Arguments Against Racial Profiling

1270 Words 6 Pages
Racial profiling is not an effective mean to stop crime and is highly offensive in the workplace or any social setting. One of the biggest misconceptions of racial profiling is that it would be efficient if only law enforcement agencies were able to use it, that by using racial profiling, they are pinning one hand behind their back in the name of racial equality. Racial profiling side track law enforcement agencies from more useful approaches to stop crime. When people are detained based on suspicious behavior rather than race, police will catch more suspects. Pro racial profiling debaters may say, "Law enforcement profiling works; Police profiling is an effective way of catching criminals and stopping crime, and allows police to prioritize their efforts on areas where crime is higher, and needs to be halted." Upon what proof is this argument based, I say? This is not an argument; it is nothing …show more content…
On the other side people have it bad where they tend to classify certain people into stereotypical categories. However, on the other hand people have appeals of racial profiling to help select certain minority groups for justified occupations and universities. Former prosecutor, Andy McCarthy took some justifications of racial profiling into his own hand. He states that, “you can’t be an Islamist terrorist without being a Muslim, you can’t be the head of the Gambino Family without being Italian, and you can’t be a Mexican illegal alien without being a Mexican.” Yes, the argument is an ongoing debate, but usually these are the people associated with the associated crimes. Grouping certain people with specific crimes is the way our society works. Moreover, a person can even look at it from an educational viewpoint. Are all brown people doctors, do all African Americans play sports? There is an upside and a downside to racial profiling. But it is up to society to correctly determine how he or she wants to define the

Related Documents