Why Racial Profiling is a Bad Idea

Top 7 Arguments Against Racial Profiling

The hardest thing about advocating reform of racial profiling practices, at a policy level, is convincing political leaders that it isn't just a "politically incorrect" or "racially insensitive" practice, but rather a destructive, ill-conceived, and ultimately ineffective law enforcement technique. This means looking hard at what racial profiling does, what it doesn't do, and what it says about our system of law enforcement. We need to be able to explain what, specifically, is wrong with racial profiling.

1. Racial profiling doesn't work.

One of the great myths about racial profiling is that it would work if only law enforcement agencies could use it--that by not using racial profiling, they're tying one hand behind their backs in the name of civil rights.

This simply isn't true:

An ACLU lawsuit uncovered police data indicating that while 73 percent of suspects pulled over on I-95 between 1995 and 1997 were black, black suspects were no more likely to actually have drugs or illegal weapons in their cars than white suspects.

According to the Public Health Service, approximately 70% of drug users are white, 15% are black, and 8% are Latino. But the Department of Justice reports that among thoseimprisoned on drug charges, 26% are white, 45% are black, and 21% are Latino.

2. Racial profiling distracts law enforcement agencies from more useful approaches.

When suspects are detained based on suspicious behavior rather than race, police catch more suspects.

A 2005 report by the Missouri attorney general is testimony to the ineffectiveness of racial profiling. White drivers, pulled over and searched on the basis of suspicious behavior, were found to have drugs or other illegal material 24% of the time. Black drivers, pulled over or searched in a manner that reflected a pattern of racial profiling, were found to have drugs or other illegal material 19% of the time.

The effectiveness of searches, in Missouri and everywhere else, is reduced--not enhanced--by racial profiling. When racial profiling is used, officers end up wasting their limited time on innocent suspects.

3. Racial profiling prevents police from serving the entire community.

Law enforcement agencies are responsible, or generally seen as responsible, for protecting law-abiding citizens from criminals.

When a law enforcement agency practices racial profiling, it sends the message that whites are assumed to be law-abiding citizens while blacks and Latinos are assumed to be criminals. Racial profiling policies set up law enforcement agencies as enemies of entire communities--communities that tend to be disproportionately affected by crime--when law enforcement agencies should be in the business of protecting crime victims and helping them find justice.

4. Racial profiling prevents communities from working with law enforcement.

Unlike racial profiling, community policing has consistently been shown to work. The better the relationship between residents and police, the more likely residents are to report crimes, come forward as witnesses, and otherwise cooperate in police investigations.

But racial profiling tends to alienate black and Latino communities, reducing the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate crime in these communities. If police have already established themselves as enemies of a low-income black neighborhood, if there is no trust or rapport between police and residents, then community policing can't work. Racial profiling sabotages community policing efforts, and offers nothing useful in return.

5. Racial profiling is a blatant violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment states, very clearly, that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Racial profiling is, by definition, based on a standard of unequal protection. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be searched by police and less likely to be treated as law-abiding citizens; whites are less likely to be searched by police and more likely to be treated as law-abiding citizens. This is incompatible with the concept of equal protection.

6. Racial profiling can easily escalate into racially-motivated violence.

Racial profiling encourages police to use a lower standard of evidence for blacks and Latinos than they would for whites--and this lower standard of evidence can easily lead police, private security, and armed citizens to respond violently to blacks and Latinos out of a perceived "self-defense" concern. The case of Amidou Diallo, an unarmed African immigrant who was killed in a hail of 41 bullets by the NYPD for attempting to show officers his driver's license, is only one case among many. Reports of suspicious deaths involving unarmed Latino and black suspects trickle out of our nation's major cities on a regular basis.

7. Racial profiling is morally wrong.

Racial profiling is Jim Crow applied as a law enforcement policy. It promotes the internal segregation of suspects within the minds of police officers, and it creates a second-class citizenship for black and Latino Americans.

If one has reason to know or believe that a specific suspect is of a certain racial or ethnic background, then it makes sense to include that information in the profile. But that isn't what people generally mean when they talk about racial profiling. They mean discrimination prior to the introduction of data--the very definition of racial prejudice.

When we allow or encourage law enforcement agencies to practice racial profiling, we are ourselves practicing vicarious racial discrimination. That is unacceptable.

Racial Profiling

Retail Store Shoplifting

by Chris E McGoey, CPP, CSP, CAM

Does Profiling Exist?

The media often asks me if retail store security personnel use “profiling” tactics as a means of determining which customers are most likely to steal. The answer is undeniably, yes.

