Racial Profiling Should be Acceptable

Unfortunately, it appears to be an appeal to pathos, exaggeration and misdirection. I will address his rebuttals under the same headings in order of appearance. Precedent For The Deprivation of Civil Liberties In this argument I was simply supplying precedent for the legal deprivation of civil liberties for the sake of other liberties. I was not using the examples of precedent as examples pertaining to this case. They precede it. Precedent for the deprivation of civil liberties stands. (. http://www.quora.com...) The Patriot Act is currently in effect and, if not abused, it is depriving the liberties of many for the security of all. Precedent exists for this also. "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. " I agree with my opponent that each instance must be weighed and carefully considered. It seems that he is conceding that, 'if each instance is weighed on its individual merits and it is proven to be effective and worth the social individual costs, then deprivation of freedom is acceptable. " But I reject the notion that precedence is irrelevant. Efficiency and Common Sense: "police do not collect only race as an identifier. " My opponent is engaging in another straw man here. Racial profiling is not about using race as the sole deciding factor of a threat. If you read the definition provided above: "the consideration of race when developing a profile of suspected criminals; by extension, a form of racism involving police focus on people of certain racial groups when seeking suspected criminals. " Race is only a factor in the profile and police focusing on certain people of racial groups is not depriving anyone's civil liberty. And sometimes you don't have distinguishing characteristics of 'tattoos or birthmarks to go on. ' And if you did, you wouldn't pull over suspects if they didn't have the distinguishing characteristics provided. I am afraid my opponent gets off track of the debate here. " 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. " My opponent continues with his straw men tactics. No one is suggesting that racial profiling is always a pre-emptive tactic. No one is suggesting that race is the only determining factor that is collected, cops will still collect all the evidence available as per my opponent's instructions. And the last line I agree wholeheartedly with, " 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. " I don't actually see how this helps my opponent's position. It seems a concession. My opponent continues to hound away with providing ludicrous scenarios and then bashing them as 'absurd. ' I agree, they are absurd. And they aren't at all what I'm defending. No one is saying that all white males in X mile radius should be searched. Only that in cases involving serial killers, it statistically follows that cops should be on the lookout for a white male. No one is saying to stop and search every one. Only that it should be a determining factor in profiling. And once again, my opponent sets up an absurd scenario to bash down. No one is suggesting that the law enforcement should discard all tactics and only employ racial profiling. All tactics should be in play and profiling should simply be another tool allowed to the law enforcement belt. Screening should continue. Security checks exist for everyone. But security officers must be aware that Muslim terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslim radicals. It follows that if a Muslim man is setting off the security sensors, he should be given a random search instead of a ten year old girl who may have also set off the security sensors. If you had to pick one or the other to search, it makes statistical sense to pick the one perceived as a higher threat. And one final time: no one is basing opinion solely on race. It is simply a factor in a profile and should be allowed to exist as such. The Unintended Consequences of Racial Profiling As for the final point, my opponent suggest that racial profiling will always be abused and will end up leading to bigotry. This is a possibility that exist. However, I'd suggest that racism leads to bigotry, not the employment of statistical data for the sake of apprehending a criminal or preventing crime. Race is never the sole determining factor in a non-abusive case of racial profiling. It is a factor. The BAU relies on such statistics and factors to hunt kidnappers, serial killers and murderers. This last point of my opponent is a scare tactic that appeals to pathos. I am not supporting the abuse or degradation of racial profiling. I am suggesting it be used as a tool and used only as a factor. Not necessarily a determining factor, as exceptions always exist to statistics. Now my opponent might be suggesting that if you search for a white killer when a black man is killed in a hate crime (in an exclusively white and black community) then you are being racist. I disagree with this notion. It is not racism to rely on common sense or statistical evidence as a contributing factor to determining guilt. If someone is a rape victim, you look to able-bodied males as suspects. If someone is threatening a muslim terrorist attack, you look to muslim middle-aged to young men. If someone has been held up at a gas station, you look for a poor suspect, not a rich one. Statistics are used all the time as factors in rooting out suspects. Racial profiling isn't always applicable and has to be taught with extreme care to officers, but it is a useful tool and effective one. If someone has a room full of suspects in search of a serial killer and six are black men, one is white, officers should be informed that there is an eighty percent chance that the white man did the crime and thus, it follows that he may be questioned first. No one's civil rights are being impeded by employing statistical tactics. (. http://www.psychologytoday.com...)