Racial Profiling in Police Work - Essay Example

?Ethical Dilemma Research Paper On Racial Profiling in Police work no: Sociology April, Introduction In this paper, the researcher is focusing on racial profiling in police as a dominant ethical dilemma in America. It means a phenomenon by which police officers uses ethnicity and or cultural background as a method of fighting crime in society. The most affected persons are the “black Americans, Arabs and Hispanics.” It even became more apparent for the Arab Americans following the September 11th attack on the World trade Centre and Pentagon by the al-Qaida Islamic extremist. To a small extent the police may be justified in profiling such groups because historically commission of most crimes emanated from their attitude and behaviour or world view. However, to a large extent, it is a serious ethical dilemma in the administration of criminal justice on ground that minority groups are discriminated and even prosecuted for nothing. There is a laxity in the police to subject a particular group of people to this type of discrimination because of their colour and cultural back ground. Consequently, it tantamount to abuse of due process of law and abridging the civil liberties when our citizens are segregated for no good reason without a right to a fair hearing. In most state jurisdictions police officers easily suspect Negros, Hispanics and Arabs on grounds of race for committing crimes as opposed to white people which is unfair. Whereas presidents and other prominent politicians have condemned the practice, it continues unabated hence prolonging the most hated racism in policing. Whereas blacks, Arabs and Hispanics, maybe rightly suspected of committing crimes such as drug trafficking, robbery and terrorism among others, it does not mean that every person in this category is a potential suspect. When driving on public roads and most times at air ports, these categories of persons are placed under intense security search. There is no conclusive answer as to why such a psychological discrimination lingers in our society but remains a question of jurisprudence. In this paper therefore, the researcher concludes that that racial profiling is an ethical dilemma and immoral consideration brought about by the pessimistic beliefs by police officers that Blacks, Hispanic and Arabs are habitual criminals. This is a conduct abusing due process of law in our criminal Justice system in America. It abridges the civil liberties of these people by depriving citizens of their right to liberty “without due process or equal protection of law.” This ethical concern stems from the fact that police officers should treat all people equally without any form of racial discrimination by doing what they would need others do to them. In this situation, blacks, Arabs as well as Latinos are segregated and reduced to second class citizens in United States. It is a flood gate of total abuse of the Criminal Justice system and should be condemned in the strongest terms. It is the role of policy makers therefore to refrain from this immoral behavior by promoting respect and equal treatment for all. The ethical concern and both sides of racial profiling in police According to Chris Angle (2004) Ethics is the understanding of how to distinguish good from bad virtues governing a person’s moral behaviour, conduct and or wellbeing in society. They are often seen in an individual’s professional and career such as respect, upholding life and civil liberties through due process of law. Racial profiling is an ethical concern to a criminal Justice system because it is discriminative and therefore unconstitutional. It contravenes the due process of Law guaranteed under section 1of the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution (Barton, 1868, p.31). This is so because racial profiling denies the victims of the circumstances equal protection of law, which was one of the main aims for the enactment of the fourteenth amendment. Therefore the policy is null and void as per Supreme Court in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.(1989, P.493). This means that it’s a grave ethical concern. The only exception from this case is where it’s a“compelling government interest” to fight terrorism for example. In this regard, the police officer must prove that it is a such a government ssecurity interest not a personal one (P.494). For this reason, police officers’ ethical virtues are professionally governed and linked to their role of keeping law and order without ill will, favour or affection of any kind amongst all citizens. It means they should not act discriminatively on ethnic grounds while combating crime through search, arrest, investigations and presentation of evidence in Courts of law. This does not mean that these categories of people should not be investigated but that equality before the law and respect for all should be upheld. As the saying goes that do to others what you need them to do you, there is no need to discriminate people on grounds of ethnicity and or cultural background. It is an abuse of freedom guaranteed and protected under the Constitution. When police officers choose to discriminate them through arrest, search and prosecution on grounds of racial profiling, then we are left in a pattern of ethical dilemma in America. If God is to bless America, all citizens of this great nation must be respected equally without any form of discrimination and to act as an example to the whole world. The manner in which these minority groups are searched, arrested and