Police Profiling

I will point out that you lost already. Notice that the first round is for acceptance only. You have made some arguments. "Failure to comply to the structure or rules results in an automatic loss. " However, I will be lenient since this is your first debate. Please understand that you will have the last round for closing statements only and will not be allowed to post any rebuttals. ==Opening Arguments==Contention 1: Racial profiling does not workRacial profiling myth: It would work if only law enforcement agencies could use it--that by not using racial profiling, they're tying one hand behind their backs in the name of civil rights. This simply isn't true: An ACLU lawsuit uncovered police data indicating that while 73 percent of suspects pulled over on I-95 between 1995 and 1997 were black, black suspects were no more likely to actually have drugs or illegal weapons in their cars than white suspects. According to the Public Health Service, approximately 70% of drug users are white, 15% are black, and 8% are Latino. But the Department of Justice reports that among thoseimprisoned on drug charges, 26% are white, 45% are black, and 21% are Latino Contention 2: Racial profiling distracts law enforcement from more useful approaches When suspects are detained based on suspicious behavior rather than race, police catch more suspects. in 2005, a report by the Missouri attorney general is testimony to the INEFFECTIVENESS of racial profiling. White drivers, pulled over and searched on the basis of suspicious behaviour, were found to have drugs or other illegal material 24% of the time. Black drivers, on the other hand, pulled over or searched in a manner that reflected a pattern of racial profiling, were found to have drugs or other illegal materials only 19% of the time. The effectiveness of searches, in Missouri and everywhere else, is reduced--not enhanced--by racial profiling. When racial profiling is used, officers end up wasting their limited time on innocent suspects. Contention 3: Racial profiling prevents police from serving the ENTIRE community What is the purpose of the law enforcement? They are responsible for protecting law-abiding citizens from criminals. When a law enforcement agency practices racial profiling, it sends the message that the whites are assumed to be law-abiding citizens while blacks and Latinos are pre-assumed to be criminals. Law enfocement agencies should be in the business of protecting crime victims and finding justice--not by race, but by pure evidence! Contention 4: Racial profiling is UNCONSTITUTIONALLet's take a look at what the constitution has to say:The fourth admendment GUARANTEES our right to protect us against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. . http://en.wikipedia.org...What does this mean? This means that unless you have a probable cause to a crime, you cannot search someone. This is a constitutional right for all citizens--the 14th admendment backs that up as well. I ask my opponent, is race ever a reasonable or probable cause to search someone? I think not. Fun Statistics According to the Public Health Service, 70% of drug users are white, 15% are black, 8% are Latino. BUT the Department of Justice reports that among those imprisoned on drug charges, 26% are white, 45% are black, and 21% are Latino. Is that fair? Source: . http://civilliberty.about.com...==Cross Examination==This is where I like to ask my opponent questions. Do you support our constitution to the fullest degree? Is race a probable cause to search someone? How would you like to be searched or accused of an illegal act because of your race? Is there any merrit to racial profiling? What is more effective, profiling based on suspicious behaviour and reasonable cause; or based on race? That's all for this round. I now turn it over to pro.