Racial profiling is a useful tool for law enforcement and use of this should be encouraged.

Firstly, in the first round I stated that "race should not be ignored by law enforcement in the profiling process"(1) as in it should not be left out with the possible consequence worsening the quality of the investigation. The OED defines profiling as "The recording and analysis of a person"s psychological and behavioral characteristics, so as to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere or to assist in identifying a particular subgroup of people."(2) As stated in earlier rounds race has an immense influence on an individual's state of mind and behavior accordingly it is only sensible to account for race when analyzing a person's psychological and behavioral characteristics. This opportunity to better the investigation techniques of law enforcement should not be ignored even with the previous mistakes made by poorly educated law enforcement. Racial profiling should be implemented where "regular" profiling is already implemented that is where it belongs, in criminal investigations not random searches, and where it has been missing for too long. Secondly, the FBI does not have any evident motive to falsify arrest statistics. The source listed in your argument listed several unfortunate occurrences, however several of them are outdated, however this would not lead me to they believe that they would falsify arrest statistics. I also apologize for explaining the way the statistics should be read too vaguely this one is probably better to read (3) the UCR, who gathered the information seen in the table, does not gather offense data, conversely the U.S Sentencing Commission does. Their statistics(4) do nevertheless convey roughly the same message as those previously stated, thus my point stands. Thirdly, when you begin to agree that race can be used as a factor in the profiling process your anti racial profiling standpoint enters a gray zone since that, using the given definition, qualifies as racial profiling, merely in a nondiscriminatory manner. In the terms of the discussion it was listed that "opponent will be arguing against the use of racial profiling in any form by law enforcement"(5) if you do not intend to follow the terms set for the discussion it makes it significantly harder to have one. Fourthly, the mentioning of only one professor was not from a lack of experts rather the opposite, multiple professors of various relevant sciences such as but not limited to: Criminology, sociology and social science. In addition to Elijah Anderson, professor of sociology at Yale University (6) professors include Robert J. Sampson, professor of social sciences at Harvard University(7) who together with William Julius Wilson, also a professor at Harvard University (8), wrote a paper titled "Toward a Theory of Race, Crime and Urban Inequality" in which their state "criminologists are loath to speak openly on race and crime for fear of being misunderstood or labeled racist."(9) further they express how the scarce debate that is taking place is made up of weak unsubstantiated arguments. It is this lack of debate that leads to the racial discrimination by uneducated law officers not the concept of racial profiling itself. It is exactly by having this debate that is being skirted around by experts and initiating a fruitful dialogue between the government and the experts that racial profiling could be developed into the excellent tool it has the potential to become. Several other professors or otherwise qualified experts have also been cited in a paper Titled "Assessing the Race-Crime and Ethnicity-Crime Relationship in a Sample of Serious Adolescent Delinquents" (10) written by Alex R. Piquero, professor of criminology at the University of Texas at Dallas(11), together with Robert W. Brame, former professor of criminology at North Carolina University at Charlotte, in which they thoroughly examine the problem. Seeing as several of these professors teach at ivy league schools it is a stretch to compare them to conspiracy theorists and religious fundamentalists. Lastly, in response to the last point on the list of requirements you provided for my argument in this round, which I, by the way, truly hope I have fulfilled to your satisfaction, "even if, for example, black people were more likely to deal drugs, this does not mean that a black person is likely to be a drug dealer": No that is true, it does mean however that a black person is more likely to deal drugs which could prove to be highly relevant in certain criminal cases. Race is a part of an individual's identity and background consequently it is highly relevant when law enforcement needs to identify possible criminals and their behavioral patterns that being the case racial profiling is very much so a useful tool for law enforcement and use of this should be encouraged. (1) Steve Carlsberg, opening statement (line 1, after terms of discussion) (2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (3) https://www.fbi.gov... (4) http://www.ussc.gov... (5) Steve Carlsberg, terms of discussion (point 2) (6) http://sociology.yale.edu... (7) http://scholar.harvard.edu... (8) http://scholar.harvard.edu... (9) http://faculty.washington.edu... (again sadly only an excerpt it does however contain the quote on the page labeled 37) (10) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (11) http://www.utdallas.edu...