So, here's the argumentative essay I was talking about. The final is due to tomorrow. Anys suggestions welcomed.
~Problems of Racial Profiling in America ~
After the harrowing event of September 11, the United States of America and its government went on taking immense measures by using an outrageous amount of resources to prevent the next possible attack. The police, FBI, CIA, NSA and airport securities started to closely examine Arab Americans and visitors from the Middle East. This resulted in unfairly racial profiling and the humiliation, inconvenience and deportation of innocent people who have nothing to do with terrorist attacks. Racial profiling violates the principles of civil liberty and is based on ignorance and fear.
Racial profiling is not only illegal; it is illogical and it does not work.
First we must ask ourselves two basic questions: What is racial profiling and why is it necessary? To answer the first question we must look at the academic description made by Northeastern University: “Racial profiling is any police action that is based on the race, ethnicity or national origin of a person rather than behaviour of an individual.” We understand from this definition that this method is based solely on the race of a person and not their behavioral tendencies. The second question interrogates the logicality behind racial profiling. According to some authorities, racial profiling is necessary in reducing the time and the effort in spotting criminals and possible terrorists. However, when we look deeply and examine the issue we find that this is incorrect and does not reduce crime or terrorism.
Racial profiling is flawed. The first problem in racial profiling is that it is illegal under both local and federal laws. According to the resolution number 30223, amended November 6th 2000 the City Council of the City of Seattle resolved that: “The use of race or ethnicity has a factor in deciding to stop and question, arrest or a search a person without a legal basis under the United States and Washington State constitutions is illegal.”The definition of racial profiling according to the US Department of Justice indicates it is an illegal practice as well:
“Law enforcement officers may not rely to any degree on the race or national or ethnic origin of motorists and selecting vehicles for traffic stops and in deciding upon the scope and substance of post-stop actions, except where state troops are on the look-out for a specific suspect who has been identified in part by his or her race or national or ethnic origin.”
Racial profiling violates civil liberties and creates a rift between communities and local police (“Police are Split&rdquo😉. Federal pressures to “interview” Arab Americans has left local law enforcement officials with a difficult dilemma. It is against the law to conduct any police action without a probable cause. Municipalities have laws specifically forbidding the questioning of people solely based on their race. After the tragedy of September 11 however, John Ashcroft announced the plan to find and interview 5,000 people, mostly Arab-American (“Police are Split&rdquo😉. “These interviews” were conducted without a probable cause and based only on the interviewees’ race. This is a violation of civil liberties protected by the constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, it was unjust.
Racial profiling simply does not work. It is ineffectual in reducing crime and terrorism. If the majority of police stops on the highway are minorities, the majority of illegal activity discovered will be found as committed by minorities. It could work either way. If more Caucasian Americans were stopped and questioned, more crimes would be found as committed by Caucasian Americans. Reality cannot always be measured by statistics. The use of racial profiling discourages groups of people who may be helpful in avoiding future terrorist attacks. The true effect of racial profiling creates fear amongst affected racial groups and the rest of the population. Affected racial groups fear police, and inevitably dismiss co-operation with the police. The president of The City Council of The City of Seattle says:“Racial profiling is probably the single most damaging factor in building community alliances with police. It creates mistrust and has far reaching implications. As a result people may be less likely to co-operate as witnesses, less likely to serve on juries, less willing to trust and confide in police officers and less likely to report crime.”
One other illogicality behind profiling is that terrorists can be European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, male and female, young and old. Taking September 11 into account, we will see that the responsible side of the incident, Al-Quaide, is sophisticated enough to manipulate the concept to their advantage. Al-Quaide is a dynamic and global organization that many sympathizers exist from all around the world, most notably from South America. Therefore, we can conclude Al-Quaide and other terrorist groups will possibly use terrorist that do not fit the racial profile.
We know that not all terrorist attacks are carried out by Arab Americans. The biggest terrorist action on American soil was conducted by Timothy McVeigh, a white ultra-conservative republican veteran of the United States Army. Caucasian American terrorists include names such as: Richard “Shoe Bomber” Read, John Walker Lyndh and of course Ted Kaczynski. Using the practice of racial profiling and what we know of these white terrorists, we can assume that every white person in the United States is a possible terrorist and subject to scrutiny. Of course this is illogical. We cannot suspect every white person who gets on a plane. However, it is certainly much easier scrutinizing minorities. If a terrorist can be of any race, color, creed or nationality we will not be able to use these characteristics to detect and identify them as terrorists.
It is perfectly natural and understandable to be suspicious and afraid of the unknown; particularly when people are vulnerable or in crowded places like airports. The United States is a melting pot; we have people from all races and colors. With so much diversity surrounding us, it is easy to see how people draw such distinct racial profiles. However, recent events are exaggerated by the public and media. Due to the impact of September 11 and American citizens continue to live with fear.
“In itself, this is not really surprising. We face a situation in which there has been a terrorist attack by a small group of suicidal hijackers, and as far as we know, all of those involved were Arabs and Muslims and had Arabic surnames….We seldom have much information on any of the strangers around us, so we tend to think in broad categories like race and gender. When human beings experience fear, it is a natural reaction to make judgments concerning our safety based on these broad categories, and to avoid those who arouse fear in us.”(Racial Profiling Does Not Reduce Terrorism)
Proponents of racial profiling use logic that Captain Davis calls “the fallacy theory” in his article on racial profiling: If the majority of the crimes is committed by blacks, than majority of blacks commit crime. (Racial Profiling: “What Does Data Mean?&rdquo😉 However, he says that even if we blindly accept this theory, the percentage of the crimes in those minorities actually represent less than 10 percent. In other words, 90 percent of the minorities in this case would be still innocent. So we can conclude that it is unreasonable to cast suspicion on entire group of people based on the actions of a few. This prejudgment will result in the waste of time, effort and resources.
