Talk:Racial profiling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject African diaspora (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Although this article does have a lot of important information and is done correctly for the most part, there are some parts that could use a bit of improvement. The article does a good job at retaining a neutral point of view, however there are some parts that are slightly questionable with the way that they are worded, and could seem slightly bias if read within the wrong context. I feel some parts could be written off of a more fact based viewpoint than out of common knowledge, as this could seem like a personal statement sometimes. In terms of referencing everything was done correctly, and i do think that the paraphrasing was done good however more sources could be used to make the author's argument stronger and paraphrasing could be worded better. The article is long and filled with various types of information which is good, however i feel that this topic could be connected to other topics of similar interest such as race and crime, and articles that cover similar topics should use each other to help prove their points as well as back up their arguments. Overall i feel that this article was done fairly well, but there is room for improvement as the article could be more detailed and contain more facts to help conclude it to a fact based position without seeming bias in any way. Nicholas Vaduva (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


I think this article is properly referenced, however the author makes statements that leave me wondering if the information should be referenced or if it was common knowledge. This article is neutral and does not appear to be heavily biased towards a particular position. It includes lots of fact based evidence and examples and I also believe that everything in this article is relevant to the topic. Viewpoints from outside of North America have been limited to only Germany and of the citations I have looked into, the citation links do work. Overall, the articles appeared to be neutral however the few that did appear to have a bit of bias has left me, as the reader, feeling that racial profiling is wrong (bias not noted). I did not come across any plagiarism issues however there was one attempt that paraphrasing that was very close to its original source. The information is not out of date however, in my opinion, this article could be improved by including facts/information about additional countries other than Canada, USA, Mexico and Germany. I would also suggest that the author be aware of the language they are using (ie: “Racial profiling is frowned upon in some societies"). It is important to remember to avoid using slang as not everybody is going to understand or comprehend it in the manner the author intended - grammar is very important! I also walk away from this article wondering if the definition given of racial profiling has been concluded by opinion or by exhausting resources. July.love30 (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is terrible[edit]

Actually it's beyond terrible i might even say it is horrific! I have no idea what it's trying to say, it never defines what racial profiling is in any substantive way, and it includes weasel language like "Racial profiling is frowned upon in some societies," which is worse than meaningless. The writing is conservapedia level. I suggest nuking it from orbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another opinion: this article is still terrible. Reasons as previously stated. This is an important topic. Can someone with legal and/or law enforcement training help out? Mcaisse (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed the summary and added a Definition section to clarify this issue. The sections on motor vehicles, airlines, and Canada are still terrible. I would suggest sections on "Support" (why people support it) and "Criticism" (related to racism, human rights violations, etc.). The car and plane examples are just that: examples. Note also that the other sections contain further definitions, which should be removed.Basseq (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Re-wrote it myself. Tried to remain objective, noting support for and against for different reasons (law enforcement utility vs. individual rights). The examples were the ones previously in the text. Basseq (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree that this article is very poor. As a layman unfamiliar with this subject, I came to this article desiring to learn one simple thing: When a police dispatcher describes a suspect as an "African-American male", is that in and of itself racial profiling? Reading this article, I can't for the life of me figure out the answer to this question. The way I hear racial profiling described on TV, it seems that police dispatchers and officers should never mention race in suspect descriptions. And yet they do it all the time. So what gives? What is racial profiling? I read this whole article, and I still can't figure it out. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of National DNA databases within the UK[edit]

I corrected a lot of extremely poor grammar here, including run on sentences and an apparently sarcastic sentence fragment. The section makes statistical claims with little or no citation. The section makes a passing reference to "The New Scientist Professor" without a specific citation of publisher or date of issue. The source should be checked for existence, accuracy, and reliablility. If the claims are not supported then the section should probably be removed or altered.Antares5245 (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"fit the description"[edit]

police have obviously abused the notion of "you fit the description" to target minorities in the past (if there is an outstanding description of a suspect who is black and male and 5'6", they will harass arbitrary black males who are between 5' and 6' tall), which has often been brought up by activists and in the media; this should be mentioned on the page, but does anyone have any ideas for how to work it in to maintain NPOV?


1. Definition does not appear to be clear, nor syntactically correct ( "Race in the profile of a persons considered ..." ) 2. Explicit Definition should be included in Contents

Fallacious fraction[edit]

I removed the following:

Where disproportion is thought to exist in the number of minorities who commit certain crimes, by the very status of "minority" they usually only represent a fraction of the total number of criminals, and therefore that the concentration of enforcement on minorities reveals ulterior motives.

The argument is the result of fallacious reasoning due to its twisting of the words "minority" and "fraction". The claim made is that no group can constitute a majority in the occurence of crimes if it constitutes a minority in society as a whole. This is demonstrably false:

Suppose that society contains 100 members, and that 30 of these members constitute Group X. Now, suppose that society contains 10 members that are criminals, and that 6 of these criminals are members of Group X. While these numbers are hypothetical and perhaps extreme, here we have a situation in which Group X represents only 30% of society (a minority), but 60% of its criminals (a majority).

Also, the definition of "fraction", from Wiktionary:

1. a part of a whole [...] 3. a comparatively small part [...]

These two definitions are distinct and different, but the argument equivocates them to strengthen its claim that a minority in one sense cannot constitute a majority in another. Group X may constitute a fraction - "a part of a whole" - of the total number of criminals, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the fraction that Group X constitutes is "a comparitively small part" of the total number of criminals.

See Amphibology, Definist fallacy, and Statistical special pleading.

Statistically significant[edit]

I returned to this page after contributing some time ago. I'm finding a bit of a problem conceptually and practically with the statistically significant versus never dichotomy. Much of the discourse on the term "racial profiling" in law enforcement circles, and I believe in wider society, focuses on how much of a role race can play in police\security decisions. Very few people would argue that race should never play a role, but many would argue that race should only play a role in the be on the lookout (BOLO) case.

