Defining Racial Profiling - Essay Example

? Defining Racial Profiling and Utilitarian Argument Defining Racial Profiling and Utilitarian Argument Introduction Since the Arizona State Senate passed a law legalizing racial profiling in its attempt to curve down illegal immigration in April 2010, there has been considerable philosophical discussion on the moral problem posed by racial profiling (Whittell, 2010). Racial profiling indicates race as being another characteristic like height, weight, and hair color, that is simply illustrative in nature, and because police need descriptions to find suspects and punish those who have committed crime, the question arises whether the police force can act on an individual’s race and ethnicity. The goal of the present paper is to define and critically analyze racial profiling and offer a utilitarian perspective that that opposes racial profiling. The article will also deals with delineating the incongruence in the arguments in favor of racial profiling and reinforce the arguments against racial profiling. Finally, it will be argued that a number of utilitarian objections that have been leveled against racial profiling are impenetrable by those that support racial profiling that. Definition of Racial Profiling In order to maintain the logical soundness and defensibility of any argument, one must clearly define racial profiling the before marching into any discussion about the moral problem it poses. The term “racial profiling” was coined to criticize certain abusive investigation methods of the police force and, as a result, has widely been associated with being unjust and the unjustifiable (Gross & Livingston, 2002). In this essay, however, the term will be used without any bias and the implication of illegitimacy. When racial profiling will be referred in the article, it would be on the basis of Risse and Zechhauser’s (2004) broad definition that will be introduced later in the article. Ramirez (2000) defines racial profiling as “any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, or national origin, rather than the behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity.” Here, the definition puts together race, ethnicity, and nationality along with the use of an individual’s behavior or information. By doing so, Ramirez describes profiling in a way seeks moral disapproval against the complete reliance on race and ethnicity in police investigation. It is clear that according to this definition, the unjustified racial profiling is when the race and ethnicity are the sole motivation for a police action (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). Despite its general soundness at a first glance, the definition fails to consider the cases that involve a combination of race and information (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). Hypothetically, if the police stopped disproportionately more blacks than whites for petty violations of the law, such as driving with a broken tail light or exceeding a speed limit by 10mph, it should be considered racial profiling. However, Ramirez’s definition cannot be used to establish whether this case is racial profiling or not because in this example, both race and information are used in the police action (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). On the other hand, Risse and Zeckhauser (2004) define racial profiling in a more comprehensive manner by suggesting that racial profiling is “any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, or national origin and not merely on the behavior of an individual.” Through this definition, it can be deduced that racial profiling is when police action relies on a combination of information and race to punish those involved in committing crime. Tests for Justified Racial Profiling Even though, Risse and Zechhauser’s definition of racial profiling is comprehensive and helpful in understanding the kind of police action that constitutes of racial profiling, it does not set out a guideline that helps in determining whether racial profiling is justified, morally problematic, or absolutely unjustified. For this purpose, a number of tests were established that can be performed to determine the justifiability of a certain type of racial profiling police action. These tests classify the police actions defined as racial profiling into three categories: the generally justified, absolutely unjustified, and the morally problematic. In the justified racial profiling cases, the police action proves to be effective because the correlation between membership in certain racial groups and certain crimes are strong and proven, benefit of such practice exceeds the cost, and in reaching the decision to use racial profiling policing method, the race was not the only factor. To fall in the ‘justified’ category, the racial profiling must satisfy all three conditions listed below. For the case to be ‘absolutely unjustified,’ at least one of the two conditions under the first subheading need not be satisfied. On the other hand, the morally problematic is a grey area, where the requirement A is met, but it does not meet all the other requirements to be in the just racial profiling. In such cases, there is a likelihood of strong public debate that not only contributes to the philosophical dialogue but will help in furthering the discussion in the present article. The philosophical study of in favor of and against also satisfies the immediacy condition racial profiling, morally problematic racial profiling, and absolutely unjustified racial profiling. Through several hypothetical cases, the differences between three categories will be analyzed. A. Proven Correlation and Effectiveness The moral problem posed by racial profiling arises only if either of the two conditions is not satisfied. First and foremost, there has to be a proven correlation between membership in certain racial groups and the tendency to commit certain crimes. Here, the key is that it has to be a proven correlation, suggesting that the correlation cannot come from one’s conjecture or personal belief or be based on the general belief held by the public. Second, racial profiling has to be the most efficient method. In other words, there should be no better alternative method that is available in curving down crime than racial profiling. The use of racial profiling when there is a better option, is difficult, if not impossible, to be justified. Police must be able to produce tangible decrease in crime rate by stopping and investigating members of certain racial groups differentially. The moral problem occurs only if actions that seem to be morally problematic when observed from various dimensions add to the provisions of a public welfare. Instead of looking at the statistical and sociological studies, these conditions will be assumed true. B. Immediacy of a Threat and Utilitarian Goal Racial profiling becomes more problematic when there is less immediacy to the threat that prompts it. If the threat that calls for a police action that might involve racial profiling as an imminent threat, one often considers such drastic measure to be