Racial and Criminal Personality Profiling - Term Paper Example

An Analysis of Racial and Criminal Personality Profiling Introduction A considerable amount of academic literature has been written within the last five years concerning the criminal personality and racial profiling activities of public officials. These officials are the individuals to whom we entrust our security and protection. They include federal, state and local law enforcement and corrections professionals, members of the United States military, immigration officers stationed at our borders and personnel with the Transportation Safety Administration who provide security at the nation’s airports. Americans have an expectation that their communities will be safe, that individuals who commit crimes will be prosecuted, that freedom of mobility within the United States and outside its borders will be safeguarded and that the federal government’s primary responsibility must always be to protect the national security of the country. These expectations are uniformly held by Americans and transcend political affiliation, socio-economic status, ethnicity or geographic location. A major legal and constitutional question concerns how we reconcile the protection of the rights of American citizens and those who legally enter the country with the public official’s duty to act in the national interest of the United States. Two current events have triggered a renewed national debate on this very issue. The first concerns the powers granted to the President and Secretary of Defense under the Patriot Act. The second issue pertains to the recently enacted law in Arizona that permits law enforcement officials to question the ethnicity and immigration status of individuals who are suspected of being in the United States illegally (SB 1070). This paper examines the issues surrounding racial and criminal personality profiling and provides a comparative analysis of the two investigative strategies. It defines both terms and examines what types of behaviors and activities constitute criminal personality and racial profiling. The paper delves into some of the complex legal, constitutional and methodological factors that are fueling the public debate on the issues. The paper concludes with a discussion of what alternatives, if any, are available to the professionals who are charged with the protection of our national security. What Constitutes Profiling? The term profiling actually has its origins in a sub-field of mathematics. Statisticians utilize probability to apply a single observation to a general population. The profile is accurate within an acceptable level of error (Antanovics & Knight, 2009). The following examples help to explain how profiling is used in every day situations. Medical doctors are trained to develop “profiles” of patients. If a white male, fifty years of age shows symptoms of pain in the lower abdomen and back area, the doctor profiles this individual as having a prostate problem. Medical tests are then ordered based on this assumption. The patient has been profiled because in ninety-five percent of the thousands of cases where men of the same ethnicity and age experience these symptoms, the diagnosis of a prostate problem is accurate. The question becomes; what about the other five percent? Another example concerns universities that use standardized test scores to admit prospective students into professional programs such as law and medicine. After analyzing hundreds of thousands of test scores and developing a correlation between the test score and success in law school, the university develops a profile. If an applicant falls within the profile criteria he is admitted. This model serves the universities and most of the applicants quite well. The problem with the profile is that some of the most successful practicing attorneys had poor LSAT scores and a less than stellar academic performance as undergraduates. So in some cases at least, the LSAT is not an accurate predictor of success in law school. The point is that profiling is used in a multitude of areas within our society and most people are unaware that it is happening. Where profiling becomes problematic in a legal and constitutional sense is when individuals believe that the profiling behavior violates their rights. Take the Yemeni national who has been in the United States for five years and has a registered alien visa (green card). This person, clad in a traditional shumagg, has a thick accent and is overheard speaking Arabic with another individual while waiting to board a flight from Minneapolis to San Diego. Several passengers feel uneasy about boarding the same plane with this fellow and they express their concern to the security officials. The man is detained for questioning and no security threat is determined to exist. However, the passenger has now missed his flight. In this case, the security officials had a legitimate obligation to identify any threat to airport safety and they were no doubt acting in good faith when they detained and questioned the passenger. Legal issues come into play if this individual was detained solely for reasons related to his ethnicity or national origin. Racial Profiling The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) website defines racial profiling as “the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.” (aclu.org). Because