I also find the term statistical significance confusing in this context. Two comments.

First, statistical significance really only applies to aggregate data, and many would argue only when one is attempting to generalize from a scientifcally defined sample to a universe (e.g. a clinical sample of 100 cancer patients and 100 controls to make an inference about the effect of treatment). Thus, statistical significance really has no application for assessing whether individual "A" was stopped by officer "B" based on A's race. It's a bit like asking whether or not my response to treatment is statistcally significant. Not an appropriate question for assessng.

Second, even if one were to look at aggregate measures, none of the analysts (e.g., Lamberth, Farrell, Fridell) currently looking at racial profiling in law enforcement agencies assess what is termed "statistical significance." Aggregate studies of racial profiling are descriptive studies not inferencial. There is good scientific reason for not couching this in terms of statistical significance, since persons stopped are not a scientific sample. If it is found for instance that Black drivers in a particular state are 20% more likely to be stopped for speeding than white drivers the question is not whether that difference statistically significant. This is a description of police performance (assuming accuracy and completenss in data collection) and not an inferencial problem. Even if one could establish that black and whites have similar driving behavior when it comes to speeding, the 20% is neither statistically significant or non-significant. On and aggregated level the critical questions are what role race played, if any, in that difference. That where the problems arises. Much of the statistical debate focuses on benchmarks. If blacks are 30% for the residential population are they necessarially 30% of drivers in thet jurisdiction? Are they 30% of the "speeders" (however that is defined)? It gets very complex very fast! No one has yet to conduct a case control study where statistical significance can be put to the test.


Three meanings[edit]

I revised the article after realizing that there are at least 3 different meanings of racial profiling. I think opponents of "racial profiling" would agree with the definition:

the unjustified use of race as a consideration in profiling suspects

The question remains, of course, what would justify the use of race. When searching for an individual (such as the man who just robbed a liquor store), police always ask for a description. They want skin color, clothing, height, scars, and so on. I'm not sure whether there's any opposition to using race to describe individual suspects.

When making random stops, there is less agreement.

I think the major division is between those who believe:

  1. race should be included when statistically significant, or
  2. race should never be included

If I've left anything out, please add it. I'm hoping that my own view (that race should be included only if it's significant, and that police should be monitored closely for signs of prejudice and discrimination) has not misled me once again into confounding my own views with what is generally held, or into misrepresenting anyone's position.

User:Ed Poor

This definition does not seem to agree with the general sense on television that Michael Brown was racially profiled. Michael Brown had just robbed a convenience store, and the dispatcher described him as a large black male. So when Officer Wilson confronted Michael Brown, was that racial profiling? Many on TV seem to say yes, but your definition would seem to say no. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Rearranged and tightened[edit]

I rearranged some of the paragraphs and tried to tighten up the definition of "racial profiling". Ed Poor

Couple of April suggestions[edit]

Couple of suggestions from -- April:

  • Include citations for the "some studies" which suggest X.
  • Set off US-specific text (DEA, ACLU, etc) with "In the United States..."
Good suggestions, April. Also, the blurring of the distinction between "race as main factor" and "any use of race as a factor" may be more significant than I at first thought.
In today's N.Y. Daily News, an article used the term racial profiling in both senses, explicitly mentioning its definition in each case. The article, notably, took no note of the shifting use of the term.
The first mention was a citizen complaint that police were using race as the "top factor" in making stops. The second mention was the wording of a proposed regulation which specifically forbids "any" use of race in making stops.
It reminds me of stories I had heard 15 years ago of citizens groups who apparently want the police to go easier on minority (esp. black) criminals -- a kind of an affirmative action applied not to students or employees but to wrong-doers.
My personal preference is the "level playing field" concept, in which all persons -- students applying to school or getting grades or diplomas; job applicants or employees seeking promotions -- would be judged solely on their ability not their race. Oddly enough, some advocates of "affirmative action" call my pet concept "racist". Go figure. Ed Poor, Tuesday, April 9, 2002
  • I can explain the latter point of view to you, though my own opinions, while not contradictory, are somewhat more complex than either side of the usual dichotomy on the affirmative action issue. At any rate, the "standard" objection, if you will, to the point of view described above is that the biases are already built-in long before students are tested or applying for jobs. In other words, they argue, affirmative action is a pallative measure, designed to "level the playing field" by making up for the biases which (they presume) have been holding some groups back since childhood.
  • A possible solution addressing both sides of this debate might be to pair an ending of affirmative action with a major effort to level the initial playing field; that is, seeing that minority youngsters have greater access to good nutrition, stable neighborhoods, good education, and good access to career services such as job training, et cetera. Were that done, there would then be no argument for needing measures at later stages to correct imbalances, as the imbalances would have been corrected much earlier. Further, this treatment need not be restricted to minority youngsters, but could be broad-based to anyone who might not normally have such access. -- April, Tuesday, April 9, 2002
    • To add to this, I once wrote an essay that rambled much more than April's succinct summary. My view was that in any given group of humans (black, white, etc), you probably have the same proportion of personality types. Let's assume that 50% of any given group is normally motivated, and 25% are highly motivated, and 25% are not very motivated. If Group 1 starts in poor conditions where success is not easy to gain (like a neighborhood I once had the privilege - yes, I consider it such for the empathy it helped me gain - to live in) then perhaps only those 25% who are highly motivated will be able to achieve better things. Those who are normally motivated will stay where they are, and those who are not very motivated might turn to a life of crime because it's 'easy'. Group 2 starts in better conditions.. The highly motivated group have the benefits that let them do even better than Group 2. The normally motivated group have less to worry about than Group 1, so can move ahead instead of staying where they are, etc... Obviously this is simplistic, but hopefully it helps point out some of the underlying problems of treating everyone the same if their starting conditions aren't. Rgamble

International rework[edit]

I reworked the text somewhat to make it of more international character, leaving the more general comments at the top and moving US-specific info to a section at the bottom. I copyedited a bit, and added an anti-racial-profiling (sense 2) argument I've encountered to the appropriate section.

