Silent march to end stop and frisk and racial profiling” by longislandwins – Flickr: Silent march to end stop and frisk and racial profiling. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
AMERICA OF TWO MINDS
On Racial Profiling: Two Views
VIEW #1: racial profiling is necessary and justified, mainly because some individuals among minorities (people with distinguishably darker skin-tones than Caucasians) commit crimes. People, in their need to feel safe, are willing to accept such police tactics as a way to give law enforcement an edge in the never-ending battle to reduce crime, especially in major urban areas: medium-to-large cities with large ghettos.The issue appears less pressing in small to medium-sized towns and rural areas where crimes of all kind, and especially violent offenses, tend to be far less frequent than in major metropolises like New York, Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, and Philadelphia in the East and Great Lakes region—to say nothing of nearly every other major city of the Midwest, South, and West as well. Indeed, the sheer size of the city itself seems to be more of a decisive factor than its geographical location within the country when it comes to the amount of “street crime” committed—and, as a corollary, the number of people ready and willing to accept an expansion of such police strategies. If they don’t approve racial profiling outright, they condone it silently by looking the other way.VIEW #2: Racial profiling is wrong because it stereotypes and marginalizes certain groups: historically, those racial and ethnic minorities that typically have suffered the most discrimination in our nation’s history. It is wrong because it is an affront to the American sense of equality, fair play, and due process. In this view, it is unjustifiable from both a legal and moral viewpoint as contrary to American constitutional principles. Further, it is these principles that must take precedence over strategies based on fear, mistrust, and so-called “practicality”.In short, racial profiling as a police tactic cannot be tolerated from a democratic and “equal rights” point of view. No one group should be singled out as more likely to commit crimes, regardless of what sociological surveys or prison reports might tell us about racial percentages when it comes to crime and prisoners. Those reports are “after the fact” and do not address the underlying causes of crime or alternative ways of improving law enforcement policies.Effective police work, including public safety, does not need to depend on racial profiling, a policy (official or unofficial) which allows the civil rights of certain groups to be undermined by law enforcement figures. This is unacceptable since protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is a clearly defines constitutional right (Fourth Amendment). In sum, such an approach invites abuse on the part of the police and creates fear in ordinary people who worry that–because of the color of their skin–they may have an unnecessary encounter with police for the slightest of pretexts, an encounter which could become unpleasant at best and dangerous at worst.Besides African-Americans, brown-skinned undocumented Hispanics also worry lest their homes, families, jobs, and schooling are torn apart by a single traffic stop; their whole world could suddenly be turned upside down. This type of fear lessens their trust in police officers and may make their cooperation with law enforcement in other matters less likely rather than more likely.COMMENTARY ON VIEWS #1 AND #2:Thus far, we have the two main opposing poles of the issue. These ideas can be modified or amended with various thematic subsets but in general this is a brief overview of the main intellectual divide. Perhaps we should acknowledge briefly a middle ground where another point of view exists: namely, that racial profiling (direct or indirect) is hardly an ideal police practice but, given the amount of crime flourishing in our cities, it may be one of those social policies we should be willing to “wink at.” Not in favor but not opposed either: a kind of curious muddled middle ground where neither commitment to constitutional principles nor all-out support for expanded police tactics is clearly defined. Racial profiling is a small evil aimed at achieving a larger good, right?One might also add, in all fairness, that many of those people who favor expanding the discretion of law enforcement officers so policemen can stop and question individuals, do not necessarily condone “racial profiling” or racism. It is sometimes assumed by the other side that anyone who supports such strategies can do so for only one reason, because privately they are bigots. That is a bit of a “straw dog argument”. There may be racists among those who support such policies but it does not follow that all such law-and-order supporters are therefore racists.Rather, in the view of some Americans, such racial profiling is acceptable because it is based on the policeman’s presumed good judgment: minorities are not meant to be targeted because of the color of their skin but only as circumstances suggest. If minorities are stopped by the police in areas where crime is rampant, that is as much a reflection of poverty, segregated neighborhoods, and existing social conditions as it is anything else. Not all such traffic stops in crime-blighted areas automatically mean unwarranted targeting; not every example of racial profiling proves “pre-judgment” or “over-the-top” actions due to police