Full Version: Racial Profiling
On May 24th, Shahawar Matin Siraj was convicted of Conspiring to place explosives at the 34th street Subway station in New York.
Siraj was caught by a police informant who had targeted mosques and other Islamic strongholds, of which Siraj had worked in an Islamic bookstore. He was a Pakistani immigrant found through repeated trips to said places. It's very apparent that had we not targeted these places specifically, he might not have been caught and a bombing may have occured.
Link to information regarding visits to mosques, etc.
Even an NY Assemblyman, "Democratic assemblyman from Brooklyn, Dov Hikind, proposed such a law in the New York State Assembly. Bill A11536 would authorize law enforcement personnel “to consider race and ethnicity as one of many factors which could be used in identifying persons who can be initially stopped, questioned, frisked and/or searched.”
"In a clever act of political jujitsu, Hikind notes that in Grutter v. Bollinger, a major case concerning affirmative action in college admissions, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted making governmental decisions on the basis of race and ethnicity on two conditions: that doing so serves a “compelling governmental interest” and that these are not the only factors used in reaching decisions."
Questions for Debate:
1. Is racial profiling beneficial to the Security of the United States, your state, your town, or your community? Why or why not?
2. How would that positively or negatively affect the actions of law enforcement in your respective locales?
3. Is the Grutter v Bollinger case a legitimate use of Supreme Court precedent?
Siraj was caught by a police informant who had targeted mosques and other Islamic strongholds, of which Siraj had worked in an Islamic bookstore. He was a Pakistani immigrant found through repeated trips to said places. It's very apparent that had we not targeted these places specifically, he might not have been caught and a bombing may have occured.
Link to information regarding visits to mosques, etc.
Even an NY Assemblyman, "Democratic assemblyman from Brooklyn, Dov Hikind, proposed such a law in the New York State Assembly. Bill A11536 would authorize law enforcement personnel “to consider race and ethnicity as one of many factors which could be used in identifying persons who can be initially stopped, questioned, frisked and/or searched.”
"In a clever act of political jujitsu, Hikind notes that in Grutter v. Bollinger, a major case concerning affirmative action in college admissions, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted making governmental decisions on the basis of race and ethnicity on two conditions: that doing so serves a “compelling governmental interest” and that these are not the only factors used in reaching decisions."
Questions for Debate:
1. Is racial profiling beneficial to the Security of the United States, your state, your town, or your community? Why or why not?
2. How would that positively or negatively affect the actions of law enforcement in your respective locales?
3. Is the Grutter v Bollinger case a legitimate use of Supreme Court precedent?
QUOTE
1. Is racial profiling beneficial to the Security of the United States, your state, your town, or your community? Why or why not?
Yes, it is beneficial to the security of the United States, my state, town and community. It seems like common sense to me, if a suspected criminal is white, targetting black or latino guys is a waste of time. The same goes for every other race. Having said that, going to far with racial profiling can be a violation of civil rights and must be curtailed, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water.
QUOTE
2. How would that positively or negatively affect the actions of law enforcement in your respective locales?
Obviously a positive outcome stemming from racial profiling could be found in the case you listed above Aevans. A negative outcome could occur if police stop some random [insert racial group here] and harass them; you could make the point that racial profiling opens the door for descrimination and that is an obvious negative.QUOTE
3. Is the Grutter v Bollinger case a legitimate use of Supreme Court precedent?
Well, I'm not sure if I agree with some of the ways Grutter v. Bollinger is applied, it does make sense in this instance, if it helps to know that someone is Hispanic, Black or White especially regarding security, then race should be a factor in law enforcement.CP
Let's define what we mean by "racial profiling" before we go any further. If we mean that a particular suspect is wanted by the police, then it only makes sense that persons who match the description of the suspect should be questioned instead of persons who do not match the description. If we know that a specific suspect is a white male, then we don't have to question random Asian women. This is only common sense, and I don't think you would get much argument from anybody.
However, if we mean that persons of certain ethnicities are to be questioned rather than persons of other ethnicities when no specific suspect is wanted, we may have a problem. There are two possible situations.
A crime may have been committed with no specific suspects. In such a case, although statistical data concerning similar crimes may be of some use to law enforcement in seeking a suspect, it is of only limited help, and can easily lead to abuses. For example, if there is a serial killer on the loose, with no description of the murderer at all, it may be of some use to be aware of the fact that such criminals are almost always male. However, it is obvious that this is of minimal help in locating the killer, and that questioning every man in the area is neither practical nor justified.