appropriate and necessary. This notion is in fact based on a utilitarian idea. When the threat is near and its magnitude is great, the benefit of racial profiling to the entire community triumphs the cost. Racial profiling used in a serial killer investigation might not stir much disturbance whereas the practice of racial profiling in the highway stop might cause a much bigger stir. C. The Race and Ethnicity Criterion Race and ethnicity should not be the only factor on which police incriminate a person. There has to be supplemental information or evidence in order to justify the use of racial profiling methods in finding and incriminating suspects. Supplemental information and evidence must reveal something other than the racial and ethnical information about the suspect and help narrow down the description of the suspect. Philosophers and competent lawyers find this criterion to be easily bendable, and in fact, as a result, meaningless. However, without the outside distortion, this criterion is crucial in clarifying the definition of justified racial profiling in tricky cases. Hypothetical Cases In order to visualize the boundaries of the justified, the morally problematic, and the absolutely unjustified, the logical sturdiness of the justified racial profiling test is tested against two hypothetical cases: a) Evidence found at the crime scene indicated that the bike thief must have been able to read Spanish, and this leads the police to stop Hispanics more as compared to other individuals. There are a number of unknown variables in this scenario that makes it hard to conclude whether this police action should fall in to the morally problematic or the absolutely unjustifiable. The above-mentioned third condition depends a lot on the evidence found at the crime scene. If the evidence provides the investigator with more information on the suspect besides his race or ethnicity, only then the requirement C is met. The threat by a bike thief let loose for awhile is not that great; therefore, the requirement B is not met. b. While patrolling around the neighborhood where a gang shooting occurred two days ago, a police officer sees a car occupied by four African American men passing by. Based on his knowledge of statistics that African American men are more likely to be involved in gang-related activities, he stops them. This case of racial profiling can be categorized into morally problematic category. However, it can easily fall into the justified category depending on what the patrolling office observed. If he had seen something that lead him to believe that they are armed, Both A and B are satisfied. Compared to a bike thief, gang members who were in the middle of a gang shooting do pose a greater threat to the society. Racial Profiling and Utilitarianism After thoroughly defining racial profiling and the understanding of conditions under which the racial profiling poses a moral problem, the paper will now delve into a series of utilitarian arguments made in favor of and against racial profiling. For the following part of the essay, morally problematic is the type of racial profiling that will be discussed. The utilitarian argument supporting racial profiling is based on a premise that certain racial factions are more likely to commit certain crimes as compared to others (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). As long as this premise is proven true, more utility will be produced if special effort at crime reduction is directed at members of certain racial groups that are more likely to commit crimes (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). However, there is a good counterargument, which suggests that if harm, both emotional and physical, done to the racially profiled group is properly examined and taken into account in making the utilitarian argument, utilitarianism should effectively oppose against racial profiling. Kennedy (1999) argues that the significant costs of racial profiling have been absent in evaluation of the cost of racial profiling that include the feeling of bitterness among minorities and the increasing mistrust in the police (Kennedy 1999). In order understand the concept better; it is important to take one step further than Kennedy (1999) by considering a society where racial profiling is made non-existent. It is argued that there is a big opportunity cost in supporting racial profiling because a world without racial profile would bring numerous benefits. If racial profiling is illegalized and never in fact practiced, every member of the society, not just the minorities, will be free of being unjustly investigated or detained and will have more sense of security. This sense of security and more trust in the justice and legal system will result in an improved society. Risse and Zeckhauser (2004) argue that Kennedy (1999) fails to incorporate an important characteristic of the calculation of welfare, one that complicates the utilitarian analysis. They agree that the feeling of bitterness and mistrust among minority group members are the products of racial profiling. However, they suggest that profiling appears to have such influences only in communities that minorities already consider as discriminatory. Even though, there are several inconveniences and harms caused by profiling, the root cause of the bitterness and mistrust is likely to be the underlying racism or underlying socioeconomic disadvantages, rather than racial profiling. On the other hand, the act of racial profiling confirms and certifies the fact that some people are unjustly inferior in the social standing which is expressed by their underlying injustice of racism (Gross & Livingston, 2002). Similarly, utilitarianism has to keep in mind the greater damage resulting from profiling. Greater damage would mean nothing if most of the damage that appears to be a result of profiling is possibly attributed to core causes. In order to assess the different types of damages caused by profiling, one can pursue Kennedy (1997), who suggests that the damage done to individuals is well captured in forms of feelings of bitterness and mistrust in police force. Here, different kinds of bitterness might be involved; firstly, individuals might experience bitterness because they are profiled on a trait that partially represents their identity. Bitterness in such instances is enhanced by emotions varying from embarrassment to righteous anger; result of the fact that a portion of what one is has come under doubt. Secondly, individuals might experience bitterness because they are treated in relation to their membership to a certain group, leaving out other attributes, which they do not deserve. The degree to which one experiences the first type of bitterness, and its character relies on society’s view for the feature that caused one to turn into a target of profiling, and on why an one believes is really being targeted. The center of this type of bitterness is that society or its legal institutions, is perceived as questioning the value of one’s identity. The second type of bitterness, however, does not rely on why one is targeted, or on how society considers