Racial profiling can be explained as the inclusion of ethnic and racial characteristic in finding out if an individual is likely to be considered to have committed a given type of illegal act or crime. Advocates for the civil rights are not for racial profiling mechanism by police. Racial profiling has been used more often to keep a national security on the line where by nationality, religion, and race is used as the bases for threat profiling. Muslim community in most cases has been the target by many polices when a kind of war arises among nations. In several times, the FBI group has been questioning the Muslim about possible ties of terrorist in Seattle. This is a kind of racial profiling that is based on religion. For example, the local mosque members have complained to Rep. Jim Mcdermott who requested for an investigation on congregessions of the innocuous of FBI (Armstrong, 2007).
Some arguments have been laid down by some people that racial profiling is a fundamental offence to American values that it need to be prohibited, even if the safety is jeopardized by this prohibition. Most of the civil-liberties groups and activists who strenuously object to the use of religious, ethnic, racial and nationality categorization during the support of the war use of classifications which are the same to ensure parity or diversity in any peacetime. The hypocrites of the civil rights have not met compelling interests of government for using nationality, ethnicity, or racial classification which they never liked; except that the time of compelling interest occurred to the survival of the nation. A good example of racial profiling occurred in 2001 when the FBI of phoenix, where Kenneth William delegated his superiors to investigate Muslim militant men whom he suspected them to have received training in the United States of America flight school as the mission for the al-Qaeda. If the William’s advice could have been taken by the FBI, this could have actually hurt the Muslims and Arabs. This simply could imply that the twin towers in America could be standing and many people who perished in it could still be a live (Marcus, 2007).
In the 9/11 case in America, the profiling opponents has stopped from arguing away from it because it is just a mere racist and that this put security in danger as it erodes resources, destroys religious ethnic minority thereby preventing intelligence gatherings. The 9/11, the belief that nationality, racial and religious profiling is not justified has come to be a bugaboo that is very dangerous.
Another case of racial profiling is that of Edgardo Cureg who wanted to catch a flight. After being treated with suspicion they were forced to catch another fight together with other two guys. Cureg was treated unfairly because he was wrongly suspected to be a terrorist. Cureg otherwise was not treated unfairly because he was not wrongly suspected. A fellow passenger who was concerned much with his ethnicity, sex and age found him suspicious. Thirdly, the anxiety of passengers to take the security issues at their hands becomes more when the official security is reluctant to take the necessary steps in ensuring their security. If the airport screeners do not profile those passengers with suspicious characteristics of terrorist, the passenger in the flight may end up doing it for themselves leading to suspicion of those passengers who are not really the terrorists (Armstrong, 2007).
Passengers racial profiling at check-in is not really a panacea. This is only a passenger’s differential treatment that could have improvement airline security efficiency. To solve the problem of inconvenience for the frequent flyers that embraces travelers loath to more privacy, then we need to create a two-tier system for those passengers who are willing to offer more information to the screeners that can pass quickly through the security.
Another case of racial profiling is that of police stop, frisk and question action. The communities that have hardly faced this are the African communities. For stops be legal, certain requirements must be followed by police. These could include the following. The suspect should fit the wanted person description in a flyer, the suspect should be behaving strangely, angry, emotional, and intoxicated or frightened, and the suspect should seem hanging out for something and loitering (Marcus, 2007).
Racial profiling is therefore a matter of conditioning, fact, and instinct. For a police officer to be able to distinguish a good person from the bad one, he will do it with the help of instincts. Police claims that their instinct is based on truth. The percentage of prisoner tells us only a few of who commits crimes. This does not mean that only minorities are suspicious. Such officers fail to note that state troopers ignore norms of culture. That is why precisely the officers should know that if minorities are more suspected it will beget a lot of arrests of the few group minorities being suspected more. In this case, a senselessly, endlessly, and continuous circle will persist which is driven by a passive racism. In conclusion therefore, racial profiling is an issue that should be handled with a lot of wisdom otherwise this can lead to discrimination of the minorities in a nation or in the world. If actively practiced, it can lead to persistent chaos where the minority groups are retaliated (USA Today, 2004).
Armstrong Williams (2007) Racial Profiling: A Matter of Instinct, Conditioning and Fact. New York Amsterdam News Vol.90, Issue 22
Marcus Beasley (2007) Stop frisking with abandon. NYPD challenged. New York Amsterdam News, Vol.98, Issue 35
USA Today (2004) Racial Profiling: A Matter of Survival. USA Today, August 17, 2004