RACIAL PROFILING

Racial Profiling

[Subtitle]

[Name]

[University]

1|Page
RACIAL PROFILING

Can racial profiling be ethical? Racial Profiling is prejudging an individual on the basis of color

of their skin. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (2015), racial profiling can be

defined as biased and unfair practices adopted by law officers of targeting a person on the basis of

the person’s color, religion, race or origin. Many cases have been registered in which law

enforcement officials targeted individuals for suspicions of crime, without having any strong

evidence (American-Civil-Liberties-Union, 2015). Examples of such racial profiling include

police officers stopping Black or Spanish drivers for no reason at all, or for minor traffic law

neglect, or having a suspicion that a black individual might be carrying drugs or weapons without

adequate proof. White colored individuals are given special relaxation as their minor traffic law

violations are commonly ignored in such cases. After the well-known 9/11 attack on WTC towers,

a dramatic increase in racial profiling was seen, of Muslim Individuals. Even, individuals from the

Middle East were also subjected to racial profiling; especially, at airports when ‘random selection’

checking was performed on Muslims.

Racial profiling has another important aspect, discriminatory omissions. ACLU defines

discriminatory omission as when a law enforcement officer deliberately chooses to overlook law

offences on the basis of color or race of the offender (American-Civil-Liberties-Union, 2015). This

aspect of racial profiling was heavily dominant during the civil rights era when certain secret

societies such as the Ku Klux Klan would not be punished for extreme offences such as killing

Black people for no reasons. Even the law enforcement chiefs had knowledge of what the KKK

did, but they refrained from taking any action against them since the KKK were white and the

victims were black.

In many cases, the Law Enforcement justified these violations of human rights by accusing

the individuals of being criminals, by producing a criminal profile based on a witness statement,

2|Page
RACIAL PROFILING

or by simply saying that they were caught in act of committing serious crimes (Lever, 2011). Some

individuals even believe that racial profiling can prove to be an effective way to minimize crimes

(Harris, 2003). Although multiple arguments can be raised to support this belief on the basis of

various instances, and multiple arguments can be raised against such belief; however, it is ethically

wrong to profile an individual on the basis of their race or color.

The Markulla Center for Applied Ethics defines the fair and ethical approach as all the

individuals, irrespective of their races or religions, should be treated in the same manner, unless

they are found involved in a particular situation (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, S.J., & Meyer, Justice

and Fairness, 2014). When it comes to racial profiling, the individuals are subjected to profiling

on the basis of their races and country of origins, which becomes unfair and unjust; since it does

not seem fair to target only one or some races and leaving out the rest. Such scenarios can suggest

that a certain race is superior to other races, while some races might seem inferior to others.

Further, the superior races are privileged to do whatever they want, without worrying about getting

accused of crimes that they did not commit. Such privileges are not available to profiled races.

Harris, Professor at Pittsburg, sees racial profiling as a cause of violation of a fair and just

environment, especially for Latinos; since they are affected more than the white people, even if

the evidence does not exist (Harris, 2003).

Corlett says that races which are commonly profiled are not found to be connected with

serious crimes (Corlett, 2011). In many cases, no strong evidence exists to support the racial

profiling of these people. When crime statistics are observed, it can be seen that Whites are most

frequently involved in crimes. But even with that, it remains true that the race or color of an

individual cannot determine how likely a person is to commit a crime. A study conducted in 2015

3|Page
RACIAL PROFILING

showed that only 1 percent of Muslims in America were found to have any connection with

terrorism, and the rate was decreasing since the 9/11 attacks (KURZMAN, 2015).

