An Ethical Critique of racial profiling essay

The paper deals with racial profiling as social and ethical phenomenon. It examines the problem of racial profiling definition in contemporary studies. Different viewpoints on racial profiling are represented in the paper. It provides the viewpoints of all the parties involved into conflict caused by regular practice of racial profiling. The arguments for and against racial profiling are explained and systematized in the paper.  Utilitarianism is used as the theoretical ground for investigating racial profiling as social and ethical phenomenon. The paper also discusses the problem of relevant data collection of facts of racial profiling regular practicing by police officers.

Introduction

Racial profiling has become the issue of numerous social and scientific debates recently. Scholars tend to investigate this phenomenon from various sides and have not come to a mutual understanding of the term and its relation to racial discrimination and other abusive practices. Most scholars tend to study and to systematize the cases of racial profiling in a particular community, area or on global level. Though, the problem of universal system of data collection remains unsolved. Scholars are concerned about the factors that should be taken into consideration while collecting data and calculating the results.  Various reports and research provide quite different results. So, it becomes evident that racial profiling is a complicated phenomenon and should be studied carefully. A number of the researches tend to demonstrate the regular basis of racial profiling practice in various areas. Though, the results may not be treated as relevant. However, we should be aware that the problem exists in all the communities. The necessity of its discussing and solving the conflict situation between the police officials and the representatives of racial/ethnic minorities is evident. Various ethical value systems demonstrate different approaches to the problem of racial profiling and suggest argument to support this practice and to reproach it. Though, in most cases racial profiling raises a number of ambiguities and concomitant dilemmas. Much attention is paid to the problem of definition of the term. Different factors may be emphasized in the definition which may lead to a kind of misunderstanding. As every social phenomenon, racial profiling tends to have its defenders and those who are against this practice. Though, here we should admit that originally two sides who represent opposite viewpoints are the conflicting parties of police officials and racial/ ethical minority groups. However, their consideration should not be seen as the key concepts in studying the phenomenon. All the factors and contextual details should be carefully considered.

The definition of racial profiling

The term “racial profiling” emerged in mid-1990s to characterize particular types of police practices. However, we should note that those practices started a decade earlier (Heumann and Cassak, 2003). Originally the term was used to describe the practice of police officers who regularly stopped motorists in search of illegal drugs. Their tactic was based on particular characteristics of potential delinquents which involved a number of characteristics including a race of a person. The practice spread thus, the term became frequently used. It started being associated with any case of improper use of race factor in criminal situations. So, racial profiling refers to the police practice of identifying particular characteristics as the factors for an individual’s criminal behavior. According to David Harris (2002) racial profiling is the use of race or ethnic characteristics as the basic factor to decide whether an individual should be suspected of a crime. Glover (2009) states that racial profiling is a modern manifestation of earlier racial discriminating practices which existed for centuries and were transforming in the course of time. Profiling is considered to be a wide-spread law enforcement strategy. It is seen as an effective crime prevention and crime solving tactic. “Racial profiling” is quite a new term and there is an ambiguity about its meaning. In general the term is related to the behavior of police officers when they suspect an individual in committing a crime and initiate his checking based on his being among some racial and ethnical minority. David Cole (1999) suggests two clearly formulated definitions of the term: a narrow and a broad one.

Narrow definition is typically applied to the cases when police officers initiate checking, questioning or arresting of an individual based on his race or ethnicity. This definition is mostly used in negative meaning. It is often associated with racial discrimination, though scholars try to provide other possible factors that can be important in such situations. The broader definition of racial profiling is used to denote the case when police officers take race of ethnicity of an individual as one of a number of factors that guide them in their decision to suspect a person. Other factors that can be taken into account may include age, time of day (night), territory (far from his house location), suspicious clothes etc. Thus, broader definition of the term may be applied when racial or ethnical factor is used along with the other factors that can provoke suspicion.

Different viewpoints on racial profiling

Viewpoints on racial profiling vary greatly. Racial profiling became the issue of constant debates and numerous studies. We are going to present several prominent ones.

Both scholars and members of racial or ethnical minority groups claim that racial profiling is a widespread practice nowadays. Scholars conduct numerous researches and collect data providing evidence to the fact, while people who become the victims of racial profiling regularly try to draw community attention to the problem. The data which are revealed in recent studies confirm that racial profiling being is used by police officers as a frequent practice. As for the public perception of this tactic of crime prevention and crime solving, most studies show that people admit that this practice exist and is quite widespread. Representatives of racial or ethnical minorities sate that they have undergone such actions. They believe that their racial and ethnical identity was the main factor for them to be under suspicion.  Another viewpoint denies the existence of racial profiling and particularly emphasizing that racial and ethnical identity is seen as the main factor that influences police officers decision about an individual being engage into some crime. Police officials emphasize other factors to be determinant for them. They may include some suspicious actions or driving violations. Police officials deny that such practice as racial profiling exists in their units.