The second possible situation occurs when law enforcement is trying to prevent a crime. This is what we are really talking about, I think. As a matter of fact, let's get down to brass tacks and admit that what we are really discussing is profiling males who appear to be of Middle Eastern ethnicity in order to prevent terrorist attacks. The real purpose of this, of course, is to try to identify Islamic fanatics. The fact that not all persons of Middle Eastern ancestry are Muslims, let alone Muslim extremists, complicates matters. In addition to this, it is not always easy to tell who is of Middle Eastern ancestry; we might question the swarthy Italian-American Catholic and miss the light-skinned Saudi Muslim. A third complication is that not all Muslim fanatics are of Middle Eastern ancestry. It can easily be seen that this kind of ethnic profiling is of limited benefit and subject to possible abuse.
Given all of that, it is still possible that A11536 may be of some benefit. Here is the heart of the proposed bill:
(Bold added for emphasis)
([sic] added to note grammatical error)
If the bolded parts of this proposed law are strictly enforced, I would not oppose it. (I suppose that answers the first question for debate.) It could lead to some abuses, which would have to be dealt with on an individual basis. (I suppose that answers the second question for debate.)
The third question for debate is an interesting one, and probably requires more legal expertise than I can offer. As far as I can tell, the important factors are that the government interest be compelling, and that ethnicity be only one of many factors taken into consideration.
However, if we mean that persons of certain ethnicities are to be questioned rather than persons of other ethnicities when no specific suspect is wanted, we may have a problem. There are two possible situations.
A crime may have been committed with no specific suspects. In such a case, although statistical data concerning similar crimes may be of some use to law enforcement in seeking a suspect, it is of only limited help, and can easily lead to abuses. For example, if there is a serial killer on the loose, with no description of the murderer at all, it may be of some use to be aware of the fact that such criminals are almost always male. However, it is obvious that this is of minimal help in locating the killer, and that questioning every man in the area is neither practical nor justified.
The second possible situation occurs when law enforcement is trying to prevent a crime. This is what we are really talking about, I think. As a matter of fact, let's get down to brass tacks and admit that what we are really discussing is profiling males who appear to be of Middle Eastern ethnicity in order to prevent terrorist attacks. The real purpose of this, of course, is to try to identify Islamic fanatics. The fact that not all persons of Middle Eastern ancestry are Muslims, let alone Muslim extremists, complicates matters. In addition to this, it is not always easy to tell who is of Middle Eastern ancestry; we might question the swarthy Italian-American Catholic and miss the light-skinned Saudi Muslim. A third complication is that not all Muslim fanatics are of Middle Eastern ancestry. It can easily be seen that this kind of ethnic profiling is of limited benefit and subject to possible abuse.
Given all of that, it is still possible that A11536 may be of some benefit. Here is the heart of the proposed bill:
QUOTE
This bill amends the Executive Law by adding a
new section 837-r, allowing a peace officer or police officer to consid-
er the apparent race or ethnicity of a suspect as one of the many
factors in a potential terrorist suspect profile which he or she could
use to identify persons who could be stopped, questioned, frisked and/or
searched in furtherance of the government`s compelling interest in
deterring terrorist attacks provided that the apparent race or ethnicity
cannot be the sole criteria [sic] utilized for making the decision.
new section 837-r, allowing a peace officer or police officer to consid-
er the apparent race or ethnicity of a suspect as one of the many
factors in a potential terrorist suspect profile which he or she could
use to identify persons who could be stopped, questioned, frisked and/or
searched in furtherance of the government`s compelling interest in
deterring terrorist attacks provided that the apparent race or ethnicity
cannot be the sole criteria [sic] utilized for making the decision.
(Bold added for emphasis)
([sic] added to note grammatical error)
If the bolded parts of this proposed law are strictly enforced, I would not oppose it. (I suppose that answers the first question for debate.) It could lead to some abuses, which would have to be dealt with on an individual basis. (I suppose that answers the second question for debate.)
The third question for debate is an interesting one, and probably requires more legal expertise than I can offer. As far as I can tell, the important factors are that the government interest be compelling, and that ethnicity be only one of many factors taken into consideration.
Questions for Debate:
1. Is racial profiling beneficial to the Security of the United States, your state, your town, or your community? Why or why not?
