Racial versus Behavioral Profiling - Research Paper Example

? Racial versus Behavioral Profiling Racial versus Behavioral Profiling Introduction The process of profiling can be quite fascinating and worth of in-depth study. In the art of human sciences, many professionals can identify the characteristics and personality of a person that they have never met. Experts claim it is possible to predict the type of behavior that might manifest itself in an individual simply based on appearance or outward actions and facial expressions. Profiles can be useful to predict whether or someone will be good at a given job, or to match potential mates together. In today’s digital age, millions of profiles are floating around the Internet detailing the intimate details of individuals for the entire world to see. In short, there are many reasons why profiles are in existence today. Profiling has since taken on a deeper and more potent use for law enforcement personnel around the world, but particularly in the United States. Due to recent violent and tumultuous tragedies, including international and domestic instances of terrorism, racial and behavioral profiling has become the norm by which certain individuals are targeted as potential threats. Some would argue the ability to identify potential threats to human society, regardless if they are proven or not, is a highly useful tool that law enforcement personnel have to choice but to employ. Others would argue that they should never be targeted simply because of their race or their propensity to behave in a certain way, regardless of the actions they might be profiled to have the potential to commit. This paper will look at two main types of criminal profiling in use today, racial and behavioral, and weigh the arguments for and against the continued deployment of the technique. In the end, a solid conclusion will be reached as to the potential advantages and disadvantages of each moving forward. Racial Profiling Explained Simply put, racial profiling is term used to described that process by which an individual or public agency, typically law enforcement personnel, look at the race of ethnicity of an individual and use that as a primary determinant when deciding whether or not to question the person further (Bou-Habib, 2011, p. 33). The use of racial profiling is most commonly employed in the United States when making traffic stops or in making an arrest. Needless to say, racial profiling has become quite controversial, even prompting many localities to declare the practice illegal. There are strong voices on both sides of issues who either claim the practice of racial profiling is beneficial to society or that it pushes society back to pre Civil Rights era human rights violations. Through the years, multiple definitions have been presented to describe racial profiling in an attempt either to validate its use, or to demonize it. As mentioned, the most commonly held belief is that racial profiling is used by law enforcement to determine if a particular individual may have been involved in a crime. This determination is made on the basis of a person’s race, ethnicity, or national origin. When compared to recent crime statistics in the area, an individual may be targeted by police on the basis of these characteristics alone (Higgins, 2008, p. 2). When using racial profiling in this manner, law enforcement do not consider the actual behavior of the individual in determining whether or not to question and suspect them of a crime. Some consider racial profiling to be an inappropriate use of power. This viewpoint takes the position that police who use such profiling tactics are racially biased and use the race and ethnicity of an individual as the sole determining factor when deciding to intervene and question an individual. They argue that since the behavior of the person was not called into question, the very fact that the individual is being targeted is paramount to racial injustice and that the practice should immediately cease to exist (Higgins, 2008, p. 2). Many in the law enforcement community, however, feel that they are justified in suspecting an individual of criminal activity solely on the basis of race given the accumulation of other factors that lead to that suspicion in the first place. Given these other factors, police argue that they have a reason to be suspicious of certain individuals in a given community, irrespective of whether or not they are actually exhibiting any outward indicators of having a propensity towards committing a crime. This gives them the right to actually stop any person of a suspected race or ethnicity and question, or even arrest, them until the matter can be sorted (Tomaskovic-Devey & Warren, 2009, p. 34). Opponents of racial profiling in the United States have challenged its use in court based largely on the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Let us begin with an examining of the Fourth Amendment. The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure with a properly issued search warrant is a freedom granted to all American citizens. No individual is supposed to be subject to being stopped and having their property searched or seized unless proper government authorities have expressly given that right to the police in regards to a specific individual (Devey & Warren, 2009, p. 35). Opponents here