Profiling is a Tool

The concept of shoplifter profiling is a proven loss prevention tool and is currently being practiced in most major retail stores by trained loss prevention or security staff. Does that seem shocking? It shouldn't, as long as it doesn't include the discriminatory practice of focusing on the race of the customer alone. Profiling is used everyday as a method for quickly focusing in on a person, a product line or a section of a store most likely to contribute to shoplifting. All investigative agencies including the police, FBI, and others have used profiling as a tool to narrow the field of possible suspects. Why shouldn't retail store security be able to do the same? Store and customer profiles are developed during day-to-day operation and by collecting and analyzing inventory data. This data provides both a quantitative and a qualitative basis for determining where, when, how, and by whom shoplifting is likely to occur in the future.

A progressive retailer has numerous inventory controls in effect and at several levels. Every store should know what departments and which product lines have the greatest inventory loss based on audits, product movement analysis reports, shoplifter apprehensions, and by finding signs of theft. Professional retail loss prevention personnel are trained to know what day of the week, what time of day, what product lines, and what department will have the most shoplifting activity. Armed with this data, loss prevention personnel set out to observe shopper “conduct” in the most active areas and during the most active times. Profiling like this makes perfect business sense because it is legal and a good business practice.

There are other types of profiling based on store apprehension histories and industry experience that has taught LP professionals who to "include" and who to "exclude" when scanning the store for potential shoplifters. For example, one profile is that people rarely shoplift while in the presence of their spouse, significant other, or parents. After scanning these persons they might quickly be bypassed as theft candidates. Shoplifting is a crime of opportunity and desire. Trained loss prevention staff will spend most of their time observing those customers whose conduct demonstrates both opportunity and desire. For example, a customer standing alone in a remote aisle, carrying a large empty shopping bag, and looking from side-to-side would be immediately suspicious until their conduct proves otherwise.

A customer wearing tattered shoes might appear suspicious in a self-service shoe department until their conduct disproved a lack of desire to steal. A customer walking across a store carrying a small electronic item partially concealed in the palm of their hand might seem suspicious until several opportunities passed to conceal the product. In contrast, a customer wearing tailored shorts and a t-shirt may have the desire to steal, but will have little opportunity to conceal a large item of merchandise they are carrying. Based on profiling and shopper conduct, the professional plain-clothes security officer will scan thousands of customers a day and determine that 99% of them are legitimate shoppers.

Surveillance is Necessary

Believe me, merchants don’t like monitoring their customers to prevent theft, but they know that it’s a matter of economic survival. Merchants know that closely watching customers is bad public relations if done crudely. However, the retail industry loses over 31.3-Billion dollars every year and shoplifting represents about one-third of it. Customer surveillance is limited to the public areas where there is no expectation of privacy as opposed to inside fitting rooms and restrooms that are considered private areas. Knowing that you are under surveillance is an uneasy feeling. No one likes being watched and being made to feel like you’re not trustworthy. However, if trained professionals do the surveillance properly, most people will never realize they were observed while shopping. A problem can arise when untrained or unqualified security, loss prevention or off-duty police undertake the task of store surveillance. The majority of the complaints of racial profiling that I have seen in retail stores have to do with the perception of being stalked throughout the store in an effort to intimidate them into leaving.

Racial Profiling

Racial profiling is an improper and illegal practice based on the mistaken belief that certain ethnic groups are more likely to shoplift than others. Because of this, misguided store employees will focus their surveillance time on the customer's “color” rather than “conduct”. Racial bias can blind store personnel and cause them to monitor only the ethic minorities and ignore the real source of their inventory losses. Racial profiling eventually leads to a pattern of false theft accusations, wrongful detentions, and harassment when no real probable cause exists. The result is that a particular ethic group will be made to feel like they can't be trusted and are unwelcome in the store. African Americans call it "shopping while black". Unless the wrongful conduct is corrected by management, civil rights violations will occur and false arrest lawsuits will follow and sorely damage the reputation of the retailer.

Customer surveillance based solely on the race of a customer is not only improper but is an ineffective method of controlling losses due to shoplifting. The thought of racial profiling is distasteful. A 1999 Gallup poll confirmed that 81% of Americans disapprove of the practice. Despite this belief, the same poll indicated that 75% of African American men said they had been victims of racial profiling while shopping.

Most major retailers have published policies against discriminatory acts but few that I've seen specifically address racial profiling by it's security personnel. Not surprisingly, incidents are occurring, which feeds the question of how much racial profiling exists in retail stores? For example, in one major department store the security staff used radio codes (code 3) as an alert anytime a black shopper came into the area. In another store, 90% of the shoplifting apprehensions were of ethnic customers where the store demographic reports only showed a 15% minority customer base. And in still another store, sales associates were told by security officers to call them anytime an ethnic minority entered their sales area.

