In contemporary law enforcement in order to effectively and efficiently allocate resources, racial profiling is used as a management tool. Law enforcement officials argue that young to middle-aged minority males statistically commit the most crimes. Because of this, they argue that allocating scarce resources by focusing on other segments of the population would be an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars and do little to reduce or deter crime. As one police Chief intones “It is common sense” (Derbyshire 38).
Despite this logical argument, often the perception is more important than the reality and many think it is racism not common sense. Racial profiling has become a hotbed issue, as controversial as gun control or abortion. This is mainly because of the numerous cases of police misconduct directed at minorities, misconduct that is often attributed to law enforcement officials with a racial profiling mentality who perceive crime as color-specific. Many argue that solely because of color, police officers stop more minorities and handle them differently during an encounter than their white counterparts. As one opponent of racial profiling notes “In practice, race appears often to be a decisive element in whether a stop is initiated, or in how an encounter is handled” (Leitzel 38).
Many people of color argue they are stopped, detained, and often given harsh treatment by law enforcement officers merely because of their skin color. New Jersey practically created racial profiling and recently had to settle a $13 million lawsuit against two white officers who pulled over a van carrying four young black men (New Jersey 8). Pulled over for speeding according to the troopers, 11 shots were fired at the van by officers when the driver inadvertently backed the van up while officers approached. The incident created a furor over racial profiling, as the young men were on their
...