no other direct contact with police and no other arrest in their lives. The trauma of the speeding ticket followed by an appearance in traffic court does not often make good police relations with the public (Clark, 1971, p. 155).
There are, however, larger matters at play in selective enforcement. The so-called quota system goes to the issue of sufficient public funding for officers to pursue all violators equally. Politics plays a role, as seen in such programs as the war on drugs and the PATRIOT Act. One analysis cites politicians' "rush to be recorded on the 'right' side of the drug issue--which, like murder, rape and other heinous crimes, has no wrong side" (Johnson, 1986, p. 2). More recently, the PATRIOT Act has been cited as an erosion of Constitutionally protected civil liberties (Hentoff, 2003), an overreaction to 9/11 and an exercise in racial profiling.
One knows the multiple dangers of commerce and indulgence in controlled substances, and one knows specifically and programmatically the demographics (and rhetoric) of the 9/11 thugs. How is it, then, that as a matter of simple logic, persons most likely to be linked to heinous crimes should not be selected for further investigation? On the other hand, where selective enforcement slides into caprice, prejudice, and disregard for rights, how does that exempt the U.S. from becoming a police state? These positions ca
...