prejudice. They are just “doing their jobs”.FURTHER COMMENTARY ON VIEWS #1 AND #2:The real problem involves the 800 pound gorilla in the room; it is apparently impolitic to even mention poverty and crime in the same breath but gangs and drug trafficking exist in many ghettoes and barrios, however much we might wish it to be otherwise. Of course, this problem comes close to “the chicken and the egg” conundrum: which comes first, poverty or crime, criminal conduct or racial profiling?One must be especially careful here to avoid “a priori” reasoning by blindly asserting something as true that is not true or at least not yet proven—rather like a conviction before a trial has commenced. Policemen are not free to accept as truths “facts not in evidence”: for instance, the belief that minorities commit more crimes than anyone else is not necessarily a true statement, no matter how many persons may believe it to be true. The majority of unlawful acts in this country are actually white collar crimes in nature, even though “street crimes” get far more attention in the media.The principles of sociology caution us to gather hard facts concerning American society; we should not merely assume as true those ideas which most conveniently support what we would like to see happen next—but this issue touches a live nerve and is generally not conducive to weighing actual facts. In the spirit of Mark Twain we can all say “damn the statistics” before we even see them. Everyone knows the answer and has his or her mind made up already: “the other side is wrong; I’m right, end of discussion.” Compromise is not likely when each side is so self-assured and inflexible.Still, as regards “a third point of view” in this matter, one can afford to be somewhat generous in suggesting that many states and citizens are genuinely concerned with safety. They wish to maintain America’s reputation as a nation of laws with a justice system that apprehends and prosecutes suspected criminals regardless of color or ethnicity. The laws should apply equally to all. To that end, it is neither moral nor lawful should any police department adopt policies based on prejudice against minorities.Arrests should not be race-based and prosecutions not driven by prejudice—but if suspects happen to be Black or Brown, they cannot be given a lesser prosecutorial level of zeal based on past historical injustices. Many moderate Americans base their beliefs on a firm commitment to an impartial application of the law equally to all, and not because they are operating from a reason-destroying prejudice against minorities.In other words, policies allowing police greater latitude in enforcing the laws are not necessarily intended to target minorities, but if minorities commit crimes they cannot be shown any special leniency. The courts may uphold expanded police powers on the good faith belief that crime, not race, is the issue. The equal application of the law is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways; on the one hand, the law protects minorities against being singled out for discriminatory practices. On the other hand, it refuses them any special protection from arrest and prosecution: a “justice is blind” attitude which may or may not affect them more frequently than others.This is due not to racism alone but to underlying social and economic conditions as well. There is a certain happy plausibility to imagining a large number of Americans who are concerned primarily with the fairness and enforcement of the law without regard to race or color. However, in certain areas of the country it is nevertheless understood that racial and ethnic minorities are much more likely to be stopped by police than Caucasians, especially when the inevitable differences in personal wealth and class status are leveraged into the picture. White people living in comfortable middle class suburbs or wealthy enclaves are far less likely to be stopped by police than minorities living in poor rundown sections of towns and cities: that’s a given.The rich are not likely to be street criminals, whatever else of an illegal nature the corrupt ones among them may be hiding. They also have money and lawyers with which to fight improper police conduct, should the need arise. They are more likely to know people in high places as well as know how to make use of their knowledge of the law, personal connections, and the like. Money creates both the reality and illusion of propriety and respectability; money may not be the ultimate test of a person’s character, but having enough of it certainly tends to remove one from unnecessary hassles, entanglements, and suspicions. The police are simply far more likely to pay attention to minorities living in the worst rundown sections of towns and cities. Even if such patterns of probability are not always fully addressed during this discussion of the rights and limitations of police powers, these geographical concerns regarding class, race, and location exert a powerful influence on the overall debate concerning racial profiling, to say nothing of actual police practice.GANGS IN THE ‘HOOD:The day-to-day reality can have a powerful effect on partisan advocates operating on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, the 800 pound gorilla in the room also has a twin, which is to say, another issue almost too hot to handle. No one wants to come right out and say poor neighborhoods (which house many honest people) are involved in a lot more street crime than wealthier neighborhoods because that