argue that this applies to the person as well. No person should be stopped and questioned, and certainly not arrested, solely on the basis of what they look like. To do so, they contend, is a violation of the Bill of Rights and the practice should be declared illegal. The Fourteenth Amendment declares that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without ‘due process of law’. The Amendment is actually quite broad and contains several clauses. In the 150 years since the passing of this particular Amendment, numerous court cases has been fought, using the 14th Amendment as the basis for the suit. One clause in particular is a key argument that opponents of racial profiling use. It states that no state should be allowed to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens. This has since been interpreted by the courts to indicate that both state and federal powers must be subject to the Bill of Rights, meaning that individual should not be singled out by law enforcement without just cause (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004, p. 135). As we begin to dissect the various uses of racial profiling, it is beneficial to consider some examples of how the tactic is most commonly used. In certain areas of the country, law enforcement personnel has pointed out that a disproportionate number of crimes involving drugs or weapons are committed by African Americans. As such, racial profiling may be used to preempt certain crimes from being committing because police officers will intercept individuals of African American descent, question them, and then determine if they are guilty or not. Another example would be in the area of immigration, which has been a hot topic in the news as of late, and forms the basis for recent court challenges. It is commonly believed people of Hispanic or Latin descent are often in the country illegally, so part of racial profiling would be to stop anyone of this ethnicity and require them to prove that they are here legally. This is commonly proven by showing government issued identification or papers. The state of Arizona recently passed legislation giving law enforcement broad powers to question Hispanics and require them to prove their legal status, and this will be discussed in more detail later in the paper. Other examples of racial profiling could include suspecting Chinese American of being spies or individual from Arab countries, or of the Islamic faith, of being terrorists (Devey & Warren, 2009, p. 39). In 2001, then President Bush weighed in on the issue of racial profiling. He stated that, “Racial profiling is wrong, and we will end it in America. In so doing, we will not hinder the work of our nations brave police officers. But by stopping the abuses of a few, we will add to the public confidence our police officers earn and deserve” (Risse &Zeckhauser, 2004, p. 160). Two years later, in June of 2003, The Department of Justice essentially outlawed the use of racial profiling by any federal law enforcement agency. In so doing, according to current policy, race should not be a determining factor in questioning any one person on the suspicion of having committed a crime. In reality, many argue, this policy is largely ignored still to this day (Bou-Habib, 2011, p. 38). Many contend that the state of Arizona has weighed in on the side of racial profiling. In passing Senate Bill 1070, law enforcement officer are required to verify the citizenship of any person they stop if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally. Specifically, the law that that “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released” (Bou-Habib, 2011, p. 39). This bill was passed with a federal law in mind that requires all aliens in the United States for more than 30 days to not only register U.S. government, but to have all registration papers with them at all times. Arizona simply made this a misdemeanor crimes for any person over the age of 14 that police find to not have correct papers with them when asked. Supporters of SB 1070 point out that the law specifically forbids the use of racial profiling in the implementation of the policy. In fact, the bill says “law-enforcement officials may not consider race, color, or national origin” in the enforcement of the law, unless allowed by the Constitution (Bou-Habib, 2011, p. 39). In essence, then, police would be welcome to question anyone as to their immigration status. Naturally, opponents claim racial profiling will take place as a result of SB 1070, regardless of the provision not to use race as a factor. They argue the Hispanics and Latinos will be unfairly targeted. Senate Bill 1070 was passed in 2010 and was almost immediately challenged the current presidential administration and taken to court. Legal challenges still remain to this day. Recent surveys do seem to indicate that a majority of Americans support racial profiling in order to protect society today (Risse & Zeckhauser, 2004, p. 132), however critics contend that public sentiment should be accounted for in this matter. They argue that the basic humans right of an individual is at stake. If race is used as a factor in questioning a suspect, this it is unjust. The practice, they say, is not only unconstitutional, but is a form of discrimination. Many would also argue that racial profiling serves to stir up deep seated racial