I also checked up on the "15 mph" studies, and couldn't find said studies or anything verifing them. For instance, a Google search of police black speed white (15 or fifteen) (miles hour or mph) "racial profiling" got 42 hits, none of which discussed the statistic given above. I therefore removed the statement pending verification. -- April

Advocate position[edit]

It can often be difficult to determine what an advocate's position on "racial profiling" is, unless they state which definition they are using. Otherwise opposing advocates can each claim that they are against "racial profiling" while taking opposite sides regarding a particular police department's practices.

Mixing up race with ethnicity[edit]

If a person's physical features look like those specific to someone of Middle Eastern descent, then they're generally more likely to be stopped and searched thoroughly than someone who has the physical features of a Caucasian person

Middle Easteners are Caucasian.

Citations, statistics?[edit]

I'd really like to see some decent citations and statistics here. I know that many U.S. jurisdictions have gathered information on race of suspects stopped under certain laws; there have been many surveys on the subject, and (I imagine) quite a few academic papers. Does anyone know their way around this literature? -- Jmabel | Talk July 1, 2005 06:58 (UTC)


Dd2 2 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)

I removed this:[edit]

Currently there are as many blacks who have served time in prison as there are whites who have served time in prison.[1] Caution must be used with even these statistics, because unless examined critically, by department and state, they might lend credence to an overzealous police practices that have let whites and Hispanics go free while harassing young black males.

If there are almost as many black males as white males, that clearly showcases an imbalance in incarceration. African-Americans are only about 13% of the U.S. population, while white people make up 69% of the U.S. population. Using statistics from Demographics of the United States and the link provided in the removed text, the percentage of the black population that has been incarcerated (5.6%) is five times that of the percentage of the white population that has been incarcerated (1.1%):

  • 2,203,000/(296,000,000 x .691) = 0.0107
  • 2,166,000/(296,000,000 x .129) = 0.0567

This removed paragraph, as it stands now, shows a point-of-view in favor of the police system, and lacks some factual accuracy in its presentation. It should be restructured (possibly using the calculations I have provided) --FuriousFreddy 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"If there are almost as many black males as white males, that clearly showcases an imbalance in incarceration."

No, it "clearly showcases an imbalance in" criminal behavior. Your POV is clearly in favor of black criminals, and against the police. "You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."


Maybe it's because this is the first article I've been focused on for a long period of time, but I've noticed a high level of vandalism in this article, a few which I'v fixed myself. Is there any explanation beyond this being a controversial topic?

Including race as one of several factors in suspect profiling is generally supported by the law enforcement community globally, though there are many notable exceptions. Can you please list some of these "notable exceptions" if not i think this should removed.


In my opinion, this article is written from the standpoint of someone who is firmly in support of Racial Profiling and does little to offer the contrasting point of view.

The 'Critics' section does an incomplete job of listing some of the most relevant (and moderate) critique of Racial Profiling and in addition, even within it, the article's author interprets statistics in a manner commensurate with the opinion of being pro Racial Profiling (eg: higher black v. lower white homicide rates justifies racial profiling, a matter which there is much debate about).

I would suggest the following as a thorough argument for your 'critics' section on Racial Profiling, one that you'll find adequately presents a moderate and logical viewpoint and argument opposed to Racial Profiling not contingent on the 'political correctness' perspective of organizations such as the ACLU and its ilk.


At its base, Racial Profiling relies on the premise that members of one ethnic or racial group are significantly more likely to commit crimes of a specific type, and thus should receive increased scrutiny by law enforcement authorities.

This conclusion may initially seem logical, however critics of profiling argue that because more persons of a specific ethnic group are arrested or convicted of a crime, more of them are actually committing a crime in the first place. It is quite possible that the increased scrutiny is partially responsible for some of the drastically differing rates for arrests and convictions among whites and minorities. It has been estimated by studies, such as this one at A&M university [2] that only slightly less than 5% of (non-violent) crimes result in a successful conviction. Other studies suggest 10-20% of crimes result in a conviction. Regardless of the exact figure, it is clear that a large number and possibly even a majority of crimes do not result in a successful conviction.

The low conviction rate throws the underlying premise of racial profiling into question; if such miniscule percentages of committed crimes are being successfully prosecuted, what races are those criminals who aren't being caught? What assurances do citizens have that increased scrutiny on specific races isn't primarily or at least partially responsible for the drastic difference in rates of arrest and conviction?

Critics of Profiling may beg the question; What if a majority of the 80-95% of criminals who successfully evade conviction are white, while because of increased scrutiny minorities are captured and thus jailed at a higher rate? Given the fact that blacks are reported to receive as much as 5 times as much scrutiny as whites, even if they committed the same number of offenses as whites, they would be more likely to be tried and convicted because of increased scrutiny.

Lest proponents of Racial Profiling dismiss the above question as conspiracy theory fluff, real world law enforcement officials have given it credence, some even stating it outright.

Charles Ramsey, head of the narcotics division of the Chicago Police Department summed it up succinctly:

"There’s as much cocaine in the Sears Tower or the stock exchange as there is in the black community, but those guys are harder to catch.”

Yale University also found in a 1995 study [3] that in six California counties 100 percent of those sent to trial on drug charges were minorities, while the drug-using population in these same counties (as self reported by drug users and reported by police) was more than 60 percent white, with the whites relatively untouched by law enforcement, receiving less that one arrest per 100 admitted drug users and no trials or convictions.

The Journal of Drug Issues and many other non-political scientific studies published from 1996 to 2004 such as the following [4] have also noted a little spoken of and generally unknown fact: black teenagers and young adults use and buy less illegal drugs than whites (and also sell). Whites generally exceed all other races in consumption and sales of these drugs, in studies taken by law enforcement, school supervisors and self report. However, black teens and young adult drug users are scrutinized, arrested and jailed at a rate of over 500% more than corresponding age white drug users.

