Highway police officers engage in racial profiling by targeting black individuals without traffic violations, while overlooking white individuals. This assumption is based on the belief that black individuals are more prone to criminal behavior. However, data reveals that although black and Hispanic drivers are pulled over at a higher rate, they are actually less likely to possess weapons or drugs. This demonstrates law enforcement’s inability to accurately identify criminal activity regardless of race. Supporters argue that racial profiling is fair and rational, proposing that if an African American
Paraphrased:
Racial profiling occurs when highway police officers selectively target black individuals without traffic violations while disregarding white individuals due to the assumption that blacks have a higher likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior. Nonetheless, statistics indicate that despite being pulled over more frequently, both black and Hispanic drivers exhibit lower rates of weapon or drug possession. These findings underscore law enforcement’s failure in effectively identifying criminal activity irrespective of race. Advocates assert the fairness and reasonableness of racial profiling by suggesting that if an African American
The argument is that by using profiling and focusing on information, Americans can enhance their likelihood of apprehending criminals who have perpetrated a crime. It is also contended that even if an individual is profiled for something they did not commit, it should not be excessively problematic to demonstrate their lack of guilt. Similarly, proving culpability should also not be unduly challenging. Nonetheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that exclusively profiling based on characteristics would constitute discrimination and violate civil rights. Additionally, establishing one’s guilt becomes arduous when the accused individual is the sole party cognizant of their innocence.
It is estimated that around 5,000 people in Australia’s prison population, representing 1 percent, have been wrongly convicted. The act of racial profiling is an unacceptable behavior that classifies certain races as more likely to commit crimes and should be prohibited. This form of profiling not only discriminates against victims but also reinforces the belief that minority groups are predisposed to criminal actions and therefore vulnerable to discriminatory treatment. Additionally, it goes against the values of countries like Australia and The United States, which prioritize liberty, freedom, and justice by engaging in profiling practices that violate their own citizens.
On February 26th, 2012, Trayvon Martin, an African American high school student who was 17 years old at the time, was fatally shot by George Zimmerman in a gated community in Sanford, Florida. Zimmerman had called 911 prior to the incident and referred to Martin as “a real suspicious black guy.” Despite not being armed, Zimmerman alleged that he shot Martin during a confrontation.
Zimmerman was briefly detained but later released due to insufficient evidence refuting his self-defense assertion. This occurrence emphasizes the critical need to eliminate racial profiling in contemporary society, as it not only harms our overall well-being but also violates fundamental human rights. Moreover, multiple studies consistently prove the inefficiency of racial profiling by demonstrating that race has minimal correlation with criminal apprehension. Conversely, employing race-neutral methods like behavior-based targeting yields tangible advantages for both public safety and social cohesion, distinguishing it from racial profiling.