stereotypes that were just starting to be overcome in society. Various racial and ethnic groups have come along way in gaining stature in society, only to now be reverted to a time before the Civil Rights era where they were regarded with suspicion by much of the dominant group. For this to begin to reverse itself again, the practice of racial profiling would need to cease and all people begin to be treated equally under the law again. Behavioral Profiling Explained The practice of behavioral, or criminal, profiling is quite different in theory from racial profiling. This particular type of profiling is most often utilized as a tool to assist investigators predict and develop a profile of the personality and behavioral characteristics of the person they suspect to have committed specific crimes. Such profiles, when completed, would see law enforcement officers target their investigation towards only individuals that fit the behavioral characteristics mentioned in the profile that has been generated (Egger, 1999, p. 247). There are generally five set steps that professionals go though when developing a behavioral profile. They begin by taking an in-depth look at the specific crime in question and compare it to the personalities of other criminals who are previously committed such crimes in the past. With this information, law enforcement personnel will often conduct a thorough analysis of the crime scene that they are focused on. The next two steps involve looking at the background of the victim of the crime and looking for possible reasons why they were specifically targeted. This involves the fourth step of looking at possible motives as to why the crime was committed in the first place. With all of this information having been compiled, a profile will be created that contains the possible characteristics and description of the person they are looking for, This is often dependent upon descriptions of offenders from previous crimes, which experts in the area claim adds validity to the practice of this type of profiling activity (Egger, 1999, pp. 248-249). Behavioral profiling has been around since at least the late 1940s. It was about that time that law enforcement agencies realized that they were having difficulty solving any types of serial crimes, so they began to develop a strategy that, over time, would evolve into modern day behavioral profiling. This practice actually began with sexual crimes as mental health professional were were contacted to develop a profile that would help assist police with certain behavioral and psychological characteristics that they should be looking for in the offender. This evolved in future decades to cover other types of crimes as well, and today behavioral profiling in used in almost every type of crime imaginable. To this day, however, there remains a lot of skepticism in the public, and indeed in law enforcement circles as well, as to its true effectiveness (Schlesinger, 2009, p. 73). There were some early successes of behavioral profiles being linked directly to the capture of criminal offenders. This propelled the practice to become popular nationally and, indeed, worldwide. Schlesinger (2009) notes that, “An individual’s personality is generally consistent across situations” (p. 75). The example is given of a person with a personality the is quite compulsive. In nearly every facet of that individual’s life, they would be neat, orderly, and highly structured. His room, office, automobile, and all aspects of his appearance would likely be neat and organized at all times. If a profile for a specific crime, then, demonstrated with reasonable certainly that it committed by someone who was compulsive, law enforcement agencies would have a picture of exactly the type of person they are looking for. The problem, of course, is that there are many such people existent in society and some would argue that they should not be unfairly targeted simply because they exhibit such compulsive tendencies (Schlesinger, 2009, p. 76). Others would contend, however, that while behavioral profiling does not point to a specific suspect, it narrows down the potential field to a manageable level that police can begin to sift through and identify potential suspects. Profiling techniques have been refined through the years and are now used mostly by members of law enforcement agencies. In the United States, the FBI is especially interested in behavioral profiling and has used it successfully in solving such crimes as serial murder, rape, and arson. They have also employed its use in the areas of hostage negotiation, anonymous letter writers, and in cases of assessing threats of various sorts (Egger, 1999, p, 245). Behavioral profiling can be applied to potential victims as well. Experts frequently profile certain high risk behaviors that put an individual at a high risk of being the victim of a serious crime. Quite often these people put themselves in vulnerable positions by engaging in risky behavior. An example of this would be choosing to enter into prostitution. Such workers statistically are victims of crime in disproportionate numbers to other professions, causing many law enforcement officers to pay particular attention to them. This information proves useful because certain types of offenders tend be attracted to a particular type of victim. By meshing the two