Before those who are proponents of racial profiling argue that these statistics relate to solely to drug use, note that 66% of blacks in prison are there for crimes relating to drug use. Eradicating that problem would do much to clear up the overwhelming disproportionate representation of incarcerated blacks.

Oft-hidden data like this paint a clear picture of what Racial Profiling critics fear could be happening in small and large communities across the country. Even moderately oriented critics of Racial Profiling who concede that there may be some difference in the rates of criminal behavior between races, based on socio-economic status or other non-genetic factors, have concern that increased scrutiny on minorities accounts for a substantial portion of the disparity in white and minority arrest/conviction rates.

Additionally, increased scrutiny may also cause a secondary effect of a creating self-fulfilling prophecy. Given two ethnic groups A and B, if law enforcement authorities spend 200% more effort and time pursuing ethnicity A, they will end up with approximately 200% more arrests even if groups A and B commit crimes at similar rates per capita. Following that logic, statistical criminal data from groups A and B will indicate wrongfully that A commits more crimes, and that data could theoretically be used to further justify even more scrutiny of group A. All the while group A and B could still be committing crimes at similar rates.

In summation, critics of racial profiling do not only oppose it because it is morally offensive to those of the targeted groups, but in addition may be either wholly or partially unfounded, and may perpetuate and aggravate even further potentially undeserved scrutiny on specific populations. --Notionphil 21:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Several mistakes I made - to Joanne[edit]

I seem to have accidentally deleted large sections of text, while trying to make small edits. Thanks to those who alertly recognized this and reverted these accidental deletions. Elabro 15:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This was my big mistake. I have no idea how I did this, and I apologize for the error and the trouble it caused. Elabro 15:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem, everyone makes mistakes and reverting is not a lot of work :-) Good luck with your edits, it looks like you're doing a good job! --JoanneB 16:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

explaining my deletions[edit]

Among other changes, I'm taking out the entire last paragraph of the US Debate section. Most Americans don't consider white nationalism a mainstream movement, so I don't think there's a need to describe either a white nationalist's views or how some people would counter them.

I'm also removing most of the first 9-11 paragraph and all of the second 9-11 paragraph in the same section. It gives no sources for the opinions it describes, and it sounds like raw opinion and original argument couched in "some argue..." and "they would say..." If anyone wants to add reliable sources showing who holds these opinions, feel free to add the text back in.

--Allen 02:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Asians?[edit]

It is tiring how so many Asian-Americans or Asians in general are just passed off as the passive, "controllable" (ie. "harmless" and "nerdy", and keep to themselves) minority. Being of Asian descent, I actually took it as a compliment- and take great pride!- that I got thoroughly checked and screened at the Dulles airport in Washington a few years back. And also, when Asians who "pass off" and get mistaken for being anything "not Asian", they end up getting screened more in airports. The nerdy, stereotypical looking Asians are almost always free to go! It certainly goes to show in the end that a lot of people are ignorant and have distorted perceptions of race. Any non-white person who does not comply to some given stereotype is "confusing" to people. And yet, it is perfectly fine when a white person does not fit a stereotype at an airport. Le Anh-Huy 07:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand the first sentence of the article...

++++ The first sentence is wrong I think. It reads:

Racial profiling is inclusion of race in the profile of a persons considered likely to commit a particular crime or type of crime

Racial profiling is not just the inclusion of race. Racial profiling is using race as the only or sole profile of persons considered likely to commit a particlar crime or type of crime.

That is more truthful anyway.

If your going to propose a suggestion, please sign your name. It makes it easier for the rest of us to discuss your opinion. I would oppose the above suggestion; it pushes a POV and at least in the first line it should be neutral and detached. Note that this definition does not exclude the possiblity that racial profiling can be used unfairly and as a primary method of profiling. On another note, it appears that there is an offhanded mention of "advacacy" and a detailed explanation of "critisism". I believe that this should be fixed to confrom to a NPOV.Tmchk | Talk 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Every time I see one of you screaming propagandists complain that someone is "pushing a POV," I just chuckle and shake my head. The notion that this article is pro-police is an unwitting admission of the radically anti-police, pro-minority criminal views of the "editors." I noticed, as well, that until the other day, every single external link was to a group such as the ACLU promoting the racial profiling hoax.

Advocates of criminals are not of the tactics and methods of the police. What does this "sentence" mean?-- 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed "A huge stereotype for racial profiling is a Middle Eastern person."

If that needs to be in, get a reference Ultre 20:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"I noticed, as well, that until the other day, every single external link was to a group such as the ACLU promoting the racial profiling hoax."
I take that back. The article has since been vandalized, so that there are no links to articles that question the racial profiling hoax. 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines racial profiling as “selection for scrutiny by law enforcement based on race or ethnicity rather than on behavioural or evidentiary criteria.”Novelator (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


The last sentence in the examples section: "Profiling any individual that happens to be represented by a special interest group based on numbers, statistics, or other verifiable facts is taboo in the United States." The way this is phrased seems particularly inflammatory, saying "that happens to be represented by a special interest group", and saying that profiling is 'taboo' had already been stated in the preceding paragraphs...I strongly believe this should be rephrased, or perhaps just removed, it sounds like someone pissed off wrote this. Doregasm 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Racial profiling is not as "taboo" in the US as the above sentence would like the reader to believe. Do some research into the laws within individual states, especially those laws passed since the year 2000, when the issue of racial profiling died a sniveling death on the national radar due mainly to politics. How about looking into the consent decrees forced on certain states by US Justice Department in the late 1990s for starters? Novelator (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


  • Support merging Driving While Black into this article - it's a sub-topic of this that would be excellent for illustrating this concept/phenomenon. I also support merging Ethnic profiling here as well. Seems no reason to have these variations seperated.Bobanny 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm changing proposal to merge this to Ethnic profiling, to merging Ethnic profiling with this one; also adding Flying while Muslim to the merger proposals. Bobanny 01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the merges mentioned above, and agree that Ethnic profiling is a preferable title than Racial profiling. -- TinaSparkle 14:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

coining of term[edit]