Absolutely. Unless you have nearly infinite manpower if you do not narrow the criteria by which you select people to give extra attention to you will certainly increase your chance of missing a terrorist. And doing so serves a “compelling governmental interest” and that these are not the only factors used in reaching decisions." This is right on the money.
2. How would that positively or negatively affect the actions of law enforcement in your respective locales?
This allows law enforcement to be more efficient and effective.
3. Is the Grutter v Bollinger case a legitimate use of Supreme Court precedent?
yes
1. Is racial profiling beneficial to the Security of the United States, your state, your town, or your community? Why or why not?
Absolutely. Unless you have nearly infinite manpower if you do not narrow the criteria by which you select people to give extra attention to you will certainly increase your chance of missing a terrorist. And doing so serves a “compelling governmental interest” and that these are not the only factors used in reaching decisions." This is right on the money.
2. How would that positively or negatively affect the actions of law enforcement in your respective locales?
This allows law enforcement to be more efficient and effective.
3. Is the Grutter v Bollinger case a legitimate use of Supreme Court precedent?
yes
Before answering the question about racial profiling, the first question has to be whether profiling in general is a good or a bad thing. As far as I know, there's no real controversy over profiling in the abstract. One big caution I would make is that it never be used to harass anyone. If you fit the profile of a certain type of criminal or other evildoer, you still have the right to be presumed innocent - regardless of what the profile is based on. Another caution is that the profile should be objectively valid, backed up by hard data. As long as those criteria are met, it doesn't matter what the profile is based on, be it race or anything else.
In fact, the most dangerous form of profiling is not racial, cultural, or age- or gender-based profiling. It's political profiling, because that has the potential to silence dissent. That's what should be monitored most closely.
In fact, the most dangerous form of profiling is not racial, cultural, or age- or gender-based profiling. It's political profiling, because that has the potential to silence dissent. That's what should be monitored most closely.
1. Is racial profiling beneficial to the Security of the United States, your state, your town, or your community? Why or why not?
Well, yes and no, of course- IF the investigator doing the profiling is TRAINED in profiling- then, of course, race is part of the equation. Experienced, trained FBI and CIA profilers make mistakes- why some bonehead cop on a beat thinks he is qualified to profile people based solely on race is beyond me. Profiling is a complex and time and manpower intensive effort- in other words, it costs lots of money to hire folks that are actually COMPETENT at profiling. I work with a psychologist that is quite good at it, and is frequently brought in on the multi-jurisdictional teams for his expertise. Let me make this clear- WHAT THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC THINK OF PROFILING AND THE ACTUAL PRACTICE ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS- when you have a team of 7 or more experts with several different disciplines in the room trying to figure out a puzzle of "who is this criminal and what is he/she going to do next"- THAT is profiling. A traffic cop on a busy hiway pulling over black people is NOT profiling- it is just a racist cop with a chip on his shoulder- period.
Individuals, cops on a beat or whatever SHOULD NOT be engaged in ANY type of profiling- they simply have not been trained! They are playing hunches and guesswork- which, in a team setting, under the right conditions, is helpful to catching the bad guy- what the cops are doing is not!
If I stop every black person on a busy hiway- I am bound to catch some bad guys doing something wrong- it is the law of averages- BUT- they are letting lot's of white bad guys go, because they aren't paying attention to them.
Profiling by the FBI is a science- not neccesarily an exact one- look at the Lee Malvo case of the snipers in DC- the best of the best of the best were profiling that one and had the race off- they thought for sure it was a lone white gunman.
So, by concentrating on possible white suspects- they ignored the actual suspects- and diverted resources away from looking for black suspects. An honest mistake, but you can see how badly the mistakes can go when you "profile" without the training to back it up!
The real deal folks are asking here is "should law enforcement concentrate their efforts on people of ME decent with funny sounding names like "Mohammed" or some such- and the answer is a resound NO from any profiler or terrorist chaser that is familiar with profiling- you use the evidence you have and build up from there- because you will burn up resources chasing all these folks with a wide net instead of focusing more on the individual behaviors.
In fact, I am sure a great deal of Al-Quaida bad guys can figure that out real quick- that, if law enforcement and counter-terrorist units start using this untrained and unscientific media version of "profiling"- then, they just get the whitest looking cell members to stay out of the sun, change their name to "Bob" or something, and sneak on through- cause they are looking for this swarthy ME dude in a turban!
A smart terrorist cell should be able to quickly adapt to ham handed and untrained law enforcement personnel by making sure they don't fit this cop on the beat "racial profile" at first glance or second glance.
