Absent strong and unambiguous condemnation, racial profiling, whether implicit or explicit, will continue, in large part because it is not entirely irrational. Criminologists generally agree that young people are more likely to commit crime than old people, men more than women, city dwellers more than country folk, the poor more than the rich, and minorities more than whites. Taken together, therefore, it is not wholly irrational for a police officer to presume that a young black man in the inner city is more likely to be involved in criminal conduct than an elderly white woman living on a farm. The important point is that even though such stereotypes may be rational, they are not acceptable. Racial classifications have such an ignominious history that the Supreme Court has said that it is not enough to show that they are rational.
Racial stereotypes are clearly unnecessary to good police work.
Because most people regardless of race do not commit crime, using race as a proxy for suspicion will necessarily sweep in large numbers of innocents. In addition, if police officers are watching people of particular races, they will miss offenders of other races. First, government officials must make absolutely clear that racial profiling is unacceptable. The Supreme Court has never addressed the practice, lower courts are divided, and most police chiefs have been silent. As long as the practice is not clearly condemned, police officers will continue to do it, in part because it is not entirely irrational to do so.