In a recent poll conducted by the state of Arizona, nearly half of all those surveyed and 60% of minorities believe that “racial profiling by law enforcement agencies is widespread” (60% 1). Racial profiling is used by law enforcement agencies across the United States as a means of efficiency resource allocation. Many members of law enforcement argue that racial profiling is necessary because it enables law enforcement officials to target valuable time and capital toward the segments of society that commit the most numbers of crimes. For the most part, this segment of society is young minority males, particularly African-Americans and Hispanics.
Maryland and New Jersey have long used racial profiling as a means of deploying law enforcement resources in an efficient and rational manner. Many argue that racial profiling is unfair because law enforcement officials stop and detain a higher percentage of minorities than their representation in the overall population. However, these segments of society statistically demonstrate a higher propensity to commit crime. Yet, as one critic of racial profiling argues, “Our objection is to the police considering race or ethnicity in deciding whom to stop or arrest” (Conservatives A18).
However, if law enforcement officials would target resources at another population segment, say retired white females, their resources would be wasted because this segment of society statistically demonstrates low crime rates. Still, racial profiling continues to come under fire. Yet, this is often because of police abuse or brutality against minorities, not because racial profiling is used. For example, the New York City police officers who raped Abner Louima with a plunger handle while in police custody were sick, abusive men. Those in Maryland who starting firing shots into a van of four African-Americans on their way to a basketball tryout were in error.
...