Try envisioning a minority being unlawfully apprehended by a police officer because they seem to be involved in suspicious activity. This action is a true embodiment of what racial profiling is. Numerous people believe that when an immoral practice such as racial profiling is enabled, many minorities are affected in the worst ways. However, those who argue for racial profiling will vocalize that the practice is beneficial for minorities and their communities. Analyzing the problem in-depth, racial profiling results in more negative effects than positive because the policy alters the lifestyles of minorities by violating their basic human rights, hindering their relationship with law enforcement, and causing danger in their communities.

A misinterpretation of what racial profiling truly is often occurs within this nation. Keith Rushing, an environmental justice editor, says, "Racial profiling is the use of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or national origin by law enforcement agents as a factor in deciding whom to investigate, arrest or detain absent evidence of a specific crime or criminal behavior" (Rushing). Another misconception is that all citizens are informed about the issue of racial profiling. David A. Harris expressed, "Before September 11, profiling data had shown that almost 60 percent of Americans -- not just African Americans and Latinos, but all Americans -- understood what racial profiling was, thought it was an unfair and unwise law enforcement tactic, and wanted it eliminated" (Harris 36). Although the subject matter is a serious issue in present day, it has an extensive history. The practice of racial profiling can date back to a couple of centuries ago during the slavery era. Around this time, slave patrols were in constant control of colored slaves. Advancing forward a couple hundred years, profiling was still solely on African Americans through black codes which restricted the freedom of colored people to do certain things. The issue of racial profiling began to resurface after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. David Harris also stated, "Racial profiling -- an issue of broad national concern before September 11 -- did not become less important nor did it disappear. Instead, it was recast and dramatically changed" (Harris 36). Since the attacks, the array of targets under racial profiling has expanded to all minorities instead of just a limited amount. In today's time, there are cases such as Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and Sandra Bland that inform all citizens that racial profiling is still alive and well. Knowing that the practice is still in existence, one must wonder how it can be detrimental to the way victimized individuals live.

The consequences of racial profiling have proven to negatively affect the lives of minorities. One way their lives are negatively affected is by their constitutional rights being taken away. The First Amendment states that all citizens have freedom of speech and expression. In some racial profiling cases, minorities are unable to express themselves and defend their actions against law enforcement without being deemed aggressive or antagonistic. This subsequently takes away from the character and dignity of said individual. Every citizen has the right to defend themselves under certain circumstances, but racial profiling revokes that privilege. Nevertheless, the violation of human rights does not conclude here.

Another amendment that racial profiling violates is the Fourth Amendment. Adero S. Jernigan states, "The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'" (Jernigan 138).  When law enforcement agencies enable racial profiling, they are subjecting minorities to criminal status without valid information besides race and nationality. Not only does the practice directly go against the Fourth Amendment, but it eats away at the lives of profiled minorities. Professor Ranjana Natarajan exerted, "While racial profiling can end in tragic police killings of unarmed individuals, such as with Eric Garner or Michael Brown, it also results in many unnecessary stops and searches, harassment and intimidation, and even confiscation of property without due process" (Natarajan). A prime example of how this amendment was completely disregarded was during the Whren v. United States case. Two African American males, Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown, committed a traffic violation after stopping at a corner for approximately twenty seconds in a heavy drug-affiliated neighborhood. When the police officers approached the car, they saw crack cocaine in the hands of Whren. Both men were arrested for drug possession, but this stop raised an important question concerning racial profiling. The concern is essentially discussing whether searches and seizures are warranted when an individual is pulled over for a minor traffic violation.

