Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, a massive debate emerged as to what methods and instruments could be made available to law enforcement to prevent any future incidents. Media and the general public continuously aired details related to the hijackers, designating 15 of the 19 hijackers as being of Saudi descent. This fact continues to be one of the most prominent details when it comes to the debate as to where radical Islam begins. This clearly begs the question, can extremism be linked to a common religious or ethnic group and can that be used as a tool for the law enforcement community?
Since its beginning, profiling has come under the constant scrutiny of those who believe that it is a method that promotes unfair discrimination by police. Profiling is defined as the "the use of specific characteristics, as race or age, to make generalizations about a person, as whether he or she may be engaged in illegal activity (dictionary.com)." Profiling as a tool became available and was used by law enforcement in the 1980s, under Operation Pipeline – started by the Drug Enforcement Administration as the United States declared its "War on Drugs." Police used profiling, aided by other techniques such as recognizing suspicious behavior and the possible concealment of contraband when making traffic stops in order to intercept drug shipments.
It was during this time period that in some states, such as California, minorities began to feel as though they were being unfairly targeted due to their race. The terms "Driving While Black" or "Driving While Brown" originated in response to such stops (Jrank.org).
In present day, it may seem as though there is a racial bias against minorities for criminal offenses. As of June 30, 2007, data indicated that the incarceration rate for white men was 773 per 100,000, black men was 4,618 per 100,000, and Hispanics was 1,747 per 100,000 (Sabol 7). However, these statistics are reflective of a potential bias in the judicial system, not necessarily in the policing aspect of law enforcement. This paper's intended purpose is to assess the capabilities of the investigations process and will not address any potential discrimination in the court system.
Following the September 11 attacks, a new debate emerged over the use of racial profiling by a relatively new group, the Arab-American community. Consisting of a large number of Muslims, this group specifically feared a wave of reciprocal violence on its members. While such concerns are justifiable, they have been given significant allowances so as not to provide any potentially conflicting links to terrorist organizations that use religion as a justification, such as Al-Qaida. In 2008, the State Department and Department of Justice, along with several other government agencies, issued memos providing a proper lexicon of appropriate terms when speaking of radical Muslim groups. So as not to confuse mainstream Islam with that of the radical beliefs of Al-Qaida, the memo requested that Islamic terms such as "jihad," "mujahidin," or "Islamist" not be used when discussing groups (Msnbc.com).
However, can providing such safeguards while ignoring what these groups portray themselves as create a conflict that encourages an atmosphere of political correctness rather than accuracy? Radical groups do exist representing an array of causes – whether they be religious, political, social, or economic. The common link that gives way to terrorism and extremist violence is that not the cause that these groups identify with, but rather the acceptance of violence as a means to lobby the public. The beginnings of those who represent such groups normally do bear similar characteristics that can aid in detecting tendencies to resort to violence. Several recent terror cases all share various aspects that should be observed and should be noted when debating whether profiling can be an accurate tool in law enforcement.
No comments:
Post a Comment