stop and and search - this can only lead to tensions in the community.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeffrey P. Rush on
-
Feeling that they are unfairly targeted does not mean they are. That's part of the problem here. We spend way to much time trying to address someone's feelings, which can't be addressed. They are, after all, someone's feelings, which are fleeting to be sure.
How to get agencies to be more proactive and honest with the community is the big question. We shouldn't be dealing in feelings, we should be dealing in facts.
-
Permalink Reply by Rashid Aziz on
-
God forbid we should consider someone's feeling when talking about community policing.. that would just be silly.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeffrey P. Rush on
-
Yup. Feelings don't matter, how one feels is based in the moment and rarely on the facts at hand.
Again, just because one feels they've been discriminated against does not mean they have been. Would you have the system and the players thereof focus on individual's feelings or their behavior?
Then again, perhaps we should allow the cops and the judges and the prosecutors to do their job based on their feelings. "Yeah, that's the ticket" (Tommy Flanagan).
-
Permalink Reply by David Jackson on
-
Give me a break! In what universe don't cops stop people for "suspect" reasons? Anyone ever heard pf DWB? for Those viewing the world through wine colored glasses (maybe the bottom of the wine bottle), that's DRIVING WHILE BLACK! I, personally believe it also means DRIVING WHILE BROWN and DRIVING WHILE BLONDE (and Cute).
As for the so-called pretextual stops, harassment is harrassment: If a quota isn't made, all the cop has to do is actually hit the streets. I drive every single day and spot hundreds of serious traffic violations; yet NEVER see a single pull-over. It really tires my a-- to listen to the sycophantic palaver of apologists. I've trained more cops than most people will ever see or know and I'll tell you something: It's them agaionst the world; just ask one of them when (s)he isn't pretending to "protect and serve". Here's something to think about...As far as a lot of cops are concerned, there are three types of people in the world: 1) Cops; 2) cops' families; and, 3) as-holes! Which one do you think you are?
Get real. We are about 15 minutes from the New Comon Era - that's the most common of men and women doing the most common of things and being [uncommonly] rewarded for it - end of civilization and cops the charge!
David Jackson
-
Permalink Reply by Acuna, C.M on
-
I am fascinated by this topic. Racial profiling is a debilitating phenomena which skews perceptions and furthers ethnocentrism. However, to deny the importance of environmental and cultural factors which could influence individuals to criminal acts would be just as precarious. The key to "racial" or "ethnic" is not to hide behind plausible deniability or pretend that race or ethnicity doesn't matter, it most certainly does. Furthermore, to do so could damage the credibility of the criminal process. I would be my neophyte impression, that one must acknowledge these factors in a prosocial manner in order to fully understand the behaviors.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeffrey P. Rush on
-
Wow! Mr. Jackson certainly seems angry.
Most agencies don't have quotas, though there is an expectation that cops work and part of that work of course is ticket writing (or at least stopping cars).
It is rare that one can know the race of a driver prior to the stop, especially at night. Try it yourself.
Sure race matters, but as I said earlier, it's a factor, one factor, and usually not the predominate factor. That said, though, if I'm looking for a rape suspect and the vic tells me it was a b/m, doesn't make sense to stop a bunch of white guys do it?
Similarly, if the stats for my beat suggests that most crime (of any type) is committed by 14-25 yo w/m's, shouldn't my focus be there as opposed to w/f's or even b/m's?
© 2012 Created by SAGE Publications.