The loss to stakeholders is far greater than the overall good done to community, in racial

profiling. Harris (2003) studied data from few years and found that the rates at which officials

minimize the carrying of illegal things, undermines the long-established belief in effectiveness of

racial profiling (Harris, 2003). Officers are generally distracted by it, since they cannot analyze the

situation, rendering them to rely on methods which have been found unproductive. The second

stakeholder is the targeted individual here. Due to racial profiling, an air of mistrust and disbelief

exists between the officials and profiled groups. However, for the successful establishment of

peace in an area / community, it is always necessary that the law enforcement agencies are trusted

by all individuals (including the profiled groups). Breaking this trust is not worth, even if the

profiling might yield an effective result for some cases, since the mistrust comes along with a

number of other side-effects which include a sense of insecurity among the targeted groups, an

uproar in crime and so on. The crime in the region can increase because the targeted group thinks

that the law enforcement is against them, and they might want to correct things by taking the law

in their own hands. When the costs win over benefits to the community, it can be said that racial

profiling is unethical on the basis of the common good approach. It has been seen that racial

profiling is more harmful to communities than advantageous. There can be, however, an argument

raised against it which might say that ethical guidelines have been set up for profiling. These

guidelines help in narrowing down the suspects for a particular crime by getting descriptions of

the criminal. Factors which might help the law enforcement in narrowing down the suspect include

age, height, style, hair color, and clothing etc.

4|Page
RACIAL PROFILING

However, this argument is based on the assumption that racial profiling is not ethically

wrong. Annabelle Lever says that racial profiling is ethically unjust, even if there is a possibility

that it might help in security matters (Lever, 2011).

Analyzing the issue, it can be said that racial profiling is ethically wrong, seen from fairness and

justice approach or the common good approach. Even, when it comes to employing rights approach

to ethics, it can be seen that racial profiling cannot be justified. Racial profiling clearly is in

violation of constitutional rights of an individual to be secured from being searched unlawfully;

therefore it can be said here that it directly disregards rights approach (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks,

S.J., & Meyer, Rights, 2014).

Racial profiling is a discriminatory practice which does not get general acceptance because

it uses race / religion to judge whether a person can potentially commit a crime or not. Even ethical

guidelines have been set up for profiling, still, this exercise is clearly in violation of the rights of

individuals. Further, it can be seen as a weapon to increase prejudices and sense of inequality

among citizens, especially minorities. Still, it has not been proven that race can be used as a marker

or measure of potential to commit a crime. Therefore, it is not just to subject an individual to

profiling based on their race or religion. This unfair practice has been seen to violate multiple

approaches of ethics. Can racial profiling be ethical? No, no one can be judged based on their skin

color since it is a clear violation of predetermined ethics and no benefit for the community can be

derived from it.

5|Page
RACIAL PROFILING

References

American-Civil-Liberties-Union. (2015). ACLU. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/

Corlett, J. A. (2011). Profiling Color. The Journal of Ethics, 21-32.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-010-9093-8

Harris, D. A. (2003). Profiles in Injustice: Why Racial Profiling Cannot Work. New York: The

New Press. Retrieved August 7, 2018

KURZMAN, C. (2015). Terrorism Cases Involving Muslim-Americans, 2014. Triangle Center on

Terrorism and Homeland Security. Retrieved August 7, 2018, from

https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_Terrorism_Cases_Involving_Muslim-

Americans_2014.pdf

Kurzman, C., Schanzer, D., & Moosa, E. (2011). Muslim American Terrorism Since 9/11: Why

So Rare? The Muslim World, 464-483. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-

1913.2011.01388.x

Lever, A. (2011). Treating People as Equals: Ethical Objections to Racial Profiling and the

Composition of Juries. The Journal of Ethics, 62-78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-

010-9094-7

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., S.J., & Meyer, M. J. (2014, August 1). Justice and Fairness.

Retrieved August 7, 2018, from Markula Center For Applied Ethics:

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/justice-and-fairness/

6|Page
RACIAL PROFILING

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., S.J., & Meyer, M. J. (2014, August 8). Rights. Retrieved

August 7, 2018, from Markula Center For Applied Ethics:

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/rights/

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., S.J., & Meyer, M. J. (2014, August 2). The Common Good.

Retrieved August 7, 2018, from Markula Center For Applied Ethics:

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/the-common-good/

7|Page