sometimes mistreated by our own police officers is a conduct unbecoming of our police officers and amounts to abuse of the criminal justice system. When an officer abuses his or her discretion, he or she is likely to defeat the due process of law which is a consequence of unethical and immoral conduct. On the other hand, there is another side of this issue. Sometimes it is the manner in which victims of police profiling conduct themselves propagating a culture that these categories of persons are prune to committing criminal offences and to defeat due process of law guaranteed under the fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S Constitution. It is by law established that police officers shall at all times preserve, protect and defend the constitution by keeping law and order. If an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect any person capable of committing a cognizable offence, he or she has the power and mandate to search and arrest that person. When the September 11th attacks happened, the Islamist extremist led by al-Qaida movement (terrorists) placed Arabs Americans into spot light. These terrorists were Arabs declaring war on Americans Citizens. Resultantly, it placed all Arabs at risk of police profiling. Similarly, the culture of drug trafficking has been motivated by the African American historically, something that places them at a higher risk of being arrested and searched whenever a police officer has reasonable suspicion that the negro is drug trafficker or addict. These are the historical bench marks of this vice and that is how police officers are caught in ethical dilemma. However, as indicated above, whereas that side of the story exists, it’s within the professional mandate of all our police officers to carry on their work professionally. Not every black, Hispanic or Arab American can be viewed as potential criminal suspect and should not be subjected to ill treatment. The same way in which whites commit crimes is similar to that in which blacks do so. There are situations when the whites commit more crimes as opposed to blacks. This alone indicates that racial profiling is an ethical dilemma in which police officers actions should be condemned. It contravenes the civil liberties of the innocent people by depriving them of their right to liberty “without due process or equal protection of law.” This ethical concern stems from the fact that all police officers should treat all people equally without any form of racial discrimination by doing what they would need others do to them. It reduces blacks, Arab Americans as well as Latinos to second class citizens in United States (Nittle, 2012). The effect of racial profiling in police on due process of law The effect of racial profiling on due process is that it is unconstitutional and or unlawful. This act contravenes the due process of law guaranteed under the fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to Js Fuerst and Roy Petty (1985), due process of law simply means the right to a fair hearing and or treatment. It is the process by which Judicial officers administer criminal Justice to all without discrimination, bias or abuse of discretion. Due process helps in cementing the independence of the judiciary and the equitable treatment of each party to a criminal offence. Police officers play a vital part in this due process in the criminal justice system. This is so because they gather all relevant, credible and reliable evidence for both the prosecution and the defence through investigations. Courts rely on this evidence to pass a fair verdict. Ethics and moral virtues are the back born of a credible and reliable investigation process, failure of which affects the due process and places them in an ethical dilemma. Ethically achieving justice for all means respect of “rule of law” (Rawls, 1994). Abridging the civil liberty of equality before the law as seen from racial profiling by police officers discredits the trust and confidence the “black Americans, Hispanics and Arabs” would have in the criminal justice system. It should be a process of rendering what is due to each person justly and fairly without fear, ill will or favour. When conducting investigation, decisions should be done without any sentimental bias motivated by racial profiling. Decisions made must be concrete and specific in relations to the rules of criminal justice. However, racial profiling has created a situation where the innocent is punished and guilty released on technical grounds due to poor handling of investigations and racial discrimination (Nittle, 2012). However, Courts have attempted to restore sanity although the vice lingers. For instance, in the case of Rochin v California (1952, P.174), the supreme Court observed that the police officers abridged the due process of law guaranteed under the fourteenth amendment when they forced themselves into the petitioners bedroom without searcch warrant. Whereas the petitioner swallowed capsules containing morphine, they forced him to vomit it using emetic substance inserted into his stomarch which the Court said that it was an obuse of the petitioners civil liberty. The Court reasoned that the methods used in obtaining evidence was prejudicial to the civil rights of the petitioner in a sense that it deprived him of the right to privacy and property hence violating the due process guaranteed under the 14th amendment. In this regard, the police ought to have lawfully subjected the petitioner to proper medical examination and got medical report to that effect. It is true that