I saw a report on ABC News that the actual term racial profiling was coined by the Colorado Springs Police Department in the early 1990s, can anyone verify this? Chris 04:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the New Oxford English Dictionary, the term racial profiling was coined by investigative reporter and author Joseph Collum, who was working for Superstation WWOR out of New Jersey in 1989. Collum and his I-team first shed light on the New Jersey State Police's racial profiling on the New Jersey Turnpike, also known by troopers as The Black Dragon, in a three night report entitled Without Just Cause, for which Collum and his I-team eventually won local emmies as well as other prestigious awards. Collum and Jigsaw Press will be publishing his true account--The Black Dragon: How Racial Profiling Was Exposed--after the first of the year 2010. To write The Black Dragon, Collum was given unprecedented access to nearly 200,000 pages of state files, reports, court transcripts, plus interviews with hundreds of people involved in exposing racial profiling to the nation. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novelator (talkcontribs) 16:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Profiling[edit]

Ethnic is a larger set than race (e.g., Muslims aren't a racial subset; Arabs are a racial subset -- but not all Arabs are Muslims, etc.); consequently Ethnic Profiling should be the merged-into article rather than the one reduced to a re-direct.-- 22:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mergefrom Flying while Muslim[edit]

Merging the article Flying while Muslim to this article has been proposed. (SEWilco 20:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

  • Support merge and redirecting that stub to this article. (SEWilco 20:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

jared taylor addition[edit]

An anonymous user has pasted in twice diff2 the same paragraph about Jared Taylor. I'm not sure why the reader should care about someone making an "argument" in a "novel", and the length of the paragraph is disproportionate. The focus of the paragraph also seems to be on Jared Taylor, almost promotionally, and not on the argument that he ostensibly (and likely) has advanced. Is Jared Taylor the most prominent commentator making this point? Are there others? I'm posting here rather than reverting again, and giving the anonymous editor an opportunity to discuss these issues. (I also note that the material is not referenced, and is not mentioned in Taylor's page, so not only is Taylor not apparently a notable or respected commentator on this topic, it doesn't seem notable in the context of Taylor.) --lquilter 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not referenced? Isn't the novel in question the reference? A nice inline citation isn't given, but that's another matter. A novel can be non-fiction, and even fictional novels can contain academic arguments. However, his work is likely not accepted by any body of academic or journalistic sources. He has stunning accolades from the Klan and David Horowitz, but his commentaries are at best pseudoacademic, and at worst fringe theories. On this basis, I am removing it from this article - it may merit mentioning at Jared Taylor, but not here. --Cheeser1 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a "vast majority" ?[edit]

(Pre-emptive Disclaimer: I am well aware that racial profiling could skew the numbers. I'm also aware that poverty, in many ways still left over from the time of the Emancipation, is a major factor. I am against the War on Drugs and the war on the underclass in general. I have been close friends with several black individuals. Personally, I am against racial profiling.)

"Since the vast majority of people of all races are law-abiding citizens"

I'm not sure that this unsourced claim is true. Take a look at this cited quote from race and crime: "In 1998 [in America], nearly one out of three Black men between the ages of 20-29 were in prison or jail, on probation or parole on any given day."

One out of three is, IMO, a MASSIVE percentage. Assuming the ratio was roughly the same dating back to the 80s or 70s (meaning that young black males were just as likely to be imprisoned back then), we can therefore assume that the total percentage of black males of any age who have ever been incarcerated is probably also one out of three--perhaps even higher, if the older black males (30s-50s) are also more likely to be arrested. I know females aren't included in these statistics, but given the context of this article (profiling) that's not really important.

Obviously, the term "vast majority" is vague, but in this case I think that it's a pretty misleading substitute for "two-thirds." IIRC, the total percentage of the USA that's currently incarcerated or paroled is around 2-3%. That means that black males are more than ten times as likely to be criminals (note that I define this term as "someone who has been convicted in American courts." I mean the word "criminal" in no pejorative sense, and I recognize racism and the immoral War on Drugs have undoubtedly played a part.)

This is a lot of justification just to remove the word "vast", but sometimes people do need to be reminded just what the statistics are. Like it or not, black people are statistically more likely (in the case of young males, MUCH more likely) to be convicted criminals. And I saw someone above complaining about "ignorance" that East Asians aren't as likely to commit crimes--well, sorry, but statistically they're *not* as likely (as compared to blacks, whites or latinos) to be convicted criminals.

Reality is rarely politically correct. --Lode Runner 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've made the mistake of misinterpreting that statistic (and blaming the wording on political correctness). First of all, you're looking at a section that is a very small portion of the Black population - males in a decade-wide age group - and the statement is about the law-abiding-ness of races. Cut that 1/3 into the larger population of Blacks and you probably get about 1/10 at most. Note also that it says law-abiding, not law-abiding and have always been, so the bit about historical generalization (beyond being totally unsupported by any statistics) doesn't hold any water. Factor in the truth of the matter (reality may, apparently, be rarely politically correct, but it rarely supports racism or fundamentally racialized sociological models of crime), and you have a statistic that could have nothing to do with some race-caused or even race-correlated criminality. Also, please don't qualify things you say with "I have several black friends" - it makes you sound like Stephen Colbert. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jean Charles de Menezes[edit]

I think his section needs to be modified, it states he was confused as a middle eastern, when in fact he was Brazilian Just change it to citizen of Brazil, no need to argue about his race or the social construct of it. Brazil is a multiracial country. As it is stated today only supports the stereotype of Brazilians as a whole looking a certain way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Encopado (talkcontribs) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, his section isn't there any more, but if anyone wants to dig up the necessary citations it would be good to add to the UK section of the article that officers are openly encouraged to use racial profiling in Britain, for reasons allegedly to do with efficiency, most commonly in stop-and-search checks at stations.
From that point of view, the whole point is that JCdM's country of origin is irrelevant because the police saw a running generic-ethnic-minority, which they'd been ordered to target. Leushenko (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


