Racial Profiling Essay, Research Paper

The great era of civil rights started in the 1960s, with Martin Luther King,

Jr.?s stirring ?I have a Dream? speech at the historic march on Washington

in August of 1963. At the same time Birmingham Police Commissioner ?Bull?

Connor used powerful fire hoses and vicious police attack dogs against

nonviolent black civil rights activists. Although these years proved to be the

highlight and downfall of civil rights in America, even with the 1964 Civil

Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act being passed, time has repeated these

tumultuous events again in the present. Racial profiling has been one of many

civil rights issues concerning the unnecessary stopping and arresting of people

based on race, color, ethnicity and gender. Skin-color has become evidence of

the propensity to commit crime, and police use this ?evidence? against

minority drivers on the road all the time. This practice is so common that the

minority community has given it the derisive term, ?Driving While Black or

Brown? ? a play on the real offense of ?driving while intoxicated?.

Although many law enforcement officers defend themselves by saying they are

fighting against the ?War on Drugs? by arresting these law offenders, recent

trials and reports show that no basis of arrest have been found against these

minorities. Official skin-color prejudice is still reflected throughout the

criminal justice system. Today, skin-color makes you a suspect in America. It

makes you more likely to be stopped by a law enforcement officer, more likely to

be searched, and more likely to be arrested and imprisoned. Tens of thousands of

innocent motorists on highways across the country are victims of racial

profiling, and these discriminatory police stops have reached epidemic

proportions in recent years. Fueled by the ?War on Drugs?, this fight has

given police a pretext to target people who they think fit a ?drug courier?

or ?gang member? profile. At many times, these minorities have been stopped

and arrested for illegal offenses, however we are not sure if these stories have

been filed truthfully by law enforcement officers. Many police departments face

issues concerning racist law enforcement officers who cause the problems of

racial profiling. One such example comes from the Hillside Police Department,

where several racial bias charges have been made against them. Racial slurs have

become common in the Hillside district, where even the department supervisor

does background checks on minorities IN the squad, even to kick them off the

squad. In this department, only two officers are Hispanic and one is of African

decent. The officers, many of whom are white, are encouraged to target

minorities first to fill their ticket quotas for the month. Hillside officers

defend themselves saying that Hillside is 40 percent black and 20 percent

Hispanic. However, the actions taken by Hillside officer, such as targeting to

fill quotas and background checking, seem disconcerting. The Reverend Jesse

Jackson even needed to call for federal protection for whistleblowing police

officers. Because of the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act, passed this

year, other officials who witness this discriminating act are protected. It

says, ?The identity of a law enforcement officer who complains in food faith

to a government agency or department about the unlawful practices of a law

enforcement agency shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed by any

person except upon the knowing written consent of the law enforcement officer.

This section shall not preempt any right of confrontation protected by the

Constitution of by Federal, State or tribal law.? In many cases, we can not

determine whether the racial profiling comes from the individual law enforcer,

or the department itself. Many policies have been suggested to either report

these discriminatory acts, or to record the ethnicity, race, or gender of the

person being stopped. However, without the correct supervision of these

officers, we can not truthfully tell whether these policies will be followed.

There have been bills proposed to even make the slightest positive effect on

racial profiling, yet many have been overlooked. Former California Governor Pete

Wilson served as best he could to fight key civil rights issues such as

affirmative action and immigrant rights, however Governor Gray Davis has had a

disappointing civil rights record. Although he has helped establish new civil

rights gains for the lesbian and gay communities, he has also vetoed a number of

bills aimed at reducing discrimination against communities of color and

immigrants. SB 44, a bill sponsored by Senator Richard Polanco, encourages state

and local governments to conduct outreach programs. SB 44 had bipartisan support

and was previously endorsed by former Attorney General Dan Lungren. Governor

Davis vetoed the bill claiming that outreach toward minorities and women would

violate Proposition 209, a position contrary to recent court decisions. Davis

also vetoes what has been colloquially referred to as the ?Driving While Black

or Brown? bill (SB 78.) The bill was proposed to combat racial profiling ?

law enforcement actions taken simply because of the race of the driver ? by

requiring police officers to file reports on all motorists they stop. Although

President Clinton has recently ordered federal law enforcement agencies to begin

collecting this data, and a number of Bay Area police departments have similar

plans, Davis saw little need to collect this information. However, the

?Driving While Black or Brown? bill makes much sense to part of the solution

I will propose to help decrease or even end the crime of racial profiling.

Although there have been many ideas brought up to solve racial profiling in

American, there still isn?t one dynamic and problem solving solution. Many

bills have been passed to help and protect minorities, who can bring their cases

all the way to court, however, sometimes the officers being accused are not

found. All though my proposed solution is not the most money conserving idea, it

will cover almost all the faulty lines, the bills and the policies have

forgotten to mention. A committee should be established within the United States

Government in which the committee shall oversee each county and district and

department for any racial profiling. These members should be made up of civil

rights organizations such as the NAACP and the ACLU. Also, there should be

advising law enforcement officers and people appointed from each civil rights

division in the government. Within districts, officials shall be appointed to

oversee the actions of the departments, and report to higher authorities in the

committee. A committee similar to this has been formed because of the Law

Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2000, called the Task Force on Law

Enforcement Oversight. Each department should first make an independent audit.

There have been many policies made and almost approved to make these audits

mandatory for all police departments. Each person should record the following:

race, color, ethnicity, gender, and the reason for being stopped. Every 4 months

or so, the committee shall evaluate each district and their statistics on what

kinds of people are being stopped and determine which city has higher minority

stopping, based on population of the area and racial crime in the area. Because

Americans are segregated into communities, as in the Greater Los Angeles Area,

more minorities will be stopped in certain areas than others will. Because of

this problem, the committee will evaluate the area, and observe data written by

law enforcement officers, to see if plausible reasons have caused the stopping

of a minority. Once all data has been evaluated, the districts with the highest

racial profiling rating shall complete a full audit report for the following

months. Also, individual law enforcement shall be evaluated as well, to see if

it is only one individual who increases the rating, rather that the whole

department. If the racial profiling is targeted and found, the committee shall

be the one who files complaints to the Attorney General, and that certain

department or law enforcer will be detained to consequences can be established.

To be able to bring these racial profilers to trial, people should not only file

a complaint to the department itself, fear of the complaint being ?lost?,

but to the committee as well so the complaint can be used as evidence. This

solution can only work if districts, departments, and law enforcement officers

can truthfully carry out these procedures. No matter how hard the outside world

tries to find the culprit, the officer can easily protect or defend themselves

because of their high position as a law protector. Many minorities are arrested

with valid reason by law enforcement officers, just as white people are. But

these officers can also be the targets of accusation of racial profiling. Racial

profiling has been a long and disconcerting problem in the United States. It

will be a long time before minorities will not serve as the targets to law

enforcers. The blame is almost easier to put on the minorities because of their

difference to the ?American Culture?, as almost to say that minorities are

not part of the American Culture.