2. How would that positively or negatively affect the actions of law enforcement in your respective locales?
As above- if we want to start sending all our cops to become PHDs in psychology and at least Bachelors level in justice and sociology, and spend that kind of money and resources to sufficiently train our cops to do this- so be it. Probably much cheaper than, oh, say, GWs medicaid drug bill giveaway?
But profiling based on race only with no real serious training is a very negative thing. It puts racial groups on the defensive, folks that would have, if approached correctly, helped law enforcement- but instead, makes INNOCENT citizens defensive, and drives the REAL bad guys further underground, and take steps not to fit that profile- very easily done to the untrained personnel.
3. Is the Grutter v Bollinger case a legitimate use of Supreme Court precedent?
don't know- will get back to you after I study that one more!
Well, yes and no, of course- IF the investigator doing the profiling is TRAINED in profiling- then, of course, race is part of the equation. Experienced, trained FBI and CIA profilers make mistakes- why some bonehead cop on a beat thinks he is qualified to profile people based solely on race is beyond me. Profiling is a complex and time and manpower intensive effort- in other words, it costs lots of money to hire folks that are actually COMPETENT at profiling. I work with a psychologist that is quite good at it, and is frequently brought in on the multi-jurisdictional teams for his expertise. Let me make this clear- WHAT THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC THINK OF PROFILING AND THE ACTUAL PRACTICE ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS- when you have a team of 7 or more experts with several different disciplines in the room trying to figure out a puzzle of "who is this criminal and what is he/she going to do next"- THAT is profiling. A traffic cop on a busy hiway pulling over black people is NOT profiling- it is just a racist cop with a chip on his shoulder- period.
Individuals, cops on a beat or whatever SHOULD NOT be engaged in ANY type of profiling- they simply have not been trained! They are playing hunches and guesswork- which, in a team setting, under the right conditions, is helpful to catching the bad guy- what the cops are doing is not!
If I stop every black person on a busy hiway- I am bound to catch some bad guys doing something wrong- it is the law of averages- BUT- they are letting lot's of white bad guys go, because they aren't paying attention to them.
Profiling by the FBI is a science- not neccesarily an exact one- look at the Lee Malvo case of the snipers in DC- the best of the best of the best were profiling that one and had the race off- they thought for sure it was a lone white gunman.
So, by concentrating on possible white suspects- they ignored the actual suspects- and diverted resources away from looking for black suspects. An honest mistake, but you can see how badly the mistakes can go when you "profile" without the training to back it up!
The real deal folks are asking here is "should law enforcement concentrate their efforts on people of ME decent with funny sounding names like "Mohammed" or some such- and the answer is a resound NO from any profiler or terrorist chaser that is familiar with profiling- you use the evidence you have and build up from there- because you will burn up resources chasing all these folks with a wide net instead of focusing more on the individual behaviors.
In fact, I am sure a great deal of Al-Quaida bad guys can figure that out real quick- that, if law enforcement and counter-terrorist units start using this untrained and unscientific media version of "profiling"- then, they just get the whitest looking cell members to stay out of the sun, change their name to "Bob" or something, and sneak on through- cause they are looking for this swarthy ME dude in a turban!
A smart terrorist cell should be able to quickly adapt to ham handed and untrained law enforcement personnel by making sure they don't fit this cop on the beat "racial profile" at first glance or second glance.
2. How would that positively or negatively affect the actions of law enforcement in your respective locales?
As above- if we want to start sending all our cops to become PHDs in psychology and at least Bachelors level in justice and sociology, and spend that kind of money and resources to sufficiently train our cops to do this- so be it. Probably much cheaper than, oh, say, GWs medicaid drug bill giveaway?
But profiling based on race only with no real serious training is a very negative thing. It puts racial groups on the defensive, folks that would have, if approached correctly, helped law enforcement- but instead, makes INNOCENT citizens defensive, and drives the REAL bad guys further underground, and take steps not to fit that profile- very easily done to the untrained personnel.
3. Is the Grutter v Bollinger case a legitimate use of Supreme Court precedent?
don't know- will get back to you after I study that one more!
1. Is racial profiling beneficial to the Security of the United States, your state, your town, or your community? Why or why not?
As more and more details are coming out what is now clear is the US had nothing to do with discovering this plot. It was a individual Muslim in the UK that informed on this group after the subway bombing is what I have now read. In fact, since top level US terrorism are upset they were kept out of the loop, this shows it was not known in the US intelligence agencies. And the US was not really made aware of it till its end when the British lost track of several of the suspects.
