LSTD503 FORUM 3 Racial Profiling
It is not strange that there have been many cases of some people being stopped, detained and being subjected to searches just because they belong to a certain race or ethnicity background and with no apparent reason or realistic suspicion. In the united States, there around eight hundred police officers and not all of those law enforcers are trained well or have good intention as we would like to appear (University of Missouri,2008). The officers use it as a lawful investigative method especially when race is a basic part of the investigation. As this issue can be found in the general society, it exist in main institutions like agencies tasked with the responsibility of enforcing law. There have been many studies that have confirmed the existence of differential treatment of people of colour in various contexts. Statistics have indicated that African American are more likely to face this kind of profiling than their white American counterparts. These statistics have shown that there was a higher possibility for black children to have at least one of their parents in prison than for white children (University of Missouri, 2008).
The issue of racial profiling has become even common since the terrorist attack of 9/11, an incident that seems have made this vice to come back with vengeance. This resulted to multiple and discriminative arrests directed to persons whose appearance suggested they are Arabs Muslim. As the FBI resolved to reposition itself with an aim of pre-empting any possible threat, it could not keep its hands off racial profiling. However, a good example to show that this vice is integrated in the law enforcement society and the other law institutions is the decision arrived at by the Supreme Court in the case of Whren v. United States (Michael, 2012). The court appears to have unanimously sanctioned the issue of racial profiling where it allowed law enforcement officers to stop a motorist for traffic violation while specifically intending to hunt for drugs, which can be referred as pretext stops.
The court decision of barring pretext stops victims from admitting evidence on the grounds of Fourth Amendment, and there by ignoring the argument put across by Whren that there is possibility of police officers making a decision on which motorist they will stop and they may base this on factors that cannot be permissible constitutionally like ones race. The ruling by Justice Antonin Scalia that constitutional reason for the objection to intentional discrimination while applying the laws cannot be done on account of the Fourth amendment leaves a gaping loophole (Michael, 2012). What the ruling did is to leave the people of colour with a difficult evidentiary weight. The victim or the oppressed for that matter were left with the responsibility to prove racism. This means that it is very difficult for the victim of racial profiling to provide proof for that particular discrimination. This shows that there have been no mechanism for eliminating racial profiling (Michael, 2012). Apart from its existence in the general society it also exists in the institution that is tasked with protecting the minor groups in the society from being discriminated against. The purpose of the law is to protect the rights of the individuals from abuse by the state and society. However, this case help to show how the constitutional law is always manipulated by those in power in order to maintain a system of racial classes.
References
Michael L. Birzer .Racial Profiling, They Stopped Me Because I'm -------. CRC Press 23-45 (1st ed. 2012)
University of Missouri. Walking While Black: An Examination of the Police-pedestrian Interaction .ProQuest 44-47 (1 st ed. 2008)