Engel et al. (2002) presents the data collection of 13 reports concerning racial profiling and insists that the results of the research can not be interpreted in a proper way, as most of the investigations lack strong theoretical background. Not all the factors and specifications were taken into consideration. Thus, the problem of racial profiling as a widespread practice remains unsolved.

Utilitarianism as an ethical theory

Utilitarianism is the best known branch of consequentialism. This theory treats morality as maximization of utility for all the parties engaged into the decision or influenced by this decision or act. Although variations of utilitarianism have been formulated and discussed  since ancient times, the modern ideas related utilitarianism are mostly associated with the name of John Stuart Mill (1806- 1873), the British philosopher. He put forward the main concepts of the theory developing it from the more simplified variant of Jeremy Bentham (1748- 1832). Mill claimed that the key principle of utilitarianism is that actions are considered to be proper to the degree that they promote the greatest benefit for the largest number of individuals. All the measures that are used by utilitarianism are strictly quantitative. Mill tended to associate “the good” with well-being instead of pleasures that can be equal for all people. In this consequence the moral right should be defined in terms of the goal and material good. Utilitarianism tends to search for the balance between empirical data and normative conclusion. Here a plain analysis of possible benefits and required costs can be suggested as the main principle if assessing any phenomenon. This theory is based on the principle to search for the benefits and good not only for the individual himself but the society in general. It can be associated with altruistic principles. This theory is quite simple in terms of constant choosing between right and wrong based on the principle that you should search for the maximum of utility. The latest modifications of the theory presupposes that a person should find the balance which will provide the greatest benefit for the largest number of people, as it is impossible to satisfy all people. An objection to the key principle of the theory may be an example when violation of some rule may provide the greatest good for the largest number of individuals. Though, another principle can balance the theory. The greatest good can be provided to the society if people follow all the rules and laws and are guided by their own sense of duty.

Arguments for and against racial profiling

Some authorities admit the use of racial profiling, though, they emphasize that race is taken as one of several other characteristics which are taken into consideration by police officers in their inspections.  Moreover, they claim that such practice has right to exist. To defend their point of view they provide statistical data presenting the number of different racial groups’ involvement into crimes.  Many officials state that practicing racial profiling is an effective tool of police fighting with crimes. It allows officers to focus their attention on the people who are more likely to be involved into crimes. Thus, police officers direct their efforts on investigating these people. As we see, some officials take racial profiling positively. The defense of racial profiling is based on statistical data which confirm that a large number of individuals associated with a particular racial or ethnical groups tend to commit a disproportionate number of the criminal actions. National statistics supports this statement.

Those who keep to another point of view and stand against racial profiling take into consideration both constitutional arguments and those based on practical evidence. One of the most significant arguments against racial profiling is based on constitutional claim of equality in rights and freedoms. Another argument against racial profiling may be explained as a contradiction between court practice and constitutional rights protection. Here we should mention a number of court cases when it was proved that the police officer used racial factor as a guide for action and, though the final decision ignored this fact and stated that the police officers’ actions should not be classified as racial discrimination, as racial characteristics should be seen as one of the factors only. Thus, a number of scholars emphasize that racial profiling alienates racial and ethnic minorities of the rest of the community. Thus, we can not speak of rights equality for all people and moreover, we can not be sure in their ability to protect their rights under such circumstances.

Heumann and Cassak (2003) provide a number of arguments for and against rational profiling. They emphasize that police officers demonstrate their right to stop anyone at any time and based on any insignificant reason. They often use a simple road rule violation to stop a person, to question and to search him. They watch and follow a suspicious individual from the moment he gets into his car and wait for his road rule violation to use it a pretext for global check, though, as we do not see any reasons to suspect the person in being involved into other crimes. Thus, we see that suspicious actions or some other evidences are not seen as the key factors in deciding whether to check a person or not. Racial profiling is rather to be applied to an individual in such situations. As we see, it is very hard to classify racial profiling as the main factor for suspicion under the circumstances.

Racial profiling from utilitarian viewpoint

The issue of racial profiling should be examined separately. We should be aware that screening of particular racial/ethics groups beyond the level that can be useful to the objectives of investigation is illegitimate. The utilitarian view on racial profiling presupposes that the number of crimes committed by particular racial/ethnical groups disproportionate to the data representing other members of community being involved into crimes. Thus, special measures directed to the reduction of crimes within these racial/ethical groups can be seen as justified or even required. Though, Randall Kennedy (1997, 1999) as cited in Risse and Zeckhauser (2004) agrees with the state of affairs, he disputes that it can justify racial profiling. From the utilitarian point of view while examining race profiling we should consider feelings, moral pressure and hurt of those racial/ethnical minorities who suffer most. However we should note that all these consequences are counted only in case the members of racial/ethical minority groups already perceive such situations as racial discrimination. While profiling results in inconveniences, harm, hurt feelings, loss of trust it should more likely to be seen as racism rather than profiling. Inspite of a number of negative causes of racial profiling we should admit that utilitarian arguments support racial profiling. Utilitarian considerations are based on the fact that racial profiling should be seen from the factual and counterfactual sides. Another utilitarian argument relies on the fact that racial profiling is a complicated phenomenon and it must be examined in the context of a particular community and a particular situation.