Hiring, Training, Supervision

The only way to eliminate racial profiling is to prohibit it from the top. Retail stores need to have clearly defined and articulated policies against security staffers practicing racial profiling and must have a zero tolerance for abuse. The hiring process is a good time to screen out poor candidates that seem predisposed to prejudice. Comprehensive retail security training is absolutely necessary to assure that employees know how to do the job appropriately and understand the rules of conduct. Off-duty police officers working as security need training too. You can't assume that they understand the law or will act appropriately and fairly towards all customers especially in the retail setting. Off duty police officers must follow store rules when on the clock and not resort to street tactics when dealing with store customers. During the training phase new loss prevention personnel should be taught how to observe customer conduct and not base surveillance decisions solely on the race of the customer. Supervisors should always be on the lookout for signs of racial prejudice in day-to-day conversation and in written reports. Violations should be addressed swiftly. If racial profiling becomes a factor in security staff surveillance and detentions, it’s because store management didn’t care enough to correct the problem or instead chose to ratify the behavior.

Racial Profiling - The Right Accelerator?

Racial profiling is of present interest because of the increasing demand for security around the world. (Racial) Profiling is practiced especially at airports at the moment, or at least that is where the critique is.

Profiling is a method that is used to characterize and to assess the risk of someone based on the specification of a general model or "profile". Originally used as a psychological instrument to determine some main characteristics of someone.

Is this useful, and when? It is useful for example for elaborating a diagnosis. Previously you have learned much about a certain disease and you want to find out if a patient is suffering such illness. "Borderline

Personality Disorder(BP): A Profile, ([http://mikeyaadopt.org/border2.htm])" is an example. The profile shows an in depth characteristic of the disease which helps the diagnoses of patients.

The advantage of profiling is that you can systemize your work. You setup a profile once and you only need to compare whether someone fits this sketch. It is a fast way of assessing complex situations. By using a profile you show to have done your homework and all that knowledge is available for accurate action; it facilitates the diagnosis of a patient.

Profiling is based on a concept of categorizing. It is the same method that Linnaeus used to make an inventory of living organisms; by defining characteristics, classifying and grouping. The main point against profiling is that the knowledge base could be wrong. You first have to characterize what you encounter, you build up knowledge and -- this is important - - all new examples you come across in life are related to the existing stock of knowledge. But a new accidental case could very much be that this new sample you have found is really new and does not fit in the profile box you had in mind.

Profiling may speed up things, but it increases also the exceptions. Errors are easily made. And the by-product of using it -- social unrest – could become more of a problem than the original cause by stigmatizing people.

You should not set aside the critique on racial profiling. Profiling should not interfere with our personal lives. It should be practice of investigate work and not reach the surface of (or interfere with) our society. Using it would mean going back to the Middle Ages; First you are condemned after which you have to prove "worthy."

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/285117

Profiling Passengers Pros & Cons

The threat of terrorism has made airport security measures a hot topic since 9/11. While passengers face ever-longer lists ofprohibited items, security experts increasingly argue that it is passengers themselves, not the contents of their bags, that need to be scrutinized. Those in the air travel business may agree, as the time and inconvenience of getting through airport security grows, making air travel unattractive to customers. If passenger profiling works, it would be an effective way to prevent terrorists from attacking and save time and money for everyone else.

Also of interest:

The history of Airline Security and International Terrorism, in images

Profiling Provokes Concerns over Civil LibertiesCivil Rights experts argue that passenger profiling violates passengers' civil rights. Any profiling system requires creating stereotypes of their objects based on existing information. So, because the 9/11

attackers were all Arab Muslims, Arab Muslims are more likely to be profiled than others, which violates basic ideas about Americans' equality. The chance that inaccuracies and prejudice will make their way into the system is good.

Profiling's Effectiveness Remains to Be ProvenProfiling may not actually be effective. Profiling, when it replaces baggage screening, can have a negative effect on overall security, according to the American Civil Liberties Union: In 1972, the last year the United States used profiles to determine whose carry-on luggage would be X-rayed to stop hijacking, there were 28 hijackings of U.S. aircraft anyway. Hijacking dropped off when profiling was abandoned and every passenger's carry-on luggage was X-rayed.

Despite these concerns, the positive signs that profiling can work may make it a valuable tool, among others, to increase airport security.