I believe that racial profiling is another feather under the cap of the terrorist manifesto. I believe singling out, or distrust and hatred is a self defeating method of creating more terrorists and decreasing the probability of having people turn in groups like this within a society. As was the way this plot was found.
I conclude we need to embrace the Muslims and the beauty of their faith and what is good about it just like the good of other faiths. We know there are exceptions to all cultures. We have a terrorist hero of some of the right of this country by the name of Tim McVeigh, it is a absolute minute minority that still to this day support what McVeigh stood for but they are there. (as is Muslim terrorists here, they are either minute or non-existent)
I possibly could support a McVeigh act that allows for profiling ALL religious groups. There was that religious right murderer Eric Rudolf another "hero" of the fanatic religious right that plead guilty not long ago. But I do not support the profiling of only Muslims. Because I believe it would decrease the probability of the best weapon to stop them is a member themselves turning them in. And I think that profiling of a single group creates a root cause of why these people are terrorists, they "feel" they are oppressed.
link
So all the technology the US has legal and illegal was ineffective at finding this big plot, we need humans to tell us what is going on. And we need to not create more tim mcVeighs among us via racism.
As more and more details are coming out what is now clear is the US had nothing to do with discovering this plot. It was a individual Muslim in the UK that informed on this group after the subway bombing is what I have now read. In fact, since top level US terrorism are upset they were kept out of the loop, this shows it was not known in the US intelligence agencies. And the US was not really made aware of it till its end when the British lost track of several of the suspects.
I believe that racial profiling is another feather under the cap of the terrorist manifesto. I believe singling out, or distrust and hatred is a self defeating method of creating more terrorists and decreasing the probability of having people turn in groups like this within a society. As was the way this plot was found.
I conclude we need to embrace the Muslims and the beauty of their faith and what is good about it just like the good of other faiths. We know there are exceptions to all cultures. We have a terrorist hero of some of the right of this country by the name of Tim McVeigh, it is a absolute minute minority that still to this day support what McVeigh stood for but they are there. (as is Muslim terrorists here, they are either minute or non-existent)
I possibly could support a McVeigh act that allows for profiling ALL religious groups. There was that religious right murderer Eric Rudolf another "hero" of the fanatic religious right that plead guilty not long ago. But I do not support the profiling of only Muslims. Because I believe it would decrease the probability of the best weapon to stop them is a member themselves turning them in. And I think that profiling of a single group creates a root cause of why these people are terrorists, they "feel" they are oppressed.
link
QUOTE
The British probe began modestly last year, in the aftermath of the London subway bombings, when a concerned citizen within London's large Muslim community tipped authorities to a suspicious acquaintance, sources have said.
So all the technology the US has legal and illegal was ineffective at finding this big plot, we need humans to tell us what is going on. And we need to not create more tim mcVeighs among us via racism.
QUOTE(inventor @ Aug 15 2006, 10:00 PM) 
I believe that racial profiling is another feather under the cap of the terrorist manifesto. I believe singling out, or distrust and hatred is a self defeating method of creating more terrorists and decreasing the probability of having people turn in groups like this within a society. As was the way this plot was found.
I recommend looking over CruisingRam's post about what profiling is and is not. He hits it right on the head. It's not about "singling out" anyone for suspicion. It's about professionally looking at statistics and drawing logical, objective conclusions. Simply saying, you're Muslim so I'm going to make you as uncomfortable as possible, is not profiling. It's just harassment. And official harassment is wrong, regardless of what particular factors it's based on, whether race or anything else.
Read it again and have to take exception to you opinions. I do not differ with CR on much but as a rule there are exceptions..
As we know, humans have racist abilities. As a rule we know it is the 1 percentile that wreck it for the rest. Same with policemen, we have to have checks and balances with them because we know human behavior. even if trained, a prejudicial/racist policeman will then know how to split hairs. Just as an example the last election or so there were some police checkpoints that were out of the norm on election day. These in the past had been set up with a system in place of when and where way in advance, other law enforcement agencies were notified in advance. The ones placed on election day did not follow that "normal behavior" so they have a distinctly higher probability of being racially motivated. Again a racist trained can split hairs.
Now with that said I believe all humans even those who may feel oppressed can differentiate the lone act of a individual vs the state action. But if these lone or small group actions like the lynchings in our past go on too long without the state response like sending in the FBI to stop this then it rises to the level and becomes an oppression that can cause the rise of terrorists.
