Police Profiling is a good thing.

Definitions: Ill argue profiling fits under both definitions, discrimination and prejudice. My opponents only argument against profiling fitting discrimination is that by the definition given it's not a bad thing. Ill deal with that later, for he does admit it is discrimination. Prejudice is defined as "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." My opponent interprets that to mean that if you have evidence that a certain group of people commit more crime that you have examined the facts. Besides the fact that Pro has yet to present any evidence showing that, it is also a poor interpretation of the definition. When we commonly think of someone acting discriminatorily or as being prejudiced we think of them making a negative judgment about a specific individual because they are a part of a group, and apply that stereotype to that specific individual. Assuming person X committed a crime because they belong to group A is the definition of not examining the facts. To examine the facts you actually gather evidence about the crime, and base who did it on that. Pro says "You say that because the definition of demographics is "a portion of a population" and that the portion would "include different races", but it could just as easily be the white portion of a population, the male portion of a population, the portion living in the north have of town, etc. and these are the very things police profiling is based on" Sure, though I would disagree that the portion living north of town counts as police profiling, but even if it is that alone does not make it a good thing. It would be just as bad if the discrimination was based on any other race or based on gender, I picked race because that is how this practice actually plays out in reality. Pro says "You state in your first paragraph that "...hardly deals with the more harmful crimes committed in society, such as assaults, robberies, and other violent crimes. You can't prevent them by profiling people" which is a foolish assumption, people are far less likely to rob a store if they have seen cops around the neighborhood all day, or beat someone if they know the cops will see them, the very presence of police helps to deter crime." In that specific location sure, someone wont rob the bank the cops are sitting in front of, but if they plan on committing the crime they will go rob the bank across town that they aren't watching. This is a claim that requires evidence to back it up, and yet none is actually provided by the Pro(copying a link of a very long article is not evidence, you have to actually pick out what in the article supports your claim and present it here, im not going to read a really long article to see if it has any merit or not, it is your responsibility to show how it does). AT BEST this argument means we need more cops patrolling our streets. I agree that would help, but that does not mean that police profiling is what is solving the problem, it is that there are more cops on the street. You can fight crime without risking dehuminizing unjust practices by increasing the size of police forces, not by profiling. Pro says "I would still like for you to either A-Prove to me that some police profiling is racist in a negative way, and is bad enough to offset any good that comes of police profiling or B- Police profiling is bad regardless of racism." Here's how I meet A: "Here is an example of police profiling in action: A "well-dressed young African-American man driving his Ford Explorer on I-75 sees the blue lights of the Georgia State Patrol car behind him. The officer pulls behind the sport utility vehicle and the young man's heart begins to sink. He is on his way to Atlanta for a job interview. The stop, ostensibly for speeding, should not take long, he reasons, as the highway patrol officer walks cautiously toward the Explorer. But instead of simply asking for a driver's license and writing a speeding ticket, the trooper calls for backup. Another trooper soon arrives, his blue lights flashing as well. The young man is told to leave his vehicle, as the troopers announce their intention to search it. "Hey, where did you get the money for something like this?" one trooper asks mockingly while he starts the process of going through every inch of the Explorer. Soon, an officer pulls off an inside door panel. More dismantling of the vehicle follows. They say they are looking for drugs, but in the end find nothing. After ticketing the driver for speeding, the two officers casually drive off. Sitting in his now-trashed SUV, the young man weeps in his anger and humiliation." That seems pretty negative to me From http://www.reason.com...... "the use of class probability in police investigations is correctly regarded with extreme suspicion, as it violates a basic principle of justice: The legal system should treat all citizens equally, until there is specific, credible evidence that they have committed a crime. In the cases we've been discussing, we can say that the odds that any particular young black or Hispanic man will be hassled by the police are much higher than for a white man who, aside from his race, is demographically indistinguishable from him." Statistics show that far more young black men were pulled over and searched than any other race. These were presented in my first argument(see above) and never refuted. Furthermore, if you need any more reasons why racism is bad see the piece of evidence in my first argument, it is a horribly dehumanizing practice. Here's how I meet B: 1. You cannot disregard racism as ive shown that in practice that is what profiling results in. 2. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT POLICE PROFILING WORKS, my opponent presents no study that it has ever reduced crime. Absent that, even the threat of discrimination ought to be enough to disregard it as it violates a basic tenant of our justice system. Pro says "http://www.ncpc.org...... Clearly states that knowing whom is committing a crime can help with prevention, exactly what police profiling does." It does not specify what it means by whom. If I know that john smith committed a crime it certainly helps with prevention. If I know this gang or criminal enterprise commits certain kinds of crime it will help prevent crime. There is nothing written on that page to attest to police profiling as being a good way to figure out the whom of who committed a crime Finally, at the beginning of the second linked page it says"Our nation's ability to prevent serious violent crime may depend heavily on our ability to help reshape community life." Racist practices drive communities apart, they make everything in the community more about race, and seeing each other as different based on race. This is what the Patricia Williams evidence presented at the beginning is talking about, so if community is important to preventing crime, profiling acts counter to that. You vote for the con because police profiling is a racist practice that dehumanizes individuals. There is no evidence presented by Pro that it actually has any effect whatsoever on reducing crime, and I've just shown that it is more likely to actually increase crime by tearing communities apart. As said before and never addressed by Pro, "Police profiling feeds racial discrimination, which you failed to respond to. "By saying that profiling is acceptable, you make racist practices seem more acceptable not only to police, but also to the general public as well. You entrench that racism not just in hearts and minds, but in the very systems of justice that are meant to be unbiased and colorblind.""