Since 1991, serious crime in the U.S. has declined more than 20 percent (Leitzel 38). Despite the success of the Clinton Administration crime bill, including more police on the streets and more aggressive policing, this statistic has been diminished somewhat by the role that race plays in contemporary law enforcement. Many see racial profiling as the result of prejudice and stereotypes against persons of color. The same officer that sees a wallet in the hand of a white man and knows it’s a wallet might mistake that wallet in the hand of a black man as a gun. Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima, Rodney King, and other highly publicized cases of police brutality against persons of color have not diminished the controversy over racial profiling. Many people of color feel they are singled out and stopped by police merely because of their color or race. In a notorious example of racial profiling gone bad, the state of New Jersey just paid $12.9 million to four racial profiling victims (New Jersey 8). The four black men were on their way to a basketball tryout in North Carolina when two white troopers pulled them over for speeding, firing 11 shots at the van when the driver backed up as the officers approached the car “The lawsuit also alleged the troopers pulled the van over solely because the occupants were minorities” (New Jersey 8).
Yet, statistically, the most numbers of crimes are committed by young male minorities. Statistically, with limited resources, it makes sense for law enforcement officials to focus on the segments of the population that commit the most crimes. As one advocate of racial profiling notes “Should we play the percentages? It’s common sense” (Derbyshire 38). Individuals who support racial profiling argue that for law enforcement to be effective, its resources must be targeted to the portions of society that statistically prove to commit the most criminal acts.
...