The solution to the issue of racial profiling lies in enforcing the policies we already have. We should strictly enforce the laws and punish the unjust violators. We often see that the police are not held accountable for their misuse of power. Some law enforcement agencies already have policies to correct this issue. To fight racial profiling the City of Seattle offers a Police Data Collection Form that includes: Reason for the Stop, Was a search conducted, Race Ethnicity, Time and Location Age and gender. (“City of Seattle Traffic Stop Study&rdquo😉 The police have the forms so we should have the forms too. The City of Seattle has given drivers information cards, to fill out the reason and the location of stop as well as the behaviour of the officer. Also, police and sheriff departments should use more video cameras to monitor traffic stops. This would protect both the police officer and the person stopped. Solutions like these require public education. Ultimately the issue of racism is the root and source of racial profiling. The only way to solve this issue is to stress the importance of our civil liberties. As Abraham Lincoln put it “. . . all Men are created equal.”
Racial profiling is illegal, illogical, wasteful and unjust. Profiling a group of people creates tense relations between communities and it does not reduce crime or terrorism. It is difficult to determine possible terrorist or criminals solely based on their race. There is policy in place to protect us from racial profiling. However, these policies do nothing unless they are enforced. We must police our police. This requires us to educate ourselves on the matter and more importantly, bring attention to the issue. Racial profiling should be abolished.
Originally posted by GinoJSuppose that there are a 1000 Niffites and a 1000 Luupites in a mixed community. Only 1 of these Niffites is a criminal, whereas 10 of the Luupites are criminals. That is, although most Niffites and Luupites are law-abiding (99.9% and 99% respectively are), any Luupite, chosen at random, is 10 times more likely to be a criminal than a Niffite. Alas, in general, telling who the criminals are is difficult: there aren't too many outward signs. However, Niffites and Luupites can be easily identified on the basis of their superficial features.
Sorry, my English sucks. I really appreciate more help.
Thx.
Now, is it prejudiced to stop 10 times as many Luupites as Niffites when looking for a criminal? Is it affirmative action to stop only 5 times as many Luupites as Niffites when looking for one?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThose flippin' troublemaking Luupites are always causing trouble round here too.
Suppose that there are a 1000 Niffites and a 1000 Luupites in a mixed community. Only 1 of these Niffites is a criminal, whereas 10 of the Luupites are criminals. That is, although most Niffites and Luupites are law-abiding (99.9% and 99% respectively are), any Luupite, chosen at random, is 10 times more likely to be a criminal than a Niffite. Alas, in s it affirmative action to stop only 5 times as many Luupites as Niffites when looking for one?
Mind you that Niffty is just as bad.
Now, is it prejudiced to stop 10 times as many Luupites as Niffites when looking for a criminal? Is it affirmative action to stop only 5 times as many Luupites as Niffites when looking for one?[/b]Very Nice!
However, Such a scenario is nearly impossible to fully achieve. Unless you knew the exact criminality going on at an exact time you could never know whether or not one or the other group actually did have more criminals.
And this is what works against it really - to be really fair you would have to stop as many Niffites as Luupites (but you can take lots of each if your insecure) because otherwise you run the risk of arresting 10 crooked and dumm Luupites while letting 100 crooked but sneaky Niffites get away. Possibly.
And should Luupites really be more criminally active than Niffites you will still end up arresting more L.'s than N's - especially if you acuse them in an even ratio to each other.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI believe it's customary to do some actual police work before you stop people from going about their daily lives.
Suppose that there are a 1000 Niffites and a 1000 Luupites in a mixed community. Only 1 of these Niffites is a criminal, whereas 10 of the Luupites are criminals. That is, although most Niffites and Luupites are law-abiding (99.9% and 99% respectively are), any Luupite, chosen at random, is 10 times more likely to be a criminal than a Niffite. Alas, in ...[text shortened]... s it affirmative action to stop only 5 times as many Luupites as Niffites when looking for one?
Originally posted by UbersuckSo, what country is it illegal in?
"Racial profiling is not only illegal; it is illogical and it does not work"
You need to remove that statement, only the first half of it is true.
If the majority of the crimes is committed by blacks, than majority of blacks commit crime.
If the majority of the crimes are committed by blacks, then the majority of blacks commit crime.
So we can conclude that it is unreasonable to cast suspicion on entire group of people.
So,we can............to cast suspicion on an entire group....................
[not saying I agree with the logic in all this but that would be better english]
Originally posted by Pawnokeyholeif a bomb goes off, I say you round up every rag-head or gangster (you can always tell, they have T-Shirts 4 times too big, Pants 6 times too big and a coat 10 times too big with a bank loan on each Kobe Bryant Shoe)
Suppose that there are a 1000 Niffites and a 1000 Luupites in a mixed community. Only 1 of these Niffites is a criminal, whereas 10 of the Luupites are criminals. That is, although most Niffites and Luupites are law-abiding (99.9% and 99% respectively are), any Luupite, chosen at random, is 10 times more likely to be a criminal than a Niffite. Alas, in ...[text shortened]... s it affirmative action to stop only 5 times as many Luupites as Niffites when looking for one?
within a 5 mile radius
period
let the fireworks begin...
However, these policies do nothing unless they are enforced. We must police our police. This requires us to educate ourselves on the matter and more importantly, bring attention to the issue. Racial profiling should be abolished.[/b]such is life....i think if you actually cant make things better, than whats the point complaining about it?....the human race is so screwed up, you might as well say were all doomed