To begin I would like to state that I believe racial profiling does not work on many levels. Racial profiling is morally wrong mainly based on Middle Easterners, African Americans and Hispanics. I also believe that it may be considered as an act of antagonism. Racial profiling does nothing but provoke hostilities and create tension between the races. It creates various sociological problems and a turbulent environment. Racial profiling entails picking someone out for special scrutiny, simply because of his or her race.
It happens when highway police officers pull over black people who have committed no traffic violations of any sort and ignoring whites, presuming that they are more likely to be involved in criminal acts. Statistics have shown that although Black and Hispanics drivers are more likely to be pulled over, they are least likely to be found with weapons or drugs. What this proves is the failure and incapability of law enforcements to spot criminal activity regardless the race.
Some may argue that racial profiling is fair and is logical; they say that if an African American committed a crime, profiling and focusing on the information will increase their chance of catching them. They also say that even if you are profiled for something you did not do, how hard should it be to prove your innocence? How hard should it be to prove your guilt? First of all, profiling cannot be justified simply because they are similar to the committer, that would be discriminating and a violation to their civil rights.
Charles Mills' The Racial Contract Theses 8, 9 and 10 I. Thesis 8: The Racial Contract tracts the moral / political consciousness of (most) white moral agents (Most controversial chapter) a. A naturalized account (actual) will help to lead to a prescription. Based on a racialize d moral psychology (p. 93): Whites act racist without even realizing it. b. Much of the chapter is a long explanation of ...
Second of all, it is very hard to prove one’s guilt if you are the only one aware of your innocence. In fact it is estimated that 1 percent of the Australian prison population, approximately 5,000 people, are falsely convicted. Racial Profiling is wrong, and stereotyping certain races as having a greater propensity to commit crimes should be prohibited. It degrades the victim’s psyche by treating them as second-class citizens. It generalizes, it suggests that minorities are criminals and are appropriate of profiling. Not to mention that profiling by countries such as Australia and The United
States is hypocritical, countries that promote liberty, freedom and ideals of justice should not violate its citizen’s by this matter. Now, I would like to give a famous example about racial profiling. On February 26th, 2012. Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African American high school student was staying at a gated community in Sanford, Florida. This was also where George Zimmerman gunned him down. Before the killing, Zimmerman reportedly called 911 to report a “real suspicious black guy”. According to Zimmerman’s testimony, Zimmerman shot Martin, who was unarmed during an altercation between the two.
Zimmerman was later taken into custody, which was then released because there was no evidence to refute his claim of having acted in self-defense. This is a clear example on why racial profiling should perish from today’s society. Ultimately, racial profiling is misleading, inaccurate generalizations that is detrimental to our society. It’s not only a violation of human rights, but it has also been proven ineffective. Many studies have shown that race doesn’t have a strong influence on the number of criminals caught. Using race-neutral methods, such as behaviour, is beneficial to our security and society, while racial profiling is not.