Latest Developments

The August, 2006 arrest of 24 men planning to blow up aircraft leaving Heathrow's airport using a combination of innocuous liquids re-opened the debate about effective airport screening. Later in the week, the British government announced that it is considering a passenger profiling system that would go beyond simply identifying passengers with specific racial or ethnic backgrounds.

Amid extra security measures, delays and skyrocketing threat levels for passengers, analysts concluded that current hand-baggage screening technology is probably not sufficient to identify all potential bomb components, especially homemade ones. "The trouble with airport security measures is that a lot of machines do not spot a lot of explosives. It is still a case of dogs and people taking their clothes off," said Andy Oppenheimer, a Jane's Nuclear Biological Chemical Defense editor.

Background

Airline passenger profiling got its official start in 1994, when Northwest Airlines began developing a computer-assisted passenger pre-screening system (CAPPS). Following suspicions that the July 1996 crash of a TWA flight might have involved a bomb, the government began making recommendations that profiling through CAPPS be made routine.

Civil Liberties organizations raised concerns that such programs are discriminatory. Their use remained widespread, however, and both a 1997 Justice Department report and 1998 Senate Subcommittee aviation hearings concluded that CAPPS was being implemented in a fair way. They recommended Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) oversight to make sure that profiling remained fair.

Concerns about terrorism following 9/11 and advances in electronic information collection and gathering have raised the stakes. Following September 11, the department of Homeland Security developed two programs, CAPPS II and the Secure Flight Program, both of which have been controversial on civil liberties grounds. CAPPS II, which required passengers to provide personal information when they made reservations, has been abandoned. Secure Flight requires airlines to share the names of passengers with the government for comparison with a centralized list of terrorist names.

The government is also experimenting with low-tech forms of passenger profiling based on behavior pattern recognition. Security officers use the technique to flag passengers who seem to be acting suspiciously. While it is behavior, not race or ethnicity, that's being tagged, there are concerns that behavior pattern recognition can turn easily into racial profiling, or subject innocent people to illegal searches without a good pretext. The Screening Passengers by Observation Technique program, known as SPOT, has been in use in major city airports since 2004.

The Case for Profiling

Passenger Profiling Can Prevent TerrorismWhile behavior pattern recognition hasn't yet stopped any terrorists, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting that it can. Officers using behavior pattern recognition techniques at major U.S. airports have successfully stopped people with fake identification, and others wanted for drug possession or other crimes. The threat of terrorism warrants adding these techniques to existing baggage screening technology.

Passenger Profiling is a Race-Neutral TechniqueBehavior pattern recognition is a race-neutral profiling technique in which screeners look for how people act, rather than the shade of their skin. In fact, profilers are prohibited from relying on race or other discriminatory factors to identify potential terrorists. A program analyst for the Transportation Security Administration called SPOT an "antidote to racial profiling....If you look for a certain race or ethnicity, you're making a big mistake."

As for screening technologies that make use of electronic databases, our elected officials and others can pressure the government to notify the public that private information is being used, and adhere to other requirements. In fact, requiring the government to use technologies and techniques in an ethical way would be a great way to move beyond the well-debated conflict between liberty and security. The government can provide Americans with both by appropriately using profiling technology and methods.

The Case against Profiling

Passenger Profiling Doesn't Prevent TerrorismTerrorists may go undetected by behavior pattern recognition profiling, despite the technique's success in capturing other criminals. Terrorists may be trained for long periods in how to control suspicious behaviors. And there are no existing profile templates for how terrorists behave, so it would be difficult to come up with a profile that predicts their specific ways of behaving.

Profiling Can Amount to an Ethnic Witch HuntThere is such a high likelihood that profiling will turn into an ethnic witch hunt that it is not worth risking its use. The British implementation of similar profiling in August 2006 immediately provoked a Muslim police officer to call it"an extreme form of stereotyping."Such a move by American authorities is likely to provoke similarly justified outrage, and in the process damage the United States' already troubled relationship with Islamic communities, both domestically and abroad.

Profiling Technologies Violate Passengers' Privacy RightsNorthwest Airlines' release of private citizens' information to NASA in 2001-2002 suggests that neither the public nor private sector is interested in preserving Americans' right to privacy. The availability of technology that encourages the coordination and use of even more personal information will make it increasingly difficult to enforce civil liberties, and although violations of rights may be discovered after the fact, the damage will already have been done.

Stopping terrorists before they strike is key to protecting Americans' security. But protecting the country also means aiming to protect its ideals. At the least, it would be ironic if the quest to protect the ideals of American freedom cost Americans their civil liberties.