This article jumps quickly into a "Criticism" section without clearly explaining what racial profiling is. That section is fine, but it should be further down in the article. Also, there should be a section including arguments defending this practice. We should show the pros and cons of racial profiling. This is an encyclopedia article, not an op-ed piece. (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Racial profiling on Wikipedia?[edit]

Just to toss an apple of discord, I just encountered an arguable case in which "racial profiling" could (slightly) improve Wikipedia at Talk:Shaka sign#The Picture. (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Academic research on racial profiling[edit]

I added a section on racial profiling and motor vehicle searches, starting with a paper by Nicola Persico. It would be greater if others could expand this article by including more results of academic research. See for example the webpage by Nicola Persico for some interesting papers and references. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think it might be better not to have multiple "sources" that all lead back to one researcher - varying the authorship will give us a more clear picture of the state of current research, especially since this guy is (unless I'm mistaken) an economist, not a sociologist. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, I am not an expert so I have no idea about the state of current research. But I assume that the reference sections of Persico's papers are a good starting point to find papers by other authors. And economics has as much to say about racial profiling as law, sociology or criminology. And this guy and his coauthors are not some maverick researchers but professors at respectable institutions. so I assume their research is to be taken serious. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Racial profiling in health and medicine[edit]

I'm in the middle of studying for exams, so I won't have the time yet but I'd like to give that section the once over. I think it could do with more detail regarding the study of pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics, perhaps linking to related Wiki articles. More later. Adolon au (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

the actual number of criminals in the black community[edit]

I can't understand how 5% of all blacks being incarcerated justifies racial profiling or even a genetic explanation. I'm not saying that those numbers aren't a problem but I don't understand how those justify either theory.YVNP (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Motor Vehicle Searches and racial profiling" section[edit]

The statment "In the United States black drivers are much more likely to have their car stopped and searched than white drivers." needs to have a reference to the primary source. The intent of this suggestion is to improve the academic rigor of the article- it is not to be racist. Writerz (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Racial Profiling

    Why are minorities drivers disproportionately stopped more often than whites? Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be pulled over more often than whites, is it because blacks and Latinos are poor and usually up to no good? Police are more likely to use force against African Americans and Hispanics than against whites in any encounter whether at traffic stops or on patrol. When minorities are stopped more often than whites, it’s a commonly used practice called racial profiling.  Racial profiling is a result of police officers treating minorities’ different cause of their behavior, looks and environment.
    Numbers do not mean their officer’s dilberty target drivers cause their race. Racial profiling believes that profiling is necessary because statistics prove that minorities commit more crimes than Whites. There’re is no systematic pattern of misconduct. “Blacks, Hispanics and Whites drivers were equally likely to be pulled over by police” (Hurst). Do blacks get pulled over because they look suspicious or because they commit more crimes?  Black, Hispanic and Whites drivers are equally likely to be pulled over by police (Sniffen). Whites get pulled over also.  
    Traffic stops have become politically volatile issues. Blacks, Hispanics and Whites motorists were equally to be pulled over by police between 8% and 9% of each group. Sometimes society isn’t sure if its racial profiling if police questioned individual of a specific race based on the description provided by the victim of the crime. Sometimes law enforcement targets those who look suspicious.  A Texas study found that the racial disparity in the treatment of drivers was particularly pronounced in metropolitan areas. In Houston, for instance, blacks were more than three times as likely to be searched (Harrell). Will Harrell, executive director of the ACLU of  Texas, noted that in some areas, the study found that less than 10% of Latinos drivers who consented  to searches of their cars were found to be doing something wrong (Gold). 

That means that 90% of them suffered the humiliation and demoralization that searches entail, but were innocent.

    In December, a man in Chambers County, East of Houston, accepted a $120,000 settlement to end a civil rights lawsuit alleging that sheriff’s deputies had harassed and excessive force against residents of minority’s communities. So that means when ever there is a civil rights case brought up about racial profiling, it’s just swept under the rug and never mentioned. How can society deal with this issue if it’s always paid off?  
    Minority groups have complained that many stops and searches are based on race rather than legitimate suspicious. People interviewed described police hitting, kicking, pushing, grabbing, pointing a gun or spraying pepper spray at them or threatening to do so. More than four or five the force used was excessive but there were no statically significant racial disparities among the people who felt that way. Black in particular has complained of being over for simply.

“Driving while black.” Two years ago, the Bush administration handling of the 2002 report and it’s finding of racial disparities generated considerable controversy. President Bush in 2001, wanted to publicize the racial disparities but his superiors disagreed according to a statistics bureaus employee Greenfield told his staff he was being moved to a new job following the disputes, according to this employee, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to. All that is America procrastinating their issues instead of dealing with it and nip it in the butt till gets out of hand. Studies show that 3 out of 4 law enforcement agencies pull over Black, Latinos at higher than Whites. In Missouri, for example, state official determined in 2002 that African Americans were stopped at rate far higher than their population alone should suggest.