is just one step away from suggesting that the poorest neighborhoods, usually peopled by minorities, commit more crimes than people living anywhere else: i.e., “minorities are criminals”.It is also one step away from suggesting class, as well as race, should be considered in discussions of any solutions, even though addressing “class” is considered a social taboo. Eventually one ends up right back at the politically incorrect conclusion everyone is so desperate to avoid: put bluntly, Black people and other minorities commit more crime than white people which is why they are profiled more often than others, and the “you-know-what” hits the proverbial fan once again.In sum (more politely phrased) some street-wise law-breakers living in poor neighborhoods commit their fair share of crimes. This illegal activity leads to more frequent encounters with the police who in turn suspect them and their friends the more readily, leading to racial profiling–and around and around everyone goes on America’s favorite merry-go-round. It may be a relatively small percentage of individuals living in these areas who actually engage in drug trafficking, robbery and murder–but the stereotype spreads rapidly and widely nonetheless.Individuals who join gangs can be easily balanced, numerically speaking, by the large number of good kids from strong families: students who stay in school and attend college, parents with steady jobs who work hard and pay taxes, diverse and friendly families who contribute to the building of strong communities. Many of the long-time resident families have middle class values and aspirations; they save and invest their money to buy cars, houses, vacations, and all the rest. Such families are among the hardest working in the nation; minority families understand they have to apply themselves diligently in order to achieve success through hard work and an unrelenting commitment to goals and dreams. The news media tend to focus on the negative stereotypes—we hear precious little of the positive.Nevertheless, it also remains true that it is not unusual for a separate subculture to develop around gangs who traffic in drugs and other illicit activity wherever barrios, ghettos, and run-down neighborhoods exist. Crime flourishes where poverty and unemployment are the highest, and where the buying of guns and drugs has been made all too easy. White gangs exist too, such as the prison-born Aryan Brotherhood, but it tends to be the Black and Latino gangs that are covered most frequently in the media and provoke the most fear. “People” want the gang members to be arrested and the gangs to go away, so large sections of the general public will be quick to support ever stronger anti-crime and anti-gang measures: three strikes and you’re out; gang-aimed curfews; putting teenagers on trial as adults; mandatory sentencing; enhanced-charges added to crimes involving gang membership; etc.There are certainly reasonable counter-arguments that can be made in favor of spending more money on preventive policies through education, medical care, housing, and unemployment if society wishes to reduce crime, but those are serious long-term policies that take time to understand and even longer to implement. In the meanwhile, the epidemic of prison building, and the privatization thereof, goes on apace faster than anyone ever dreamed. America is fast approaching the two million mark in the number of Americans behind bars, far exceeding every other nation on earth. The proliferation of inmates incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses has skyrocketed and pushed the total prisoner population through the roof! The percentage of minorities behind bars far exceeds their percentage of the general population as a whole—once again, that returns us to the question of “why”.“Racial profiling” may be part of the problem but it is hardly the whole problem, cause and effect, all by itself. It may have deleterious consequences which should be reviewed carefully; objections to its widespread use are based on real life experiences of both citizens and police officers. To even approach the topic, one must commit to a careful balancing of concern over public safety with the constitutional rights of all, regardless of ethnic or racial identity.Be that as it may, it is not enough to denounce and oppose profiling as merely an expression of frustrated racism, a strategy being imposed upon an unwilling public. There are many citizens who gladly believe the policeman’s hands should be untied: that is, police departments should be free to pursue whatever policies they believe work best to combat crime. Yet studies show that racial profiling has not been particularly successful in reducing crime, but where fear is a motivating factor, many people are willing to overlook the absence of results.BORN TO WIN, BORN TO LOSE:Indeed, it is the probably pattern of what will occur next–as a result of allowing police to stop and question any individual–that is the real crux of the matter. This “probability” weighs more heavily in the air than any mere theoretical discussion of the pros and cons of increasing or decreasing police authority. The real problem, the real fear, does not begin until the actual questionable traffic stop occurs.Inevitably, the two issues become inseparable: increasing police powers invites discussion of “racial profiling” which in turn invites discussion of what this will “look like” and “feel like” for America’s ethnic and racial minorities. This conversation is distinctly different