Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Interesting question. As far as I know, and I have been out of law enforcement for about ten years now, the only legal profile cases are those serial killer and serial bank robber cases that the FBI handles – and then only to the extent of trying to figure out where and when the perps will strike again.
As far as individual profiling goes, it has long been known that in no way shape or form can you look at an individual and say that this individual is this kind or type of criminal. In law enforcement only an individuals actions and other hard evidence should be used to determine if any individual is the perp you are looking for.
Personally, I have long held the belief that the myth of profiling was nothing more than a trial lawyers trick at trying to sway a single juror into having a reasonable doubt. I have been asked on the witness stand, more than once, about "if it looks like a duck . . ." and have been reprimanded by the trial judge for my uproarious laughter at that kind of a question. Trial lawyers who knew me refrained from that sort of questioning while I was on the stand.
However, having said all of the above, I will offer this conjecture that it is possible that some ICE agents might be prone to profiling. I said SOME, not all. I do not believe that legalizing profiling on an individual basis will ever amount to any kind of increase in solving any crime at all. I believe that it would serve to increase the number of innocents convicted while having the effect of leaving the real criminal on the streets.
So my answer in a nutshell is no, law enforcement should never be given the ability to profile on an individual basis.
Criminal profiles of the sort in paragraph one are generally WAGs which are working on confirmation biases. That's the only reason we take those seriously at all. They may as well be horoscopes for all their actual utility.
I'm actually in general agreement that profiling as a system should not be done. As I've indicated, you often have reasonable conclusions that appear unsupported by evidence, or at least, evidence that other people can find and verify. In this case, you were at least a cop and probably have a pretty good idea what works and what does not. Occasionally this jades and colours your opinions on criminal outcomes, but it does not appear to have lessened an opinion about proper processes and rights or privileges. I applaud that and think it should be celebrated. Not every cop thinks this way, sadly.
What I disagree with is the amount you think is going on or the amount you think is sanctioned by existing laws and systems of policing. It's not just "some ICE agents". It's also "Sheriff Joe" or that entire immigration law out there in your state, as examples.
The basis for such statements is that crime has statistically gone down in most of Arizona except for his jurisdiction, which deployed the legal structure that became the immigration law you passed out there. In Maricopa County it did precisely as you describe happens where profiling would be used: crime went up because actual criminals remained free in favor of police or authorities needlessly harassing innocents. Profiling is happening and will happen more expansively under a new set of laws and guidelines.
If you were to be consistent, you would object to it in these instances as well and not just the work of "some ICE agents".
Arizona's SB 1070 states that if someone is stopped by police for any other reason (traffic violation, etc), that persons background can be checked to establish that that person is a legal citizen or not if the officer has reason to suspect (inability to speak, read/write English, absence of drivers license, etc) that the individual may not be in the country legally. What is wrong with that?
Also, why haven't you commented on Alabama's new immigration law that seems to cover more territory in that it requires medical professionals, businesses, and school employees (including teachers) to notify law enforcement if they suspect someone to be here illegally?
In my own very humble and personal opinion, I truly believe that we need more Sheriff's like Joe Arpaio! B)
If you read the problem, Sheriff Joe has explicitly been profiling in precisely the way you describe as not so good police work. There are DoJ investigations and civil rights lawsuits a plenty to this effect. You can also read between the lines and note when I indicated that the crime rate in his jurisdiction went up, precisely in the way that you describe happens when profiling occurs. So… if you're opposed to profiling…why would you be so happy he's clearly doing it? Also, you're happy with a Sheriff whose crime rate went UP (when the surrounding sheriffs all experienced crime rate drops)? Seriously? I know the prison unions set up a system that guarantees they'll have more work (ie, more prisoners), but I hadn't thought the police unions would want to raise crime rates to guarantee they'll have more work.
As far as Arizona's law. The law invites profiling to occur because it uses a flimsy standard of "reasonable suspicion", which is left undefined (and is not necessarily the carefully listed items you declared). "Reasonable suspicions" like not speaking/reading/writing in English, absence of drivers license, are not synonymous with "illegally in country". Immigrants and citizens alike could be walking on the street or passengers in a car, both with no license required, and I know lots of people who are here legally who have tremendously bad accents or worse who live in neighbourhoods where it is possible to get by without speaking much English, much less reading it. Hell, there are people who have grown up their entire lives in this country who are as illiterate as a sack of rocks. I'd like to know how then those are established as a reasonable suspicion to begin with, because they don't seem automatically reasonable to me to use as proxies or as conclusive evidence. Would you think it likely a white college age person from Norway who overstayed a student visa is going to be harassed by a cop? I'm guessing no. That person is still here illegally. Why the distinction?
More to the point, the law invites authorities, as Sheriff Joe routinely did and still does, to harass and detain non-white looking Hispanics, most of whom are here legally, and to demand their paperwork proving their citizenship or legal residence. Traffic stops, among other minor legal infractions like lawn care, can be justified on very minor offences and turned into immigration status grillings if the person has a "Mexican bearing." Citizens and other legal residents are then required to carry documents and information proving their innocence from such charges rather than working from a pre-established and constitutionally divined right of innocence until proven guilty.
I haven't commented on Alabama's because you don't live there and figured you'd be more apt to demonstrate cognitive dissonance over the Arizona law (as you did, thanks for falling into the trap) and your expressed opinion regarding profiling than a law in another state. I think it's worse, but not much, mostly because it places more onus on non-police citizens to enforce laws. A suspicion of illegal residence, etc is not really the province of a doctor or teacher to be investigating. Businesses might have some reason to do so for employment reasons in order to comply with existing laws (tax laws mostly). But otherwise, money is money. It also punishes people for giving someone a ride. That seems really outrageous and far more prone to "profiling", albeit done by citizens rather than police.