ACLU is an advocacy group with a mission to protect the civil liberties of Americans, its website recounts many cases where ACLU believes that racial profiling has occurred. Opponents of using profiling such as the ACLU often cite the high profile cases that garner national media attention. In March, 2009, Houston Texans football player Ryan Moats was pulled over by Dallas police officer Powell for a routine traffic violation. Moats, an African American professional athlete was transporting his wife and family to a local hospital where his mother-in-law was dying. The officer’s mishandling of the situation and his refusal to confirm Moats’ story was undeniably totally unacceptable and unprofessional. The video recorder inside the police car captured the entire episode which was later viewed over and over again on national television. The public was outraged and officer Powel resigned two weeks later (Thompson, 2009). The national media were once again focused on racial profiling by law enforcement officers with a July, 2009 incident involving a black Harvard University professor, Henry Gates. Cambridge police officers had received a report concerning a possible breaking and entering in the prestigious Harvard Square residential area. The officers observed a black male through the window of one of the houses. When the officers approached, Gates answered the door. The officers questioned what Gates was doing in the house. He responded by telling the officers that he was the owner. Gates presented his driver’s license and Harvard identification. At this point, the police report indicates that Gates became quite agitated and started to berate the officers accusing them of racial profiling. Gates was cuffed and taken into custody. The charges were later dropped and the Cambridge police department issued an apology (Jan, 2009). Law enforcement and other officials charged with protecting public safety vehemently deny that racial profiling occurs and they dismiss outright that racial profiling is an accepted practice within their agencies. They point out that federal and statutes in twenty-five states prohibit detaining, questioning or arresting an individual solely on the basis of race. Moreover, law enforcement and security personnel undergo training designed to prevent racial profiling from occurring and this has become a standard part of the curricula in state and federal law enforcement and corrections academies (Turvey, 2008). One of the key elements distinguishing racial profiling from criminal personality profiling is that the former comes up against the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution that guarantee privacy and equal protection, federal statutes such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its amendments and statutes in many states that prohibit profiling individuals solely on the basis of race. The operative word that is at the heart of the debate concerning the use of racial profiling by law enforcement and security officials is the term solely. In almost all cases where minority individuals have challenged that they have suffered discrimination on the basis of race at the hands of law enforcement or security officials, the response from the officials is that race was not the sole factor in taking the action against the individual. The Supreme Court has granted considerable latitude to law enforcement and security personnel in the use of race as one of several investigative techniques used in protecting public safety. In a 1996 case involving the detention and arrest of a black motorist in Washington, D.C., the Court rendered a rare unanimous opinion upholding the actions of the police officers (Whren v. United States). In a 2008 Virginia case involving another black motorist, the Court was once again unanimous in allowing the law enforcement considerable latitude in charging and arresting the individual (Virginia v. Moore). Recently, the Court has reaffirmed its position on racial profiling cases by refusing to hear cases brought forward on appeal. An example is the case of John Crequeira who was removed from an airplane in Boston because he looked Middle Eastern. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case (Crequeira v. American Airlines, Inc). The debate surrounding racial profiling will likely continue for many years to come. In the meantime, the fact remains that using racial profiles as one of many investigative tools available to law enforcement personnel is an effective strategy used to solve crimes and to protect the public safety. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has become proactive in addressing how racial profiling is used in order to safeguard against discrimination against innocent parties. The department’s Office of Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) published Promoting Cooperative Strategies to Reduce Racial Profiling (2008) which serves as a comprehensive guide for federal, state and local officials. The document emphasizes six foundational areas in preventing discriminatory practices. These are recruitment and selection policies, the emphasis on supervision and officer accountability, rigorous education and training of officers, direct involvement by minority communities, use of technology at crime scenes and comprehensive data collection and analysis. As part of its commitment to utilize hard data in assessing racial profiling, DOJ funded the creation of the Racial Profiling Data Collection Center housed at Northeastern University (nea.edu). Criminal Personality Profiling This criminal investigations technique became widely known to the public with the release in 1988 of the movie Silence of the Lambs. Although the movie portrayal of a mass murder investigation was mostly fiction with a few facts sprinkled in, it did highlight how behavioral characteristics of criminals can be analyzed and used to ultimately apprehend them. Brent Turvey (2008) defines criminal personality profiling as a set of behaviors that are generalized to an unknown individual perpetrator of a criminal act based upon behavioral and demographic characteristics shared by other criminals who have committed similar illegal acts in the past. The following example, adapted from Turvey’s book helps to explain this definition: Assume that the data show that 90 percent of known serial murders of female college students who live in campus dormitories are conducted by black males between the ages of 20 and 32. These perpetrators are known to live at home with parents and to drive vehicles older than ten years of age. The police are currently investigating a multiple murder situation where three college women were killed on campus in separate incidents. Analysts utilize historic data to develop a profile to assist law enforcement officials in identifying the suspect. They inform the authorities that the perpetrator is likely to be a black male, between the ages of 20 and thirty 32, who still lives at home and who drives an older car. The situation described above is obviously simplistic but it does emphasize the point that experts in criminal personality profiling have assisted police in solving many criminal cases that may have otherwise gone unsolved. Two of the most famous cases where personality profiling was successfully used were the Ted Bundy serial murder case in Florida and the Son of Sam serial killings in New York, both occurring in the 1970s. The point was made in the discussion of racial profiling presented earlier, that the controversy over the use of the investigative tool related to the legal and constitutional prohibitions against racial discrimination. Although court cases have certainly been filed challenging the use of personality profiling in criminal proceedings, the debate surrounding this issue concerns the empirical validity of the scientific methodology used by professional profilers. Some academics argue that criminal personality profiling has no basis in science, that its application is inconsistent and subject to threats of validity and reliability and that it has no place in criminal prosecutions because there is a high probability that it may result in innocent people being convicted (Snook et al, 2008). In cases where the suspect is identified using personality profiling, the defense will often use expert witnesses trained in behavioral psychology and statistics to try and refute the evidence presented by the prosecution. The profile that lead to the suspect’s arrest is challenged as unscientific, and statisticians point to the fact that thousands of people in the general population exhibit the identical behaviors as those found in the profile being used to prosecute the defendant. Proponents of criminal personality profiling counter these criticisms by pointing to the phenomenal contributions that the technique has made to helping to solve crimes where no suspects could be identified through standard investigative and forensic strategies. The also demonstrated that profilers are professionals who are trained in criminology as well as behavioral psychology (Kocsis et al, 2008). Moreover, proponents argue that personality profiling is only one piece of the criminal investigation puzzle that is used to identify, prosecute and convict accused perpetrators. Physical and forensic evidence and motive must also support the prosecution’s case in order to secure a successful conviction (Kocsis, 2010). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) established the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC). The Center is staffed with teams of agents from multi-disciplinary backgrounds including forensic sciences, behavioral psychology and mental health. The Center utilizes criminal personality profiling to supplement physical and eye witness information obtained from crime scenes. The Center has a special investigative unit called the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU). BAU provides services to federal, state, local and international law enforcement agencies in solving complex, time sensitive cases involving violent criminal acts (fbi.gov). The FBI’s criminal personality profiling agents, use a six step platform in assisting partner jurisdictions in identifying suspect profiles in difficult violent crime cases. The first phase, profiling data, involves the collection of all physical and forensic evidence from the crime scene. Witnesses are interviewed and if there are living victims the profiler gathers detailed information concerning everything about the perpetrator. Phase 2, data classification, is where the data gathered at the crime scene are classified into appropriate categories. For example, was sexual activity involved or was the body moved. Step 3 is data assessment and analysis. Here is where the profiler provides law enforcement officials with a suspect profile including age, gender and psychological characteristics. These data are matched against national and international crime databases to assist in the identification of suspects. Phase 4 involves investigation by the appropriate authorities. The suspect is then arrested in phase 5 and prosecuted in phase 6. Once the process is complete, the criminal personality profiler prepares a detailed report and the data are entered into an ever expanding database that will be used to help solve future crimes of a similar nature (fbi.gov). Viable Alternatives to Profiling No rational individual would openly advocate that law enforcement and security professionals should resort to racial discrimination or use evidence that is inaccurate to convict people for crimes that they did not commit. The reality is, however, that racial and criminal personality profiling are important tools that are utilized to protect our country from crime and from those who are a threat to our national security. What are the alternatives? Suppose that a serial killer was on the loose in Seattle. Law enforcement officers develop a profile from collecting crime scene evidence and interviewing witnesses that the perpetrator is a black male in his 40s who drives a green Toyota or Honda automobile. Police are very cautious in stopping green vehicles driven by Black men who appear to fit the age profile for fear of being accused of racial discrimination or inappropriate and offensive personality profiling. The perpetrator kills two more innocent people before he is apprehended. It then becomes public knowledge that the authorities knew the profile of the killer but refused to act. Can you imagine the public outcry? The answer is that there are no viable alternatives and the critics of profiling have failed to produce alternative models that are effective. Do police and security officers make mistakes? Of course they do. It is always interesting to observe though, that the media never reports on the thousands of cases that are solved because of the professional efforts of profilers. Instead, we hear about the poor Harvard professor who was arrested in his home. The solution is not to prohibit law enforcement personnel from using profiling. Rather, use the FBI model of rigorous hiring policies, comprehensive and ongoing training and stringent accountability standards that show zero tolerance for discriminatory behavior. Conclusion This paper provided an analysis of racial and criminal personality profiling as they relate to law enforcement and the protection of America’s national security interests. It was noted that racial profiling differs from personality profiling in that the former is subject to stringent legal and constitutional prohibitions against racial discrimination. Criminal personality profiling, on the other hand, is often challenged as being unscientific and therefore unreliable in helping convict those accused of committing violent crimes. Arizona Senate Bill 1070 will no doubt find its way to the United States Supreme Court. During a recent interview, CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Tobin was asked about the case and what he hopes to see come out of the Supreme Court. His response was that it is time for the Supreme Court to make a definitive decision on racial and other forms of profiling and to specify any limitations to their use by law enforcement officers. I concur with Mr. Tobin. Let’s get on with the business of keeping our communities safe, prosecuting those who enter our country illegally and addressing terrorist threats both domestically and abroad. References American Civil Liberties Union information on racial profiling. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/racial-profiling Antanovics, Kate & Knight, Brian G. (2009). A New Look at Racial Profiling: Evidence from the Boston Police Department. Journal of Economics and Statistics, 91:1, 163-177. Arizona Senate Bill 1070. 49th Legislature 2010. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/hq/isd/cirq/ncavc.htm. Jan, Tracy (2009). “Harvard Professor Gates Arrested at Cambridge Home.” Boston Globe. July 20. John D. Cerqueira v. American Airlines, Inc. USDC District of Massachusetts, 1:05-cv-11652- WGY (2006). Kocsis, Richard N., Middledamp, Jenny, & Karpin, Anne (2008). Taking Stock of Accuracy in Criminal Profiling: The Theoretical Quandary for Investigative Psychology. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice.8:4, 224-261. Kocsis, Richard n (2010). Criminal Profiling works and EVERYONE agrees. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10:3, 224-237. Northeastern University. Racial Profiling Data Collection Resource Center. Retrieved from http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.new.edu. Office of Community Oriented Police Services (2008), Promoting Cooperative Strategies to Reduce Racial Profiling. United States Department of Justice. Washington. D.C.: Thompson, Steve (2009). “Dallas Police Officer Resigns over Ryan Moats’ Traffic Stop.” Dallas News, April 2. Turvey, Brent E. (2008). Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis. 3rd ed. Elsevier: London. Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) Read More