Profiling_Profiling

Profiling Profiling

by Selwyn Duke

We have heard a lot about racial profiling for the past couple of years. As you may know, racial profiling is the practice whereby racial factors are included by law enforcement personnel when assessing the probability that a given individual has criminal intent. It has been ubiquitously condemned as unjust, and there has been a hue and cry that it must be purged from the law enforcement paradigms of our nation at all costs. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have quite predictably responded to this pressure, and even those who in their hearts don't care a whit about this cause celebre have issued pandering statements in order to avoid being pilloried in the media. Many, seizing upon the opportunity to increase federal power, have made a clarion call for federal intervention under the pretext that many localities are so irredeemably biased that they will not eliminate this allegedly nefarious practice on their own. On the surface, it may seem quite obvious that these critics are correct; after all, racial profiling seems to smack of discrimination of the most invidious sort, and an enlightened people would never allow it, right? Well, that is the knee-jerk thinking that prevails vis-a-vis this issue, but this writer is here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. This is because if you slice through the cloud of emotionalism that surrounds this and analyze it more deeply, you'll see that there is more to it than meets the eye.

I am a member of the most profiled group in the country. I have stated this to many a person in recent times, and not one of them has, upon seeing my fair complexion and light brown hair, understood what I was referring to. This is because the group in question is males; the fact is that police view men much more suspiciously than women because men commit an inordinate amount of the crime. This is fine with me, but, unfair double standards are not. If it is just to apply this to men, then it is only just to apply the EXACT same standard to all groups that commit an inordinate amount of the crime. And, if racial profiling is unjust and should be eliminated, then SEX profiling also has to be unjust and must be eliminated with the same vigor - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. A little side note here: racial profiling found its genesis with the behavioral sciences units of the FBI - it was a result of their attempt to more effectively track down serial killers. They determined that most serial killers fit a certain profile, and by searching for those who fit that profile, they were able to much more easily hunt down these vicious murderers. In the profile that they developed were a number of factors, and among them was that most serial killers are white males. What's funny though, is that no one complained about racial profiling back then; it seems that no one minds it when such harsh realities rain down on groups that don't fall under the politically correct thought police's umbrella of protection.

Now, some people, in an effort to promote what they consider to be a moral imperative, have actually responded to me by saying that sex profiling should then also be disallowed. In their dogmatic allegiance to a bad idea, they have sacrificed common sense on the altar of political correctness. Let's consider the implications of the course of action they propose: in order to be fair and consistent, we would have to apply this principle to EVERY group. We would have to mandate that law enforcement not consider any factor exhibited by any group that an individual might be part of, when assessing whether or not there might be probable cause to investigate him further. So, this would not only mean that the police could not view being male as part of a criminal profile, but, for instance, age could not be factored in either. This would severely hamper the police's ability to identify criminals and deter crime, and what follows is just one nuts and bolts example if this. The police know that when you see white males in certain predominantly black neighborhoods at certain times of the day, there is ninety-nine percent chance that they are there to buy drugs or solicit prostitutes. For this reason, they keep an eye on and sometimes stop and question such individuals, and many a lawbreaker is apprehended in this manner. If a strict no profiling policy were imposed on them however, they would have to check their brains at the police station door and regard an elderly black woman in the same light as these young, white men. Their focus then would have been dispersed, it would not be directed at the most likely cause of the problem in question, and fewer criminal acts would be thwarted and crime would proliferate. This is just one example though; the fact is that such a flawed policy would impact negatively upon virtually every aspect of crime fighting. It would unnecessarily handcuff law enforcement, creating an atmosphere in which criminals could operate with a greatly reduced chance of being caught.

Oftentimes nowadays, the truth takes a back seat to agendas based on nothing but emotionalism. But, as Thomas Jefferson said, "passion governs, and she never governs wisely" - we deny reality at our own peril. And reality dictates that we must allow the police to exercise the same common sense that we ALL do on a regular basis, and that's all that profiling, racial and otherwise is: the exercise of common sense. If you are walking down the street and see a group of young, rough hewn men walking toward you, and you decide to walk to the other side, guess what? You have just engaged in profiling. Based on the evidence at hand [the appearance of the men], you've determined that they could be trouble. And this exposes one of the misconceptions that undergirds the anti profiling argument: the notion that this is something unusual, only practiced by those who are fraught with bias. In reality though, profiling is simply a scientific name that has been applied to the exercise of common sense within the sphere of law enforcement. Would you steadfastly maintain that the cops must not be allowed to exercise common sense? Well, that's exactly what those who advocate the elimination of "racial profiling" are doing. They indignantly but naively claim that the banning of this practice is only just. But you cannot divorce common sense from law enforcement and expect to benefit from good law enforcement. The police must be allowed to consider ALL relevant factors when trying to conduct their duties, and if we continue to pressure the police into not doing so, crime will proliferate and more innocent people, more of our wives, husbands, siblings, parents and children will be hurt and killed. This would be the consequence of continuing down this dangerous road, and that is not compassionate, wise, nor just.



