Racial profiling is not beneficial despite expert’s findings

It suggests that profiling undermines social cohesion, is unjust, and should be stopped. Introduction Racial profiling is a controversial subject that is increasingly on the minds of both minorities and the police. This is a common practice by which people of a certain ethnic background are targeted by the security apparatus on the belief that they are more likely to commit or be involved in illegal activity. There is no other probable suspicion except for their skin colour, and because of it they are subject to search or even detention. There are some that suggest this needs to be done in order to protect our security and to cut down on costs. However, racial profiling is inherently unjust and unAmerican. It is not a useful or acceptable practice and it may even have negative consequences for security. Background To properly understand the role played by racial profiling in the criminal justice system it is important to take a step back and look at the various theories that underlie the system we live in. There are two main models that are used to frame the criminal justice system. These two models are excellent illustrations of the thinking behind a great deal of the policy discussion relating to racial profiling. The first model is called the Due Process model. In this system, the standard to arrest and convict a person is very high. There are numerous safeguards in place to ensure that no innocent person is ever subject to any sort of invasive treatment. Everyone, no matter what the crime or the nature of the evidence, is treated with kid gloves. Not until the judge weighs in with the final conviction is the suspect sent to prison. Trials, under this model, last for a very long time and every scrap of evidence is reviewed. The problem with this model is that it is impracticable. It is very expensive and time consuming. It uses up a lot of resources in a system with limited or finite resources already. It may also permit guilty people to game the system to some extent. This system is often promoted by people on the left of the political spectrum. There is a second model called the Crime Control model. Under this system, the police have a great deal of power to act as they see fit. They are empowered to stop people without suspicion and hold people without charge. The prosecutors are usually presumed to be right. The presumption of innocence is somewhat limited. There are few protections regarding the civil rights of those accused under this model. An accusation is similar to a conviction. Trials and investigations are short. everything is aligned against the suspect. Suspicion is akin to guilt. Criminals have few rights and little evidence needs to be presented in order to convict someone. This model is often promoted by people on the right. These two models are good illustrations of the politics behind racial profiling. They also represent two poles, neither of which are an appropriate way to run a criminal justice system. We see that racial profiling falls into the Crime Control model, where suspects have fewer rights, but community security is the ultimate good. Preserving limited resources is important. Rather than randomly searching people, under racial profiling ethnic background is taken to imply a likely disposition to commit a crime or type of crime. Race is used as an investigative shortcut. This is an unfortunate extreme. A much better position is between the two models. Problems with Racial Profiling There are many possible reasons why