the capsules were prohibited drugs but the manner in which they were forced out of the petitioner’s stomarch was an abuse of due process of law because it was totally inhumane . I am convinced that this was a fair and conclusive judgement showing that justice was achieved as a consequence of due process of lawbut the lesson learnt is that the police brutality was motivated by racial profiling in carrying out such investigations thereby abusing Court process. Similarly, according to Phillip Jenkins (Jenkins, 1995) justice and fairness as the effect of due process relates to the manner in which criminal proceeding are conducted right from the time of investigation. In preliminary stages of criminal trial, the prosecution will depend on police investigations to lead its evidence in convincing Court that there is a case to answer. For this reason, the police officers are given discretion in gathering evidence for both the prosecution and the defence. Discretion is the power of proper discernment in relation to ones ethics and morality. Whereas there are written codes governing the administration of criminal justice system, the trial process sometimes does not bar a police officer from exercising discretion. This is done through individual exercise of other alternatives of criminal justice without necessarily affecting the due process of law. Most often it is exercised by police officers in determining whether or not to arrest the suspect or conduct any further investigation into the alleged criminal offence. However, racial profiling creates an ethical dilemma in a sense that because of the pre determined mind by officers that those particular ethnic groups are habitual criminals; there is a high likelihood of abuse of discretion and due process of law. All other stake holders in the criminal proceedings will innocently abuse the due process due to racial profiling by police. Consequently, justice which ought to be done is not seen to be done hence contravening the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. Drawing inspiration from the golden rule that do to others what you would like to be done to you, means that racial profiling in police will definitely result into an ethical dilemma. The attempt to solve racial profiling in Police Work in the criminal Justice System Although racial profiling is evident and a lingering ethical dilemma, the Congress has in past attempted to enact laws that promotes equality before the law and respect of fundamental human rights. The law is in place but the psychological paradigm shift from the old belief to equality has not been accepted by police officers. The police is charged with the duty of enforcing these laws in conjunction with the judiciary. It is further hoped that one day the dream will come to pass when racial profiling will be no more without necessarily affecting the good work of brave and professionally objective officers as per President Bush1 as he was then while addressing congress on this matter (US Department of Justice, 2003). Some of the laws includes the Fourteenth amendment (1865, section 1) that guarantees equality before the law and due process of law. This was at latter stage followed by “the Civil Rights Act” prohibiting discrimination in our employment system (1964). The other is the “Voting Rights Act” that guarantees democratic voting rights (1965). In the same year was the enactment of “Immigration and Nationality Act” (1965) to eliminate racial disparity though it’s still faced today. Furthermore was the enactment of “fair Housing Act” to give equal opportunities to housing and accommodation in our land of freedom (1968) among others. All these historical legislations were on one part meant to eliminate racism and the consequential racial profiling of minority blacks, Hispanics and Arab Americans by police officers. Courts of law have also attempted to promote equality before the law and upholding due process of law as was the case in (City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989). This shows that the criminal justice system has attempted to solve the problem. However, it’s still a big challenge because majority of these minority victims of racial profiling still contribute to the large percentage of inmates, many of whom are innocently prosecuted and denied their civil liberty. Deontological (the Kantian view) and teleological (the Millsian view) of racial profiling The deontological view simply presupposes that an individual moral ethics should be judged from his or her acts and motive (Orend, 2000, P.19). What a person does is a reflection of his or her motive. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words, the police officers’ actions of promoting racial profiling are immoral acts motivated by the historical racism. In this circumstance, the deontological view is that police officers’ role and obligation is to promote rule of law, equality and condemnation of racial profiling. Unfortunately, they are the promoters of the vice. Since “ideas have consequences”, racial profiling in police is an idea that over time have created alarming consequences to the victims of this practice through their actions (Kelly, 2006, P.160). The consequence in this situation is an ethical dilemma that the police have entangled themselves in their attempt to keep law and order while promoting racial profiling. This is in itself an absolute moral wrong. My view according to the teleological philosophy is that God’s design and purpose for the universe was and is the enhancement of equality of all human beings regardless of your ethnicity or background hence the moral sayings that do to others what you need to be done to you. It’s an understanding that God was and is the inventor of equality before the law. God did not design and purpose man to segregate each other (Nussbaum, 1985, P.69). It thus appeals to upholding moral virtues in our professional work. Man was created in God’s image and thus is expected to emulate similar teleological design. The police officers are not exceptional either. Their evasion of their moral duty is contrally to God’s design plus purpose. In promoting racial segregation while keeping law and order means that the police have out rightly accepted an ethical dilemma that has over the years of racial profiling created second class citizenry in United States and should be condemned. My position on Racial Profiling My position is that racial profiling is backward act and cancer affecting our police force which is supposed to promote rule of law. Whereas I understand that whatever they do is to a small extent engineered by the historical evolution that some of the affected victims are habitual offenders, it is my considered view that in modern American, no person should be condemned innocently or disrespected. Respect for all should be the sole objective of our police men. With science and technology in place, the police have the power to detect crime without necessarily promoting racial profiling. They are in reality abusing due process of law and contravening the same laws for which they are supposed to uphold. Therefore, the victims should petition Supreme Court of the land to declare that racial profiling is unconstitutional and any police officer found guilty of it should accordingly face the law. The source of hope is only in the Courts of law and civil rights activists but not any other place by prosecuting such officers whenever they design and carry on racial profiling. Conclusion In conclusion racial profiling in police remains one of the major ethical dilemmas in America. The most affected persons are the “black Americans, Arabs and Hispanics. Whereas to a small extent the police officers may be justified in profiling such minority groups, it’s however to a large extent an abuse of due process of law because the innocent are often times discriminated, segregated and even prosecuted for nothing on grounds of colour and cultural back ground. Their actions and motives are designed to achieve nothing except the crucifixion of the Constitution and the criminal justice system. This is so because it denies the victims of these circumstances equal protection of law, which was the main aim of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the policy is null and void. It abridges the civil liberties of these people by depriving them of their right to liberty “without due process or equal protection of law.” This ethical concern stems from the fact that all police officers should treat people equally without any form of racial discrimination by doing what they would need others do to them. In this situation, blacks as well as Latinos are not only segregated and reduced to second class citizens in United States but choked with the contravention of the constitution. Abridging the civil liberty of equality before the law as seen from racial profiling negates trust and confidence that the “black Americans, Hispanics and Arabs” would have in the criminal justice system. It should be a process of rendering what is due to each person justly and fairly without fear, ill will or favour. When conducting investigation, decisions should be done without any sentimental biasness motivated by racial profiling. Decisions made must be concrete and specific in relations to the rules of criminal law thus creating a situation where there is respect for all. References Angle, C. (2004). Defining Ethics Good and Evil. New York: Philosophy Publishing Company. . Barton, D. (1868). Documents of Freedom; Amendment XIV. Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilders . City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (Supreme Court 1989) Jenkins, P. (1995). Crime control and due process . Journal of Criminal Justice and popular Culture 3(2) , 25-42. Kelly, E. (2006). The Basics of Western Philosophy. Greenwood Press. Nittle, N. K. (2012). Latinos on the Receiving End of Racial Profiling and Police Brutality Retrieved April 11, 2013, from Race Relations: http://racerelations.about.com/od/thelegalsystem/a/Latinos-On-The-Receiving-End-Of- Racial-Profiling-And-Police-Brutality. Nussbaum, M. (1985). Aristotle's de Motu Animalium. Princeton: Princeton University Press. US Department of Justice . (2003, June 17). Fact sheet; Racial profiling. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/racial_profiling_fact_sheet.pdf Orend, B. (2000). War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. . West Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Rawls, J. (1994). The Rule of Law. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from Punishment: http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Applied/deathpenalty/Rawls.html Rochinv.California , 342 US 165 (Supreme Court January 23, 1989) Roy, J. F. (1985). Due Process. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from How Much is enought: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20060406_issue_079_article_8.pdf US Congress. (1968). Fair Housing Act. US Congress. (1965). Immigration and Nationality Act. US Congress. (1964). The Civil Rights Act. US Congress. (1965). Voting Rights Act. Read More