An additional amendment that is infringed on because of racial profiling is the Fourteenth Amendment. Rushing expressed, "The 14th Amendment affirmed the citizenship of African-Americans and equal protection of the laws, including the right to life, liberty, property and due process" (Rushing). It is evident that racial profiling permits unequal protection for all citizens, especially minorities because they are more likely to be searched versus white people. Equality is a basic human right that the United States is big on, but the practice of racial profiling takes that right away. Civil Liberties expert Tom Head asserted, "Racial profiling is, by definition, based on a standard of unequal protection" (Head). If a minority feels as if they are not properly protected under law, this could consequently take a major toll on their lives. For example, if a minority lives in a community with a high crime rate, their lives are in danger due to the fact that law enforcement may suspect that they are the criminals when they are completely innocent. Head also states that racial profiling "promotes the internal segregation of suspects within the minds of police officers, and it creates a second-class citizenship for black and Latino Americans" (Head). This segregation not only leads to a hazard to the lives of minorities, but it subsequently leads to a downfall in their relationship with law enforcement agents.

`Along with violating constitutional rights, racial profiling also has the ability to hinder minorities' relationship with law enforcement agencies. Tom Head declared, "Racial profiling policies set up law enforcement agencies as enemies of entire communities -- communities that tend to be disproportionately affected by crime -- when law enforcement agencies should be in the business of protecting crime victims and helping them find justice" (Head). As a community's adversary, police officers cannot properly do their job, which is to protect and serve all citizens. Without proper protection, the lives of minorities and the people around them are at risk. Sometimes the police need the help of minorities to fully investigate criminal acts in society. However, when those minorities or the individuals that surround them are made victims, they will refuse to cooperate with the police. Evan Horowitz claims, "When minority groups feel that they're under constant suspicion, they're less likely to entrust police with information that can be vital to solving crimes" (Horowitz). If an individual is withholding information important to solving a criminal case in response to unlawful police actions, this may lead to heavy threats to communities. Ultimately, an entire society can be negatively affected due to distrust and no communication between law enforcement and United States citizens.

Not only do important relationships become non-existent, but certain dangers also originate from ethnic profiling. Some of those dangers could possibly be a loss of a life or some type of severe suffering such as bereavement or depression. Annabelle Lever voiced, "In short, one of the reasons for thinking racial profiling is unjustified is the risk of serious death and injury to civilians that it creates, and the ways in which it is likely to exacerbate any problems of racism in the police, and in society at large" (Lever). What people often analyze is how racial profiling can lead to something that vital. Victims of racial profiling often create larger ordeals in order to acquire the attention of higher representatives, such as Congress. These mechanisms can take place in the form of protests or in the worst case, community riots. Protests are sometimes innocent and are formed to get recognition to invoke change, but they have potential to get violent. A few protests or riots can hinder the neighborhoods minorities live in because they are intense on occasion. A quality example would be an occurrence that took place in Ferguson, Missouri. There, a young African American teenager by the name of Michael Brown was fatally shot by a police officer who viewed him as a threat. After there was no indictment for the police officer who killed Brown, the entire community of Ferguson, Missouri went into an uproar. Countless residents of Ferguson began destroying and vandalizing the entire city. In retrospect, every person in Ferguson was affected by this act of racial profiling because their community is destroyed and people are releasing their anger with law enforcement in a threatening manner. Generally speaking, this could possibly take place again if racial profiling continues, which is ultimately disastrous to the lives of minorities and the people associated with them. In spite of the fact that there are negative effects stemming from ethnic stereotyping, some individuals argue that the procedure is beneficial.

Advocates for racial profiling do have substantial arguments as for why the practice can be beneficial for all citizens. One reasoning behind the argument is the fact that can effectively rid communities of criminal activity or potential criminals. Targeting specific minorities who fit the profile of a crime can often prove to be more successful than investigating to find a specific person. Professor Amitai Etzioni stated, "Race is used as one such marker by police, in part because it is relatively easy to discern but also because blacks commit a disproportionally large number of violent crimes" (Etzioni). More often than not, certain minorities commit particular crimes over others. Etzioni also asserts that blacks "represent 12.3% of the U.S. population, but commit about a quarter (estimates range from 24% to 27%) of solved violent crimes" (Etzioni). In addition, police see distinct minorities as more violent than others based on prior experiences. Lever asserted, "You merely have to suppose that police, like other people, are likely to be more fearful and more prone to act with force if they suppose that they are facing people who are particularly prone to violence" (Lever). By singling out certain individuals, law enforcement agencies are taking a faster approach to protecting the communities that minorities and others live in.