Speaking about the causes of racial profiling, we should note that such acts are harmful as they make an individual to feel dissatisfied and hurt because he is justified by his racial/ ethnical identity. Though, utilitarian arguments tend to interpret this factor in a way to support racial profiling.  The harm caused by racial profiling is observed in ration to particular institutions and their practices. However, if we drop the fact that this harm is caused by police officials and that it tend to be a regular practice we will perceive the consequences of racial profiling differently. We should note that the discussion of the harm arises much indignation in case it is attached to previous practice. Though, any particular situation might not raise so much indignation. Utilitarianism considerations result in the fact that harm may be much more expressive in case it is seen as a reminder of some other negative practices or events it is associated with. Thus, we see that from this point of view, racial profiling is seen as harmful practice mostly because of its association with racial discrimination in the society. The same arguments may be provided for feeling of being hurt and the loss of trust in legal system. These arguments do not mean that all the negative consequences of racial profiling should be ignored. Though, it explains how the practice of racial profiling should be reflected in the light of utilitarian calculations.

Racial profiling should not be associated with racial discrimination. It should be taken as a regular measure. Thus, the harm to racial/ethnical minorities should not be associated with that of a racial discrimination. Here we can consider an example. It is known that in summer more crimes are committed, so it is clear that more officers should be sent to patrol the streets. The same measures may be taken in case it is known that more crimes tend to be committed in a particular area. In such a way we justify the measures. We must be aware that all the measures are based on research and report data, but not on racial discrimination motives.

Thus, the next step of our observing racial profiling form utilitarian point of view will be assessing the correlation between the negative consequences of racial profiling and the number of crimes reduced or prevented with the help of it.  We argue that the harm caused by racial profiling is quite moderate and can justify it considering the amount of crime reducing benefits. Another kind of harm that should be emphasized here is the fact that people experience much stress from being treated as a member of a particular group, not as an individual. General evaluation reveals that the benefits of racial profiling in crime prevention and reducing are not too great to overweight the harm it causes. We should admit that utilitarian approach to racial profiling is based on empirical data that are hard to be collected and calculated in a proper way. A number of context factors should be taken into consideration here. Thus, for utilitarianism to give its support to racial profiling, the benefits of the practice should overweight the negative consequences and harm. However, we do not se the method and scale to evaluate both magnitudes. Thus, the best solution is to examine the case of racial profiling on a local basis. The objections to racial profiling from the point of utilitarianism may be based on the fact that racial profiling may not occupy the leading position among the measures that are used to prevent and to reduce crimes. Another objective focuses on the fact that indeed it is very hard to identify the possible criminal only considering his/her racial /ethnic characteristics. It is more likely to be counted as one of the least significant factors in such a situation. And one more objection is connected with the fact that racial discrimination practice tends to be underlined by incidents related to racial minorities being abused by the representatives of administration or some official institutions, like police. It is impossible to ignore the fact. Thus, racial profiling is hard to avoid being associated with racial discrimination acts.

Conclusion

To sum up our considerations about racial profiling as the social and ethical phenomenon, we should admit that the problem remains actual and open for modern society. The problem of definition of the term is addressed in a number of recent studies and a narrow and a broad approach to the definition are suggested. Though, there is no universal and generalized definition in modern studies. The problem of racial profiling denial and acceptance as an existing practice by the members of the society is discussed in a number of works devote to racial profiling. We can conclude that both those who deny the fact of racial profiling and those who acknowledge that this practice exists on regular basis suggests their own arguments. Though, these arguments can not be taken as relevant as those arguments are offered by different parties of conflict provoked by racial profiling. Police officials suggest arguments to defend racial profiling, while racial and ethical minority groups, being the regular victims of such acts, present a number of their arguments. Being objective in judging about racial profiling arguments appears to be quite complicated as many factors should be taken into consideration. Most cases are better to be investigated independently in local and circumstantial context. Arguments for and against racial profiling, as an effective crime reducing practice, tend to vary and keep no balance in being objective. From the view of utilitarianism, racial profiling remains an unsolved problem. As we know, this theory is based on the principle of maximized good to the largest number of people. Considering, all the factors and circumstances, we can not judge properly about the balance between the benefits of racial profiling and its harmful effects. Thus, it is suggested to examine every case of racial profiling in a local context where we can count the maximum of factors and correlate the result with the local circumstances. Utilitarianism provides both reasonable arguments for racial profiling to be associated with racial discrimination and vice versa.