together, law enforcement can further narrow down the segment of society that they should focus on by looking at particular groups or social settings where the offender may strike next (Schlesinger, 2009, p. 76). Another aspect of this type of profiling involves the close examination of offender risk. It is often useful to look at a particular crime and classify it as being a high, moderate, or low risk offenses. This has proven beneficial because it is another part of the profile that helps law enforcement experts have a better understanding of what type of person they are looking for. An example would be a person who abducts people in broad day light. This even has a high likelihood of being caught, so the suspect would likely be an individual who is prone to taking risks, which when added to the profile, serves once again to narrow down list of possible suspects in a specific location (Schlesinger, 2009, p. 77). As serial crimes are being committed, and it is likely they are being conducted by the same offender, profiles will contain a detail of the escalation. Experts content that most people who are prone to criminal activity begin small and then work their way up to more serious, or violent acts. In addition, profilers will look at how crimes are often staged. Staging refers to the way a criminal has a propensity to make a crime scene appear to be in an effort to get law enforcement to focus their investigation in the wrong direction. An analysis of staging has proven important because it is vital to be able to direct all available resources in the proper way, and not to be lead astray because of certain clues that may have been planted by the criminal themselves (Snook, Gendreau, Bennell, and Taylor, 2008, p. 51). An example is given of “a husband who kills his wife during an argument may arrange the body to make it look as if a sexual crime occurred, in an attempt to redirect the investigation away from himself” (Schlesinger, 2009, p. 79). Another valuable component of behavioral profiling is the examining of certain time and location factory. Elements of time, for example, can lead to the determination of the suspect’s lifestyle or occupation. Crime analysts also look at how long a criminal spent with victim. This information provides information about the crime, since it has been determined that the longer the time spent with a victim, the more likely he or she is to be apprehended at some point (Schlesinger, 2009, p. 79). Profilers have also determined that, “Where the offender apprehended the victim, how he got the victim to go with him, where the victim was killed, as well as the body disposition are all indications of an offender’s thinking processes and capabilities” (Snook, Gendreau, Bennell, and Taylor, 2008, p. 53). These are all components that can be useful in the criminal profile sketch. Again, many individuals may exhibit these characteristics, however, so it is necessary for law enforcement personnel to exercise caution before focusing in on one individual suspect and detaining him or her for questioning. Finally, it is important to know that much of a behavioral profile is based on personality. Such personalities are developed over time and they shape who were are individuals. Often times, individual personalities stand out to others, which is a primary reason so many people believe in the effectiveness of such a profile to aid in catching criminals. Experts point out that people with mainstream personalities who rarely stand out and cause disturbances in society would be unlikely to be targeted by a behavioral profile (Schlesinger, 2009, p. 81). It is further noted that serial criminal offenders, those most often the subject of a behavioral profile, are likely to have some type of personality disorder that makes them manipulative and deceptive. As such, without the profile, it would prove difficult to catch them, as exhibited by the fact that serial offenders went relatively untouched during the period before behavioral profiling became a reality. Discussion This paper has focused on two different types of profiling techniques used by law enforcement personnel. Both impact all segments of society in one way or the other. It would appear that both types of profiling efforts are truly designed to protect society from criminals, but the argument becomes at what cost. As discussed, there are many who claim racial profiling violates the basic human and civil liberties and rights of a free society. To distinguish and target people as being potential criminal offenders simply on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity goes against the basic tenants of the country. Racial profiling, in essence, is a form of stereotyping. By examining crime patterns, law enforcement agencies begin to target specific individuals simply because another member in their group has a propensity to commit a crime. Proponents of racial profiling actually admit this aspect of the technique and claim that it is still valid to engage in such profiling. To discount a tactic that works in many cases, they claim, would be paramount to enabling crime to continue unabated (Higgins, 2008, p. 1). Statistics do not lie. If crimes are being committed in a given locality, and recent rends indicate a high likelihood that the perpetrator is from a particular ethnic or religious group, then many in