And to me singling out any specific group for following/listening in to the phone calls in what ever means is profiling. If it is deemed all can be listened to then that is not profiling, but to say just one group like the neo-nazis I believe this is profiling. If it is applied to all religions I do not think it will create the climate for more terrorists, vs saying we will only listen to phones of skin heads I believe will create more terrorists among us. oppression, I think is one of the major root causes of terrorists. I think racial profiling is oppression.
As we know, humans have racist abilities. As a rule we know it is the 1 percentile that wreck it for the rest. Same with policemen, we have to have checks and balances with them because we know human behavior. even if trained, a prejudicial/racist policeman will then know how to split hairs. Just as an example the last election or so there were some police checkpoints that were out of the norm on election day. These in the past had been set up with a system in place of when and where way in advance, other law enforcement agencies were notified in advance. The ones placed on election day did not follow that "normal behavior" so they have a distinctly higher probability of being racially motivated. Again a racist trained can split hairs.
Now with that said I believe all humans even those who may feel oppressed can differentiate the lone act of a individual vs the state action. But if these lone or small group actions like the lynchings in our past go on too long without the state response like sending in the FBI to stop this then it rises to the level and becomes an oppression that can cause the rise of terrorists.
And to me singling out any specific group for following/listening in to the phone calls in what ever means is profiling. If it is deemed all can be listened to then that is not profiling, but to say just one group like the neo-nazis I believe this is profiling. If it is applied to all religions I do not think it will create the climate for more terrorists, vs saying we will only listen to phones of skin heads I believe will create more terrorists among us. oppression, I think is one of the major root causes of terrorists. I think racial profiling is oppression.
What you describe is a type of oppression Inventor, profiling, when done correctly, the "perp" will never know it until thier arrested- much less the community that the perp may be moving within- and that is where the misunderstanding lies- "profiling" by a traffic cop, well, the community being "profiled" notices by the sheer "wide net" behavior of the untrained officer- where, when done by a competent team, the profiled never knows they have been profiled until they are arrested and charges filed!
Cops that just start looking at muslims or blacks at random are just practicing a new and interesting form of racism- a profiling team is making a "sketch" if you will, of all the things they can gather together from EVIDENCE OF A CRIME ALREADY COMMITTED, and to head off the possibility of ANOTHER crime- so, there is a gathering of evidence, usually a fairly large amount of evidence that leads to a "profile" of a place to start looking.
I will give you an example- years ago- a little girl went missing near a town called Glennallen in Alaska. The local police and state troopers were lost- they thought it was a traveller ( it is on the main hiway to Anchorage) or she had wandered off and got lost. Well, after 2 weeks, they requested the homicide profiling team (trained by the FBI original profilers) to help them narrow the search, and , within one week, they had the nieghbor down the road under arrest, and convicted and spending life in jail within a year.
The trooper "profiled" everyone travelling down the road based on a guess- the profilers caught the bad guy by using evidence from the disappearance available, including psych profiles, to narrow the search very quickly and arrest the bad guy.
He WAS white- just like they said- but that was not the most important atribute- he was also a grouchy irritible jerk and lived with his mom- a couple other things that came up from evidence gathered- and the biggie- he was helping with the search for the little girl- even taking on a leadership role, so he could monitor the investigation- this came out during the profiling that this was very likely, so, after running down the names of all the searchers, they narrowed it down to that suspect alone- because none of the rest matched the profile, -
It is a complex and useful tool used by trained professionals- but to say "we need to look at the muslim community"- well, I am sure the terrorists have psychologists, and darn good ones, on thier staff list somewhere- and know, that, to foil random muslim profiling, just need to find a white guy and change his name to slip through this wide net.
Cops that just start looking at muslims or blacks at random are just practicing a new and interesting form of racism- a profiling team is making a "sketch" if you will, of all the things they can gather together from EVIDENCE OF A CRIME ALREADY COMMITTED, and to head off the possibility of ANOTHER crime- so, there is a gathering of evidence, usually a fairly large amount of evidence that leads to a "profile" of a place to start looking.
I will give you an example- years ago- a little girl went missing near a town called Glennallen in Alaska. The local police and state troopers were lost- they thought it was a traveller ( it is on the main hiway to Anchorage) or she had wandered off and got lost. Well, after 2 weeks, they requested the homicide profiling team (trained by the FBI original profilers) to help them narrow the search, and , within one week, they had the nieghbor down the road under arrest, and convicted and spending life in jail within a year.
