Racial Profiling Should be Acceptable

I will admit my opponent brings forth a very compelling argument, however when examined beyond face value the premises are invalid, especially when looking to violate the liberty for an entire class of people. “Precedent for the deprivation of Civil Liberties:” It is duly noted that any freedom requires balance, however all the examples my opponent gives“Copyright law, laws against libel and slander, laws against verbal assault, laws against trading government secrets, laws against perjury in court”, are not applicable in this debate. It does establish precedence of instances when person A’s right is rescinded when the actions of person A violates person B’s right. It, however, does not establish precedence to rescind the rights of entire race of people who have not committed any type of violation over the others rights. It is also important to recall that there is no right to security. Security is a duty of government, but is not a right of an individual nor is it included in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, again, there is no precedence of violating the rights of an entire race of peoples for the rights of others. There have been precedence’s where it was deemed acceptable to have minor inconveniences to privacy and search for greater public security, but in all instances it has been enacted fairly and impacted those who have not committed a crime equaly. My main point is simply that while there may be a precedent of suppressing a freedom to an extent for greater security, each instance must be weighed on its individual merits. In that analysis it must be proven to be effective and worth the social and individual costs. In effect any precedence is irrelevant to this debate. “Efficiency and Common Sense:” On face value, and after a slight change to the saying, “if a duck committed the crime, then look for a duck”, makes perfect sense. I don’t dispute that when law enforcement is actively looking for an individual who committed a crime that they should compile a complete profile of the perpetrator including race, gender and any other identifying quality of the person. Visible tattoos and birthmarks are extremely useful to law enforcement to identify an individual when searching as well as skin color, gender, and other visibly identifiably features. It is important to make three distinctions though. First, an individual has committed a crime and this is forcing police to pursuit the individual. In other terms it is not a security operation to protect from a future crime. Secondly, police do not collect only race as an identifier. They collect as much info as possible to ID the perpetrator so they can maximize odds of capture. Lastly, it does not violate the rights of any individual to compile an identifying profile of a suspect, nor does it violate the suspects rights if they color of skin or other ethnic features were used in his capture. Racial profiling fails as a tactic when used as the only or main method to identify who to stop/search . It is absurd to imply that law enforcement should use tactics to stop and search all whites in an X mile radius of a murder site when it appears to be a serial killer. It is not effective. It wastes resources identifying too many false positives, and it violates the individual liberty of many with little benefit. In the case of airport security, which is different as it is a preventative measure, everyone is fairly screened in the same minimal screening manor. In random instances and instances where certain behaviors have been exhibited some individuals receive a more in-depth screening. Random screening is crucial to preventative security in two ways. First the pressure of possibly being caught can cause behavioral changes in a would be criminal. Secondly, it can help stop exploits to inconsistent screening should groups who wish to do us harm learn of the exceptions. In other terms if we stop including ten year olds in advanced screening it can be clearly exploited. The use of racial profiling has serious breakdowns of efficiency as the stereotypes which seeming allow us to target those most likely to commit a crime cause opportunity to exploit. Take the fact that a majority of Muslims are not of Arab ethnicity. In fact the Bali bombers were of South East Asian descent. http://en.wikipedia.org...; Imagine the resources needed to perform a more secure screening of all individuals who appear of Arab descent in airport security while ignoring those of African or South East Asian descent. Not only is it ineffective, it creates a complete hole which can be further exploited and ironically it makes everyone less safe. Racial profiling is not effective. It creates too many areas of exploitation and makes us less safe as a result. When presented with the fact that there are now better methods to screen 100% (x-ray scanners) of air travelers effectively, it makes no sense to violate individual’s liberty simply because they belong to a certain race. The Unintended Consequences of Racial Profiling I believe my opponents intent that he does not condone the abuse of racial profiling. Unfortunately racial profiling can only lead to unintended group psychology which leads to discrimination regardless of intent. It is important to recall that on August 24, 2005 the White House replaced the Director of the Bureau of Justice Department because the employee would not suppress a study which demonstrated that there were significant differences of treatment between the races during a simple traffic stop. While I am not concerned for this purpose about the ethical implications of the White House, the survey shows an inability of the human condition to treat people fairly when segmented in groups. In the survey, all races were stopped by police at a rate of 9%. 3.5% of white drivers had their vehicles searched versus 10.2 % of African Americans and 11.4 % of Hispanics were searched. The report also demonstrated differences on how the individuals were handled while searched noting considerable differences in the use of force or threat of force. The police were more likely to give Hispanics a ticket rather than a warning than white drivers. Interestingly, African Americans and Hispanics who were searched were less likely to have contraband than white drivers who were searched. http://www.nytimes.com... It is extremely alarming that this extreme disparity happens during an age when racial profiling is not allowed. It highlights an important concept in group psychology call in and out group bias. http://en.wikipedia.org... Quite simply it is a concept when people treat others in a biased fashion based on whether they are perceived to be in an in or out group. It is thought to play a major role in the development of xenophobia, discrimination, and other societal ills which impact the quality of life for all. How does this apply to a sanctioned racial profiling program? In short, it would end up as a government sanctioned “out group”. The long term impacts of persistent and government sanctioned “out group” would have subtle but profound implications on the psyche of the country and result in discrimination on all fronts of those in the racial groups being profiled. Racial profiling is not an effective tactic. It comes at an extreme cost of liberty to innocent people to try to catch a few. America should take pride that when individual privacy has been disregarded for the greater good that everyone has been equally involved. As example when law enforcement has mandatory checkpoints for sobriety they check everyone not just who they imagine are most likely to be drunk. No one race should be asked to forgo their rights in the name of national security, especially considering the long term psychological effects of being labeled as, “one of them”.