	Profiling Profiling

by Selwyn Duke We have heard a lot about racial profiling for the past couple of years. As you may know, racial profiling is the practice whereby racial factors are included by law enforcement personnel when assessing the probability that a given individual has criminal intent. It has been ubiquitously condemned as unjust, and there has been a hue and cry that it must be purged from the law enforcement paradigms of our nation at all costs. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have quite predictably responded to this pressure, and even those who in their hearts don't care a whit about this cause celebre have issued pandering statements in order to avoid being pilloried in the media. Many, seizing upon the opportunity to increase federal power, have made a clarion call for federal intervention under the pretext that many localities are so irredeemably biased that they will not eliminate this allegedly nefarious practice on their own. On the surface, it may seem quite obvious that these critics are correct; after all, racial profiling seems to smack of discrimination of the most invidious sort, and an enlightened people would never allow it, right? Well, that is the knee-jerk thinking that prevails vis-a-vis this issue, but this writer is here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. This is because if you slice through the cloud of emotionalism that surrounds this and analyze it more deeply, you'll see that there is more to it than meets the eye. I am a member of the most profiled group in the country. I have stated this to many a person in recent times, and not one of them has, upon seeing my fair complexion and light brown hair, understood what I was referring to. This is because the group in question is males; the fact is that police view men much more suspiciously than women because men commit an inordinate amount of the crime. This is fine with me, but, unfair double standards are not. If it is just to apply this to men, then it is only just to apply the EXACT same standard to all groups that commit an inordinate amount of the crime. And, if racial profiling is unjust and should be eliminated, then SEX profiling also has to be unjust and must be eliminated with the same vigor - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. A little side note here: racial profiling found its genesis with the behavioral sciences units of the FBI - it was a result of their attempt to more effectively track down serial killers. They determined that most serial killers fit a certain profile, and by searching for those who fit that profile, they were able to much more easily hunt down these vicious murderers. In the profile that they developed were a number of factors, and among them was that most serial killers are white males. What's funny though, is that no one complained about racial profiling back then; it seems that no one minds it when such harsh realities rain down on groups that don't fall under the politically correct thought police's umbrella of protection. Now, some people, in an effort to promote what they consider to be a moral imperative, have actually responded to me by saying that sex profiling should then also be disallowed. In their dogmatic allegiance to a bad idea, they have sacrificed common sense on the altar of political correctness. Let's consider the implications of the course of action they propose: in order to be fair and consistent, we would have to apply this principle to EVERY group. We would have to mandate that law enforcement not consider any factor exhibited by any group that an individual might be part of, when assessing whether or not there might be probable cause to investigate him further. So, this would not only mean that the police could not view being male as part of a criminal profile, but, for instance, age could not be factored in either. This would severely hamper the police's ability to identify criminals and deter crime, and what follows is just one nuts and bolts example if this. The police know that when you see white males in certain predominantly black neighborhoods at certain times of the day, there is ninety-nine percent chance that they are there to buy drugs or solicit prostitutes. For this reason, they keep an eye on and sometimes stop and question such individuals, and many a lawbreaker is apprehended in this manner. If a strict no profiling policy were imposed on them however, they would have to check their brains at the police station door and regard an elderly black woman in the same light as these young, white men. Their focus then would have been dispersed, it would not be directed at the most likely cause of the problem in question, and fewer criminal acts would be thwarted and crime would proliferate. This is just one example though; the fact is that such a flawed policy would impact negatively upon virtually every aspect of crime fighting. It would unnecessarily handcuff law enforcement, creating an atmosphere in which criminals could operate with a greatly reduced chance of being caught. Oftentimes nowadays, the truth takes a back seat to agendas based on nothing but emotionalism. But, as Thomas Jefferson said, "passion governs, and she never governs wisely" - we deny reality at our own peril. And reality dictates that we must allow the police to exercise the same common sense that we ALL do on a regular basis, and that's all that profiling, racial and otherwise is: the exercise of common sense. If you are walking down the street and see a group of young, rough hewn men walking toward you, and you decide to walk to the other side, guess what? You have just engaged in profiling. Based on the evidence at hand [the appearance of the men], you've determined that they could be trouble. And this exposes one of the misconceptions that undergirds the anti profiling argument: the notion that this is something unusual, only practiced by those who are fraught with bias. In reality though, profiling is simply a scientific name that has been applied to the exercise of common sense within the sphere of law enforcement. Would you steadfastly maintain that the cops must not be allowed to exercise common sense? Well, that's exactly what those who advocate the elimination of "racial profiling" are doing. They indignantly but naively claim that the banning of this practice is only just. But you cannot divorce common sense from law enforcement and expect to benefit from good law enforcement. The police must be allowed to consider ALL relevant factors when trying to conduct their duties, and if we continue to pressure the police into not doing so, crime will proliferate and more innocent people, more of our wives, husbands, siblings, parents and children will be hurt and killed. This would be the consequence of continuing down this dangerous road, and that is not compassionate, wise, nor just.





		Protected by Copyright