The trooper "profiled" everyone travelling down the road based on a guess- the profilers caught the bad guy by using evidence from the disappearance available, including psych profiles, to narrow the search very quickly and arrest the bad guy.
He WAS white- just like they said- but that was not the most important atribute- he was also a grouchy irritible jerk and lived with his mom- a couple other things that came up from evidence gathered- and the biggie- he was helping with the search for the little girl- even taking on a leadership role, so he could monitor the investigation- this came out during the profiling that this was very likely, so, after running down the names of all the searchers, they narrowed it down to that suspect alone- because none of the rest matched the profile, -
It is a complex and useful tool used by trained professionals- but to say "we need to look at the muslim community"- well, I am sure the terrorists have psychologists, and darn good ones, on thier staff list somewhere- and know, that, to foil random muslim profiling, just need to find a white guy and change his name to slip through this wide net.
CR No question on the use of statistics in solving crime, profiling is a human basically using his judgement from history of crimes. Racial profiling is to me not acceptable.
Here is an example of racial profiling gone wrong because of the racism of the profilers.. Remember the anthrax mailings. Well the profilers from the government went completely the wrong way. They went after the racial profiling and were in left field. Because they were to racially biassed they missed the profile they should have gone after. The reason I know this is because I profiled the moron right away. In fact I emailed a few "experts" when they were on TV shows to get them to open their minds. One actually did reply back. He disagreed with me, we debated and at the end he just did not listen. They did finally as we know decide it was not a arab but an american. Again it was simple, the jerk mailed it to what he considered all liberals. The two highest ranking democrats and the liberal media.
See this is where the profilers went wrong when I was debating the one who emailed back he understood the point is clear about the two top liberals, But what through them is one of the media was News Corp, which the profilers are smart enough to know News Corp is righty Ruppert Murdochs. So they could not conclude the anthrax was after liberals. But I tried to explain to him this conclusion is wrongly based, that the average conservative I have debated does not know who News Corp is and that the majority of those who would fit the profile think the entire media except FOX is liberal media no exception. And most would not know News corp is fox.
As a result the profilers went the complete wrong direction then later would not listen and went the wrong direction for months. Which as we know allowed the actual perp to cover his trail where he could not be arrested. Interestingly enough the main suspect seems to be a racist.
So this is an example of how racial profiling vs proper profiling caused us billions of dollars of damage and the perp is still at large.
Here is an example of racial profiling gone wrong because of the racism of the profilers.. Remember the anthrax mailings. Well the profilers from the government went completely the wrong way. They went after the racial profiling and were in left field. Because they were to racially biassed they missed the profile they should have gone after. The reason I know this is because I profiled the moron right away. In fact I emailed a few "experts" when they were on TV shows to get them to open their minds. One actually did reply back. He disagreed with me, we debated and at the end he just did not listen. They did finally as we know decide it was not a arab but an american. Again it was simple, the jerk mailed it to what he considered all liberals. The two highest ranking democrats and the liberal media.
See this is where the profilers went wrong when I was debating the one who emailed back he understood the point is clear about the two top liberals, But what through them is one of the media was News Corp, which the profilers are smart enough to know News Corp is righty Ruppert Murdochs. So they could not conclude the anthrax was after liberals. But I tried to explain to him this conclusion is wrongly based, that the average conservative I have debated does not know who News Corp is and that the majority of those who would fit the profile think the entire media except FOX is liberal media no exception. And most would not know News corp is fox.
As a result the profilers went the complete wrong direction then later would not listen and went the wrong direction for months. Which as we know allowed the actual perp to cover his trail where he could not be arrested. Interestingly enough the main suspect seems to be a racist.
So this is an example of how racial profiling vs proper profiling caused us billions of dollars of damage and the perp is still at large.
1. Is racial profiling beneficial to the Security of the United States, your state, your town, or your community? Why or why not?
Racial profiling - no Radical profiling yes. There is a lot more to profiling than just race. I do not know what all of the items are, but the parameters are far more than merely race.
That could be beneficial if done right. And yes the average beat cop CAN be trained to profile and defend our communities. The Israelis have been profiling aircraft passengers for years and have proven that if done right it not only works but is nearly transparent to anybody that does not fit the criteria.
They have managed to screen passengers, protect all their aircraft and not have any flight delays. How, simple they have trained personnel that effectively profile.