from what this “will look like and feel like” for those living and working in the middle class (or higher) social stratum: the comfortable, the large income’d, the well-off, the rich.Those comfortably well off are far less likely to mind such proposed changes as expanded police powers as they are far less likely to have anything to fear—such policies will seldom create any negative consequences for them. Not so for many others! The “successful” are at little risk of being stopped, searched, harassed or abused by the police in the first instance. The probability of being stopped follows the fault lines of class to a greater extent than is generally acknowledged. Naturally, minorities (and civil libertarians) are likely to oppose such an increase in police powers as the potential for abuse does affect them.CAUSE AND EFFECT:For members of the middle and upper class, nothing is likely to change for them personally. Class status, as well as race and ethnicity, cannot help but play its role here, even if in invisible and unspoken ways. Hence, in a very real sense, both sides are partly right and both sides are partly wrong. Neither side should consider it completely vindicated so long as it is unable to grasp one rational thread from the camp of the opposing side. The schism may be real, it may be artificially contrived, but in either instance it is yet again symptomatic of a nation in grave crisis, intellectually and morally.We should not be surprised that the whole debate over racial profiling may strike the “haves” in society as silly or unimportant or irrelevant. Since “stops gone bad” won’t impact them personally, in their eyes such a policy appears relatively harmless. They tend to be blissfully unaware that repressed anger in a minority community may cause an ordinary encounter between a policeman and a resident to escalate rapidly and dangerously out of control, especially if the resident feels the policeman instigated the contact unjustly and without proper cause.When Americans feel they are being unfairly targeted, resentments build. Conflict and deadly riots have grown out of such encounters before—and may do so again. Racial profiling for the well-to-do is hardly a top priority worry; the police do not knowingly bother the rich. For those living in the best neighborhoods, racial profiling refers to a policy not applicable to them; it refers to a policy to be applied to others in a faraway place. Racial profiling, however, for those individuals at greatest risk for being profiled and stopped is considered quite a grave personal threat: immediate, high risk, and potentially explosive.Resentment toward previous episodes of police misconduct can build and build for years; it only takes a small spark to ignite the volatile fuel of distrust deposited by decades of racism. Clearly, those well off financially have less reason to object to racial profiling (of others) since they are far less likely to have anything to fear—such policies will seldom create any unfortunate consequences for them.By contrast, African Americans and Hispanic Americans see racial profiling as a real problem on a day to day basis. They are more likely to oppose proposals to expand police powers when compared to propertied families where nothing of this nature—an unwarranted police stop based on skin color—is ever likely to happen to them. Class status, as well as race and ethnicity, cannot help but play its pivotal role here, as always, even if in its usual devious and invisible way.It may be that our country, America, is actually developing an acute case of national schizophrenia. The author half-expects one day to see America go screaming down the road in the middle of the night as the symptoms worsen and the country finally loses its ability to control the ravages of this rampaging schizophrenia eating away at the heart of our democracy. We are only in the early stages of the disease, were a diagnosis to be offered; like other mental illnesses, it becomes ever harder to control once begun, while the chances of the patient experiencing worsening episodes increase exponentially.DISEASE AND CURE:Regardless of the pros and cons of the above arguments concerning “racial profiling”, one should not fail to see that America herself sometimes appears sick and unable to heal racial wounds, both historic and current. We may be moving out of the arena of rational and fair-minded debate into the hell-hole of doctrinaire inflexibility, violent passions, and endlessly confused ad conflicting rationalizations. And yet, despite these outward manifestations of a nation succumbing to the ravages of mental illness, America has the potential to face and solve her problems if we act now, intelligently and with compassion. If we do not, we must also recognize that these wanton displays of early-onset insanity will likely become, slowly but surely, “the new norm”.The politicians and wealthy cliques at the helm—as heads of state of both the political forum and the economic marketplace—no matter how insane, will continue in their “leadership” roles for the foreseeable future. And, as far as is known as of this writing, there is neither doctor nor medicine of sufficient strength in the American House of Democracy to bring them to their senses. We are being ruled by a Clique of the Insane and we must make the best of an appalling and sometimes desperate situation that will continue to worsen and split the nation further and further asunder before a remedy appears—so we must needs make the best if it—for now.