Furthermore, law enforcement agencies want to protect the communities they serve as quickly as they can. Typically, using racial profiling speeds up the investigation process for police officers. By narrowing the suspects down to a distinct minority group, effective policing can ensue. This tactic can prove to be advantageous for all societies because law enforcement agents are catching criminals at a more rapid pace. Also, not many resources are wasted because of long, drawn out investigations. Without any crimes within specific communities, all individuals would be able to live better lives. Although racial profiling supporters have rational points, their argument is primarily suppressed by the opposing argument.

Examining the points made against the argument of racial profiling negatively affecting the lives of minorities, one can see that there are some fallacies. Despite racial profiling being effective on occasions, it does not necessarily work all the time. When racial profiling is enabled, law enforcement runs the risk of apprehending the wrong individuals. This will ultimately result in the true criminals being able to roam free which can be unpleasant and cause uneasiness for some communities. The same kind of refutation is applied for the counter-argument that states that racial profiling is a quick strategy that catches criminals without wasting many resources. Although the practice may be fast and easy for police, it does not exactly generate accurate policing. Ultimately, racial profiling causes police to lose valuable resources in citizens, specifically minorities, when they implement the procedure. Head states, "When racial profiling is used, officers end up wasting their limited time on innocent suspects" (Head). Either way, a risk is brought about concerning the safety and well-being of people's lives within minority-based societies.

Moving towards a solution to a prevalent issue such as racial profiling, individuals for and against the problem must find a common ground. One righteous resolution could be through better exchanges between civilians and law enforcement. Jamil Jivani, a victim of racial profiling, stated, "I believe that through dialogue is the only way that communities of color and low income neighborhoods are going to have a more positive relationship with our police departments" (Jivani). One form of this dialogue can come from an increased use of the complaints process and mediated conversations with police officers. In Jivani's video, he discussed how he got racially profiled against and how after the fact he had a mediated conversation with the officers he had the encounter with. Following the conversation, the police had a better understanding of who he was and how he felt as a minority and Jivani had a greater perception of why the police officers acted in the manner they did. Another way to please both sides of the racial profiling issue can be by making all stops and searches public knowledge. Jernigan expressed, "One commentator asserts that a large scale analysis of the data could be used to support or refute the alleged problems" (Jernigan 137). If all stops and searches are made available for all citizens, people can see if the police action was justified or if it was racially motivated. Lastly, body cameras for law enforcement can appease to both parties arguing about the overall matter. This way, everyone can see if minorities are actually being unusual or if the police are being discriminatory against particular individuals.

Racial profiling is the targeting of minority groups in particular by law enforcement agencies. Anthony D. Romero, an American Civil Liberties Union member, affirmed, "They are not stopped because they have committed a crime, but because law enforcement authorities wrongly assume that they are more likely to be involved in criminal activity because of the way they look" (Romero). The issue at hand is not whether racial profiling exists or not, it is more so a matter of analyzing the magnitude of which minorities are affected. After carefully examining the negative effects that racial profiling can cause in people's lives, one can see that there is a significant need for change. By pointing out the negative effects that stem from racial profiling, all citizens are better informed and can take the proper steps necessary to finding effective solutions. Moving forward, all citizens should try to inform more people and implement some solutions, such as bettering dialogue between law enforcement and body cameras, throughout the nation. In addition to enabling solutions, individuals must also be accountable for their partiality when stereotyping minorities. "If we're going to strengthen our democracy we have to challenge ourselves, question our biases and preconceptions, and understand by putting ourselves in other people's shoes how they experience life in our society" (Jivani). With raised awareness about the issue, governmental and personal intervention can make a notable difference.

