It seems as though the issue of race is ubiquitous in all aspects of society. In almost any given circumstance, one can feasibly construct a racial argument, whether the racism is "overt" or "reverse." Public law enforcement officers struggle every day to bridge the gap between racial profiling and societal justice. However, the issue is ongoing and it seems as though there can always be arguments for and against their actions on behalf of race.
The SF Chronicle posted an article just a few days ago about racial profiling within the Oakland Police Department. The article presents data illustrating an overwhelming amount of African Americans involved in the Oakland crime scene. Ultimately, the problem all comes down to the issue of discretion and whether or not law enforcement is justified in making the judgements that they make. In our reading, Musheno and Maynard-Moody indicate that this is a complex and difficult question to answer because judgments are often “ambiguous and multi-layered: they reference both rules and morality to defend decisions, reveal internalized as well as interactive conflicts, and document shifting positions over time” (p.25). The ambiguity of law enforcement's discretion causes a lot of finger pointing and confusion. African Americans feel they are being profiled, while law enforcement feels they are simply doing their job to enforce a safe city. How, then, do we know where the truth stands?
To answer this, I would argue that everything falls somewhere in the middle. Law enforcement seems to pay closer attention to African Americans only because statistically, they have developed a certain stereotype for themselves. However, does this mean that a while man is any less capable of the same crime? Of course not.
To refer back to our reading once more, the use of discretion to get the bad guys is deeply ironic in that "street level workers become stringent rule followers, trying to limit services...[R]ather than cutting corners, they follow every procedure. They use the rules to discourage and harass citizen clients...[I]n these cases, workers express more concern for the state’s interests than for those of citizen clients" (p.151). This argument is compelling because it illustrates the true irony that comes with judgements made by discretion alone.
Essentially, these are issues that public law enforcement are faced with every day. Seeing as this article came out just days ago, the issue of racial profiling is ever-present and very real. It is truly difficult to bridge the gap between racism and protective measures for society. Unfortunately, discretion alone is sure to cause conflict.
Sources:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/<wbr />johnson/article/Oakland-crime-<wbr />issue-goes-far-deeper-than-<wbr />racial-5355633.php
http://www.sfgate.com/file/<wbr />762/762-2013%20Victim%20and%<wbr />20Suspect%20Race3.pdf
This post articulated a great deal of my personal opinions about racial profiling and how it functions within police departments as a guiding force in decision making. Police officers face a unique problem, putting their life on the line every shift. I think that this sense of immediate danger, widely unfelt in most other professions, forces officers to dehumanize potential criminals. Since we are the spectators of this behavior, we as the public feel the right to judge and condemn. Although I disagree with the practices entirely, as we learned early on, police continually experience an extreme amount of public scrutiny. I think that racial profiling is occurring because of police tactics but also cultural perceptions and I think it is important that we start to take a certain amount of personal responsibility. Yes, the kinds of tactics police are engaged in are unfair, but it is also a cultural problem and we need to be aware of that in order for any real change to occur. Racial profiling is pervasive and ultimately detrimental to the maintenance of a true democracy, so we as a democratic body should do something to change it! - Chelsea Goddard
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this post because the concept of discretion is one that intrigues me. I am a firm believer that no matter what the rules are, there is always some level of discretion even if it is subconscious. For example, if someone committed a crime (small or large), police officers have the power to give that person a warning and let them go or arrest them. This decision comes down to discretion. Sadly, racial profiling becomes an integral part of this discretion. I think racial profiling is wrong, but I also think it is difficult to ignore certain statistics, while trying to protect the rest of society. This issue is definitely one that has a lot of conflicting angles. I think it is hard to determine whether or not law enforcement is justified in their decision making because they are the ones in contact with the individuals. There is a difference between making laws from inside an office building and being in contact with people committing crimes on a daily basis. I hope racial profiling will become nonexistent, but with discretion I am not sure it is completely possible. -Brooke Arthur
ReplyDelete