    Do police have a right to search a car if the driver or passengers look suspicious? Yes in some cases, but all. Racial profiling is a very complex problem and it takes time to fix it. Cops are trained to profile, If a black man is running down a street at midnight with people behind him crying for help cause their sister just got shot then it will be a good idea to stop that man. Few officers who abuse their power by improperly targeting people of color are anomalies (Gold). The slight decline in blacks pulled over from 9.2% in 2002 to 8.1% in 2005 was not statistically significant. That’s what makes Racial profiling so complex it has so many variables. 
    Racial profiling is a commonly use practice, its used to make real police work easier. Racial profiling is based on the perception that an individual of one race or ethnicity is more likely to engage in misconduct than a race or ethnicity. In 2003, the Department of justice issued guidelines restricting the use of race or ethnicity as investigation tool by law enforcement. While the regulation prohibit racial profiling when making routine traffic stops, they still allow race and ethnicity to be considered when law enforcement is acting on reliable and trustworthy information   Imagine a cop actually doing real cop work, its just too unreal. That’s why they can just drive up and down and look for “suspicious people” in impoverished neighborhoods. Law enforcement officials say that Blacks and Latinos are prone to violence, but Whites do the same crimes Black and Latinos although most whites don’t live in impoverished neighborhoods why don’t they get harassed and checked on by police while on parole. Oppose to racial profiling minorities are disproportionately subjected to random searches which result in the discoveries of criminal activity, but what happens when the constant random searches become harassment? Communities distrust law enforcement, where as it becomes harder for law enforcement to stop crimes and get community support, such as identifying suspects , or reporting crimes in the neighborhood . That is why racial profiling hurts law enforcement efforts to decrease crime in inner cities around the country.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC) 

Textbook POV[edit]

Having read the article rather thoroughly, it would seem as though whoever wrote the majority of this article as it appears now, up until it gets into Canada and the UK, wrote it in a very POV style. Moreover, it's written in tone and format very akin to a high school or possibly college textbook, especially with sentences like:

″The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. Since the majority of people of all races are law-abiding citizens, merely being of a race which a police officer believes to be more likely to commit a crime than another is not probable cause.″


That almost reads like basic mathematical logic right there. The real giveaway is the citing of schoolbook publishers McGraw-Hill, in this case it would be their "Online Learning Center". Quite clearly this is the deliberate work of someone working somewhere within the educational system who had enough foresight to realize that students would turn to Wikipedia as their primary source of information on a subject such as this, regardless of whether that's the most well-informed decision to make on said student's part or not. I'm not even going to bother discussing the substantial lack of references or copious amounts of weasel words and challenged statements. Those speak for themselves.

-Alan (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me tell you something, as editor of The Black Dragon by Joseph Collum, pub by Jigsaw Press in 2010: The first legal attack on racial profiling along the New Jersey Turnpike used the 4th amendment to the Constitution as its basis. And that attack failed. What won the day, if you could call it that, for the defense was the case brought by attorney Bill Buckman, The State of New Jersey vs. Pedro Soto, et al, commonly known as Soto. The Soto defense team, in basing their case on the 14 Amendment to the Constitution instead of the 4th, was able to establish, according to the decision rendered by the judge in the case, Judge Robert Francis, "a prima facie case of selective enforcement that the State [of New Jersey] has failed to rebut." Although the State initially appealed the decision in an effort to have the judgment overturned, new evidence surfaced buried within the files of the State Police itself that established beyond a shadow of a doubt that racial profiling was being practiced on the New Jersey Turnpike, and the State was forced to drop their appeal.Novelator (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what Novelator was saying, but I rewrote a few sections and and that is no longer in the section. jheiv talk contribs 23:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Might that case law be cited in the section as well? I've recently had this very conversation with someone who believed that racial profiling was NOT unconstitutional. Said individual also was misguided in his assertion that foreigner are not protected under the constitution at all, which was silenced when I sited Boumediene v. Bush, well, save that he tried to water down habeas corpus to only one amendment, hence making every right outlined in the constitution severable, which is not true. (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Need to look at / watch this article[edit]

I didn't go through the diffs, but this sentence (in Criticism in Practice):

It can, however, be shown to illustrate the potential toward abuse of racial profiling, in spite of any actions on behalf of the targeted individual that were intended to advantage or incite such paranoia from otherwise unassuming bystanders.

Makes me think that someone added to a sentences like this:

It can, however, be shown to illustrate the potential toward abuse of racial profiling.


in spite of any actions on behalf of the targeted individual that were intended to advantage or incite such paranoia from otherwise unassuming bystanders.

Why do I say that? Because the first version continues from preceding sentence perfectly. However, the added phrasing not only muddies the point, but it makes no sense. What does it mean to advantage paranoia? Perhaps advance (?) but that still makes very little sense.

I took out one random paragraph that contained all sorts of grammatical errors and was completely unsourced, but I agree that this article really is a mess still. jheiv (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Empirical Evidence[edit]

This section doesn't make any sense to me. The two sentences don't seem to me to be related in any coherent respect. If searches are successful irrespective of races and coppers are motivated by a desire for success, then how can there be racial profiling? It seems oxymoronic or incoherent with respect to the article subject. Any thoughts? Freakshownerd (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

I propose merging the article Driving While Black into Racial profiling. Driving While Black relies too much on discussion of the variations on "driving while black" to establish the importance of the term itself. In fact, only one source used in the body of the article actually uses the term "driving while black, and that is the student-published Minnesota Law Review. The rest of the sources focused either on racial profiling or "variations". Even if you loaded up the article with other sources that happened to use the term and mention that it is a form of racial profiling, that's all you'd have - an article saying "Driving while black is a form of racial profiling. Article X says driving while black is a form of racial profiling. So does article Y. So does article Z." The only way anyone has been able to fill out enough text to make this look like a real article is by loading it up with discussion of the variations. This is not a recipe for a balanced article when the "variations", which should be a minor part of the article, becomes the major part of the article."Driving while black" is a vernacular term for a form of racial profiling, and so while someone should be able to search for the term here, a redirect to "racial profiling" is perfectly adequate coverage that will give the reader plenty of understanding of the term. Otherwise, we could have a different redundant article for every single possible variation - "driving while hispanic", "driving while asian", etc. (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge - I agree, the driving while black article isn't much on its own, hard to imagine it becoming more than it is, and all someone who is hearing the term for the first time needs to know is that it's a form of racial profiling.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I proposed this 18 days ago, followed Wikipedia policy by placing merger proposal templates at the tops of both Driving While Black and Racial Profiling and started this discussion, all by the book. After 18 days of no discussion other than agreement from User:MMeyers1976, I executed the merge based on WP:Silence. Now User:Freechild and User:Cntras just keep reverting without participating in the discussion per Wikipedia policy. (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