law enforcement claim racial profiling can help zero in on potential suspects. Examples abound of cases where racial profiling has targeted the wrong person, with grave implications. Perhaps the most famous such example in modern history is the Olympic bombing in Atlanta in 1996. Based on a profile released. an entirely innocent man was made the primary suspect, with national media attention. It ended up that he had nothing to do with, and did not even really fit the profile of the eventual bomber who was apprehended. The damage was done to the individual and he was stigmatized both personally and professionally. This is an example that opponents of racial profiling use to showcase why the technique should be made illegal is all jurisdictions around the country. If people are wrongly accused, it can destroy their life, and for no other reason than they fit the profile of who law enforcement personnel were looking for. The law in Arizona continues to be the focus today of racial profiling. While proponents of the law insist that no such profiling is taking place, common sense would dictate that police and immigration officials will certainly target one particular group when asking for legal working papers. Let us not forget that federal law only requires aliens to have such documentation on their person. American citizens are not bound by any such requirement, so if a legal citizen who looks Hispanic is stopped without any identification, the law in Arizona would seem to indicate that they would be detained until such time that they could actually they have no such need to have immigration papers because they are, in fact, already an American citizen. This fact alone has line up countless people in opposition to the law. Behavioral profiling, on the other hand, seems to have proved its worth over the years. While some people get caught up in having a personality similar to that of an offender, the reality is that those cases are few and far between that they adversely target the wrong person. Such profiling has proven extremely important in catching serial offenders, certainly making society a safer place as a result. In addition, law enforcement agencies are able to track such offenders, and their victims, pool the information together in a database, and use it in future cases (Snook, Gendreau, Bennell, & Taylor, 2008, p. 48). This enables the efficiency with which law enforcement experts are able to solve cases is increasing by the decade as knowledge becomes more refined. Conclusion In summary, the two types of profiles described in this paper paint two entirely different pictures. While society seems to support the use of racial profiling in certain cases, if it is deemed necessary to public safety, the reality is that liberties and freedoms are being violated. Increasingly, such tactics are coming under fire and being challenged in the judicial system. Currently, the tide is turning is support of the opponents of such profiling efforts, to the point where racial profiling may soon be a a product of the past. Consequently, behavioral profiling continues to remain a value asset to the law enforcement community. Since its inception in the 1940s, it has proven invaluable in getting violent and serial offenders off of the streets and behind bars, making communities a safer place. The reality is that many of these criminals would likely never have been caught were it not for the development of in-depth profiles. For these reasons alone, behavioral and criminal profiling will likely remain a part of the legal landscape for quite some time to come. In the end, profiling needs to be done correctly and with great caution. Innocent lives are at stake. There is no need to target an individual unjustly, unless their behavior warrants it. If, however, they are targeted because of race, then there is no just cause for that. President Bush made it a goal to outlaw racial profiling, and President Obama appears to have taken up that mantle as well, as evident by his challenge to SB 1070 in Arizona. Time will tell if the practice truly does gets eliminated from procedure handbooks. References Bou-Habib, P. (2011). Racial profiling and background injustice. The Journal of Ethics, 15(1), 33-46. Durlauf, S. (2006). Assessing racial profiling. The Economic Journal, 116(515), 402-426. Egger, S. (1999). Psychological profiling: Past, present and future. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(3), 242-261. Higgins, G. (2008). Racial profiling. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 6(1), 1-2. Kocsis, R. (2003). Criminal psychological profiling of serial arson crimes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(6), 631-656. Kocsis, R. (2003). Criminal psychological profiling: Validities and abilities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(2), 126-144. Risse, M., and Zeckhauser, R. (2004). Racial profiling. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32(2), 131-170. Schlesinger, L. (2009). Psychological profiling: Investigative implications from crime scene analysis. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 37(1), 73-82. Snook, B., Gendreau, P., Bennell, C., and Taylor, P. (2008). Criminal profiling. Skeptic, 14(2), 42-61. Tomaskovic-Devey, D., and Warren, P. (2009). Explaining and eliminating racial profiling. Contexts, 8(2), 34-42. Read More