one’s most important attributes, all that is significant is that one is not treated as an individual (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). Furthermore, the utilitarianism perspective attributes most of the damage allegedly done by profiling to basic systematic racism rather than the acts of profiling. Without a doubt, however, this view cannot uphold for the second form of bitterness, in which one sis offended by being treated in relation to their membership in a group. This type of damage has to be assigned to profiling itself. However this type of bitterness can frequently be relieved directly. Once individuals recognize why it is logical to treat them in relation to their features, agreement is possible, even if perhaps with some remains of the original bitterness (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). Acts of profiling seen as encounters of an inferior minority with representatives of institutions that are considered to be responsible to a great extent for that inferior status are damaging mainly because they bring forward the bitterness linked to those institutions and their operations. In other words, the harm assigned to profiling itself is expressive (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). Damage might be expressive if an incident or action is a reminiscent of previous hurting incidents or actions, or if a single incident or action turns out to be central spot for incidents or practices, a representation of structural inferiority or abuse. In addition to whatever damage the practice itself causes, the central point is linked with the damage assigned to such disadvantage, and that harm possibly accounts more for the harm linked with that practice. Thus, when harm is mostly expressive, it might be indistinguishable whether it is because it is a reminder or because it is a central point (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). Therefore, profiling is detrimental principally in an expressive way, especially, because it offers to be a central point for the racial biasness in a community. The bitterness it initiates can be traced largely to the basic racism of which acts of profiling become the central point. The same is true damage caused by racial profiling can be overlooked. However, it does influence the way in which damage resulting from racial profiling must be incorporated into utilitarian perspective (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). It is argued that that the damage done by profiling is relatively modest, in that the costs might well be overshadowed by its benefits in reducing crime and other benefits that it brings, such as improvement in economy in a society. Furthermore, it should be obvious that the utilitarian perspective to profiling relies on empirical questions that are difficult to answer. It is also difficult due to the fact that numerous different considerations add to overall social wellbeing (Gross & Livingston, 2002). On the other hand, one must consider the objections, in which one might point out that there is a call for of a more thorough evaluation of identifying diversities among minorities. It is consented that relying on issues such as socioeconomic status, profiling influences different individuals in a different way. Like individuals, communities will be diverse in the advantages and disadvantages profiling results in. For successful minorities, profiling makes their lower status real based on racism, in spite of their achievements. On the other hand, lower class targets of profiling might consider it one of countless acts that degrade them frequently, and opinions could be made either way on which faction sustains greater costs (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). Similarly, one might object that a utilitarian view supports profiling only if its benefits offset its costs by more than available options. This opposition highlights the need to look into assumptions that profiling eradicates more crime than other procedures of similar costs. Assumption that profiling is successful only sustains when profiling efficiently makes use of readily available information about individuals, especially their race, in situations when police must make a decision swiftly. An option would utilize race to a very small degree so that it is not logical to discuss profiling. Such an option would, under the assumed conditions, have a substantial disadvantage in relation to profiling for utilitarianism. But again, utilitarianism supports any alternatives that perform effectively (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). Furthermore, the idea that racial discrimination is the basis for the damage resulting from profiling offers yet another opposition. One might point out that the harms of racism are a result of the buildup of several practices, none of which is “essential” or “basic.” Some practices are related to the economic opportunity and inequality. Others are related to the restrained discrimination at work and in public. Another type of racism is unfairness by public organizations; a vital instance would be profiling. The driving force of this objection is to argue that one is incorrect in considering profiling simply as a by-product of practices that comprise of racial discrimination; rather, profiling to some extent, and possibly even largely, comprises of the racist reality of the United States (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004). Conclusion The crucial aspect remains that profiling alone does not result in the prevalence of the harm that individuals think it causes. The same arguments apply to the portrayal of the role of profiling supported by this objection. The difference is simply whether acts that comprise of racial discrimination, or the basic acts of racial discrimination. Therefore, it would be too simple to consider the elimination of racial discrimination in regards to ending racial profiling. Effective actions are required to resolve such unfairness. Possibly, the uneven predisposition of minorities to participate in criminal activity is, to some extent, an indication of discrimination. Therefore, it is important to eradicate the causes of those signs and provide a fair and just system to all. Works Cited Gross, S., and Livingston, D. “Racial profiling under attack.” Columbia Law Review. 2002. Vol. 102, no. 53, pp. 1413–1438. Kennedy, R. Suspect policy: racial profiling usually isn’t racist. It can help stop crime. And it should be abolished. The New Republic. 1999 Kennedy, R. (1997). Race, crime, and the law. New York: Vintage. Ramirez, D., McDevitt, J. and Farrell, D. A resource guide on racial profiling data collection systems: promising practices and lessons learned. Report prepared by Northeastern University with support by the U.S. Department of Justice. 2000. Risse, M. and Zeckhauser, R. Racial profiling. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 2004. Vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 131-170. 7 March 2011 Whittell, Gile . "Arizona Bill ‘puts racial profiling into law’." Times. 22 April 2010. Web. 7 Mar 2011. Read More