2. How would that positively or negatively affect the actions of law enforcement in your respective locales?
We have many examples of when it is incorrectly done and it is not only ineffective when improperly done, it harms efforts to find the criminals because they are focusing on the wrong group of people.
When done properly the law enforcement is looking for the most likely people.
3. Is the Grutter v Bollinger case a legitimate use of Supreme Court precedent?
Do not have enough information yet.
Racial profiling - no Radical profiling yes. There is a lot more to profiling than just race. I do not know what all of the items are, but the parameters are far more than merely race.
That could be beneficial if done right. And yes the average beat cop CAN be trained to profile and defend our communities. The Israelis have been profiling aircraft passengers for years and have proven that if done right it not only works but is nearly transparent to anybody that does not fit the criteria.
They have managed to screen passengers, protect all their aircraft and not have any flight delays. How, simple they have trained personnel that effectively profile.
2. How would that positively or negatively affect the actions of law enforcement in your respective locales?
We have many examples of when it is incorrectly done and it is not only ineffective when improperly done, it harms efforts to find the criminals because they are focusing on the wrong group of people.
When done properly the law enforcement is looking for the most likely people.
3. Is the Grutter v Bollinger case a legitimate use of Supreme Court precedent?
Do not have enough information yet.
1. Is racial profiling beneficial to the Security of the United States, your state, your town, or your community? Why or why not?
First, I disagree that racial profiling is what is being proposed. As CruisingRam aptly describes, profiling is simply using science and analysis to focus resources on the areas most likely to produce results. So, strictly speaking, those against profiling are against efficient use of resources, which isn't a position that really makes much sense. The key, then, as CruisingRam also points out, is to make sure the criteria in the profile focus efforts in the right direction. For terrorists, we have an undeniable fact...ALL of the terrorists are Muslim. So, spending effort and resources on other areas is a waste of effort and resources. I'm not really sure how wasting those on a matter so critical is beneficial to anyone. There are a variety of other charecteristics which should also be honed in on, so it's not singling out Muslims...it is focusing efforts on those people who fit the terrorist profile. If it turns out that that particular characteristic turns out to have exceptions, then that needs to be factored into the profile.
For an analogy, not profiling would be like investigated a crime, finding a variety of clues indicating who the suspects should be, and then looking for someone else. Hopefully, everyone can see that that wouldn't make any sense.
As inventor and CruisingRam point out, profiling needs to be done well, and should not exclude other possibilities. Profiling shouldn't exclude, it should focus.
First, I disagree that racial profiling is what is being proposed. As CruisingRam aptly describes, profiling is simply using science and analysis to focus resources on the areas most likely to produce results. So, strictly speaking, those against profiling are against efficient use of resources, which isn't a position that really makes much sense. The key, then, as CruisingRam also points out, is to make sure the criteria in the profile focus efforts in the right direction. For terrorists, we have an undeniable fact...ALL of the terrorists are Muslim. So, spending effort and resources on other areas is a waste of effort and resources. I'm not really sure how wasting those on a matter so critical is beneficial to anyone. There are a variety of other charecteristics which should also be honed in on, so it's not singling out Muslims...it is focusing efforts on those people who fit the terrorist profile. If it turns out that that particular characteristic turns out to have exceptions, then that needs to be factored into the profile.
For an analogy, not profiling would be like investigated a crime, finding a variety of clues indicating who the suspects should be, and then looking for someone else. Hopefully, everyone can see that that wouldn't make any sense.
As inventor and CruisingRam point out, profiling needs to be done well, and should not exclude other possibilities. Profiling shouldn't exclude, it should focus.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 17 2006, 01:57 PM)
As inventor and CruisingRam point out, profiling needs to be done well, and should not exclude other possibilities. Profiling shouldn't exclude, it should focus.
I disagree that the term used in the media or the act that is being protested is NOT profiling. It is indeed profiling, even by your definition.
What PC people are complaining about is that the airport may focus in on the arab guy simply because he is arab. These people suggest that you do a random search so that you don't offend the arab guy, but instead pick on the 90 year old white lady who is obviously no threat or a foreigner.
Indeed people are complaining exactly about profiling as defined by CR.
I think it's idiotic to overlook someone's appearance. I think there are problems if it starts to become harrassment, but why waste effort simply to appease a group? If you come from the middle east or pakistan, then sorry, we hope you understand if you are subject to more scrutiny. Aside from McVeigh show me an instance where a non-muslim has been involved in any of these plots.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.