For an unregistered user, you seem to know your policies and guidelines very well, so hopefully you know WP:EDITWARRING and WP:3RR. Don't let yourself be pushed into violating either of those. Just some friendly advice. Even though Freechild and Cntras haven't followed the letter of the policy for discussing a merger they don't agree with as laid down in WP:Merge, I think they are showing that WP:Silence doesn't apply, at least not anymore. If they won't contribute to the discussion here, then I suggest starting an AfD.Mmyers1976 (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I am recreating the article under the basis that the information was not merged, it was redirected. This conversation was premised on a mistruth by an anon IP that editing when this was over. It was clearly editing to make a point and push a POV. • Freechildtalk 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Freechild, please Assume Good Faith, don't go around accusing other editors of lying or being "clearly" Point-y, especially when there really isn't any evidence that suggests the anon has written anything untruthful. Your justification of recreating the article by parsing words between "merge" and "redirect" really doesn't carry any water, as the two often go hand in hand. Frankly, your interpretation of Wikipedia policy has been shoddy in both discussions, for another example, telling the user to use AfD to carry out a redirect, when the anon was correct, using AfD for redirect is discouraged. You shouldn't throw out terms related to polcies you obviously don't fully understand. While one could argue the anon's editing may err on the side of being too bold at times, I see nothing Point-y about it, the only thing really Point-y here is the "Driving While Black" article itself, which I agree with the anon, is already covered by "Racial Profiling." Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


This article is very clearly against racial profiling. While I personally agree that it is wrong, this article needs to be objective.Rivkid007 (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Lack in Law Enforcement[edit]

Wikipedia does not have a substantial view on law enforcement in racial profiling.Majority of its content is about Political people and the Constitution, and it doesn’t not show enough detail about how our local cops are profiling suspects now a days. the main headline was that the article is only focused on racial profiling within the U.S and not Worldwide. Racial Profiling within law enforcements do happen in other countries as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJIT HUMrdk5 (talkcontribs) 21:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Also, in "Law Enforcement", there are no actual citations, just vague references to a trusted source and some scholarly journal. HeartOfCourage (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Mexico's section does no justice for the country[edit]

The example for Mexico is fine, but it needs much explanation and a general description of the ways that Mexico(ans) are racially profiled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJIT HUM Poonit P (talkcontribs) 16:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Institutionalization of Racial Profiling Policy[edit]

The issue of racial profiling has come to represent one of the key contemporary challenges facing law enforcement agencies in the United States. One way that agencies have responded to this issue is to adopt anti-profiling policies to address concerns about racial disparities in traffic stops and their outcomes. Policy adoption is assumed to encourage more racially equitable policing as well as enhance community relations. While both of these outcomes appear beneficial to law enforcement agencies, there is also good reason to expect that agencies may differ in the extent to which they are likely to implement such policy. This study explores what factors explain the adoption of protocols addressing the racial profiling phenomenon. Using data on large law enforcement agencies from the 2003 LEMAS survey, the findings reveal that both agency organizational characteristics and environmental features of the jurisdiction are associated with the agency’s profiling policy regime [1]BrandonAndrews (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Testing for Racial Profiling With the Veil-of-Darkness Method[edit]

The “veil-of-darkness” method is an innovative and low-cost approach that circumvents many of the benchmarking issues that arise in testing for racial profiling. Changes in natural lighting are used to establish a presumptively more race-neutral benchmark on the assumption that after dark, police suffer an impaired ability to detect motorists’ race. Applying the veil-of-darkness method to vehicle stops by the Syracuse (NY) police between 2006 and 2009 and examining differences among officers assigned to specialized traffic units and crime-suppression units, we found that African Americans were no more likely to be stopped during daylight than during darkness, indicating no racial bias. [2]BrandonAndrews (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Racism versus Professionalism: Claims and Counter-claims about Racial Profiling[edit]

Racial profiling occurs when law enforcement or security officials, consciously or unconsciously, subject individuals at any location to [End Page 199] heightened scrutiny based solely or in part on race, ethnicity, Aboriginality, place of origin, ancestry, or religion, or on stereotypes associated with any of these factors, rather than on objectively reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual is implicated in criminal activity (Tanovich 2006: 13). Operating as a system of surveillance and control, it “creates racial inequities by denying people of color privacy, identity, place, security, and control over their daily life” (Cross 2001: 5).[3] BrandonAndrews (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Racial profiling and searches: Did the politics of racial profiling change police behavior?[edit]

Scholarly research has documented repeatedly that minority citizens are disproportionately stopped, searched, and arrested relative to their baseline populations. In recent years, policymakers have brought increased attention to this issue as law-enforcement agencies across the United States have faced allegations of racial profiling. In the 1990s, the politics generated by accounts of racially biased policing placed heightened pressure on law-enforcement agencies. However, to date, few studies have explored whether the increased social and political scrutiny placed on police organizations influenced or changed their general pattern of enforcement among black and white citizens. Using data in the search and citation file from the North Carolina Highway Traffic Study, this research specifically examined whether the politics generated by the media coverage of racial profiling and racial profiling legislation in North Carolina influenced the search practices of officers of the North Carolina State Highway Patrol’s drug interdiction team. The findings suggest that media accounts and the passage of new legislation were particularly powerful influences, which thereby reduced racial disparity in searches. Declines in the use of consent searches and an increased probability of finding contraband also were influenced by the politics of racial profiling. [4]BrandonAndrews (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Racial Profiling and Criminal Justice[edit]

According to the main argument in favor of the practice of racial profiling as a low enforcement tactic, the use of race as a targeting factor helps the police to apprehend more criminals. In the following, this argument is challenged. It is argued that, given the assumption that criminals are currently being punished too severely in Western countries, the apprehension of more criminals may not constitute a reason in favor of racial profiling at all. [5] BrandonAndrews (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^