Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

In recent years, police profiling has been a much debated issue not only in the United States but also across the world. Also known as racial profiling, police profiling includes actions of police authorities based on the perceived race of a person rather than on legal cues. In other words, racial profiling is the use of race as a key factor by law enforcement officers in targeting citizens for surveillance and questioning. The criminologists Scott Wortley and Julian Tanner provide one of the broadest definitions of racial profiling. Specifically, they say racial profiling exists when members of specific racial groups are targeted for greater levels of surveillance than are members of other races. It includes behaviors such as when police stop and search some races more than others, when there are increased patrols in minority neighborhoods, and when sting operations target particular ethnic groups. According to a 1999 Gallup poll, 60% of Americans believe that racial profiling exists. The popularity of phrases such as “driving while black” and “driving while brown” indicates the public concerns that ethnicity and race play an important role in police discretion.

There is a consensus among citizens, advocates, and even police officers that police profiling based on ethnicity and race is not acceptable, even though some believe that profiling minorities is a pragmatic decision that many law enforcement agencies have to make to get better results in crime fighting. On the other hand, there is no doubt that police, scholars, and the public have different beliefs and opinions about the ways in which racial police profiling occurs. This entry examines the sources of such disparity and myths regarding profiling, and explores measures to combat racial profiling.

Sources of Disparity

One explanation for racial profiling is that it occurs due to the actions of racist law enforcement officers toward minorities. Some people believe that profiling is merely the problem of racist individuals, not the systematic problem of organizations. From this perspective, individual discriminatory actions by police, judges, correction personnel, and prosecutors are seen as the main cause of profiling, and individual discriminatory actions based on race and ethnicity should be dealt with by harsh policies and punishing the people who are involved. However, others claim that individual discriminatory actions account for a small fraction of the overall problem. The “bad apples” explanation does not adequately explain the overrepresentation of minorities at the different stages of criminal justice system. Some people believe that racial profiling is not a problem in which a few bad apples in law enforcement engage, but rather, it is a systematic and accepted belief within law enforcement that minorities are more likely to commit crime than are Whites.

Another argument for racial profiling made by some scholars and practitioners is the cognitive stereotyping of law enforcement agencies that, based on the premise that minorities are more likely to commit crime, targeting minorities for offenses may result in uncovering many other violations. Racial profiling is done not with the idea of discrimination, but with the idea of efficient use of resources by law enforcement to get the maximum benefits from their actions. Therefore, some law enforcement agencies identify hot spots in their geographic jurisdictions—that is, locations where the majority of the crimes occur—and they try to intervene in those places to combat crime. This tactic is considered a costeffective allocation of law enforcement resources.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading