Until recently, African-American drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike stood a much greater
chance than white drivers of being stopped by the State Police for a random drug search. This practice--an example of racial profiling--ended abruptly last year when public outrage forced the removal of the State Police Superintendent.
The outcome in New Jersey was, however, the exception rather than the rule. In
fact, law enforcement agencies throughout the nation commonly use tactics that subject
members of certain minority groups to closer scrutiny than others. When a police officer
detains and investigates a person or group of people primarily because of their race-- absent
of any information linking them to criminal activity--that officer is engaged in racial
profiling.
For example, for several years, police have known that African-American gang
members from New York City fly to Florida to buy cocaine. These gang members then use
rental cars to transport the cocaine back to various locations in the Northeastern United
States. Aware of this pattern, police officers from various agencies have adopted an
enforcement approach in which they select primarily cars driven by African-American males
traveling northbound on Interstate 95 to stop and search for drugs. While these stops have
occasionally led to seizures of illegal drugs, they have also resulted in individuals who are
not involved in illegal activity being stopped and detained.
Racial profiling is not limited to enforcement activities on the highway. An
African- American actor is presently suing the City of New York following his arrest in the
lobby of his apartment building. He was arrested, along with five other African-American
males, during a police operation intended to arrest suspected drug dealers. The actor was
placed into custody for five hours and strip searched, even though he was not in possession
of any drugs or involved in any criminal activity.
If racial profiling were a matter of simple bigotry, it would be easy to condemn
and ban. But law enforcement officials, including some African-American police chiefs in
big cities, defend such tactics as an effective way to target their limited resources on likely
lawbreakers. They maintain that profiling is based not on prejudice but probabilities--the
statistical reality that young minority men are disproportionately likely to commit (and be
the victim of) crimes. Citing these facts, the courts have repeatedly upheld the
constitutionality of routinely using race as a criteria for selecting the targets of enforcement
action.
Of course, there are situations in which police must take race or ethnicity into
account to do their jobs effectively. An obvious example is when skin color is part of a
description of specific suspects committing specific crimes. In addition, such descriptions
help police narrow the pool of potential suspects and concentrate their enforcement efforts.
Let's say that a police department has knowledge that jewelry store salespeople are being
robbed. The robberies occur just after the store closes when the sales personnel are leaving
work. Witnesses describe the suspects as male, Hispanic adults. Police are also told that
prior to past robberies, witnesses have observed several Hispanic males seated in a car that
matches the description of what is later to be determined as the suspect vehicle. Based on this
scenario, a police officer would be justified in investigating a vehicle containing a group of
Hispanic males parked adjacent to a jewelry store at closing time. And even though the
criteria used by police to target this vehicle includes that the occupants are Hispanic, the
police are not using "racial profiling." However, if police officers from this
department--in an effort to stop these robberies--made it a practice to stop any and all
vehicles occupied by male Hispanics, anywhere in the city, at any time, they would be
engaged in racial profiling.
The well-founded belief that authorities use racial profiles to justify more
intensive observation and questioning of people of color has fed escalating tensions between
police and minority communities. Racial profiling has triggered widespread complaints
among minority men, including many middle-class professionals, of police harassment based
solely on their skin color.
Political opposition to racial profiling is mounting. President Clinton recently
called the practice "morally indefensible" and ordered federal law enforcement
officials to collect information on the race and sex of people they stop. Vice President Al
Gore and his rival for the Democratic nomination, former Sen. Bill Bradley, have promised
to ban racial profiling by federal authorities.
Progressives should press for an end to profiling on both civic and practical
grounds. First, racial profiling corrodes the presumption of innocence to which all American
citizens are entitled. It is always dangerous to stray from the bedrock liberal principle that
individuals must be judged on their own merits, not on their class, race, ethnic background,
or gender. Second, whatever gains the police may reap from profiling are overwhelmed by
its costs: alienating law-abiding citizens and reinforcing the view in poor communities of the
police as an occupying force rather than a common instrument for self-defense.
Moreover, police now have an alternative: new, community-based strategies
buttressed by real time access to information that can help them target people who have
actually committed crimes as opposed to people who happen to be members of racial or
ethnic minorities. After all, profiling uses race as a proxy for criminal intent or culpability
because police often lack specific information about specific individuals. Modern
information systems and strong police community interaction that foster the exchange of
information will ensure that police make decisions based on facts and data instead of race.
The problem with racial profiling is not that it targets "dangerous people
in dangerous places." It is that it targets inaccurately and in ways that breed
resentment and mistrust between the police and poor communities. What we need is the
right kind of targeting, based on better information about lawbreakers and closer cooperation
between the police and the community. In this paper, we propose a Third Way: replace
racial profiling with new tools that will help the police to make better judgments, deploy
their resources more strategically, and most important of all, enlist citizens in crime-riddled
neighborhoods in their own self-defense.
Improve police recruitment and training. We need to enhance the quality of our police forces with more stringent hiring standards and train officers to identify the conditions, trends, and behaviors that are true indicators of criminal activity.
In the early part of this century, racial discrimination was codified in many state laws and
the police were expected to enforce what most Americans today regard as unjust laws. Over
the past three decades, there have been systematic efforts to eliminate blatant bigotry from
the nation's criminal justice system. Outright discrimination is clearly much less prevalent
than in the past. Nonetheless, there are still many Americans, particularly racial and ethnic
minorities, who are convinced that police unfairly target them.
Undoubtedly, there are still people in our criminal justice system who are
influenced by racial or ethnic prejudice. Just as surely, some instances of profiling, or of
excessive force, can be attributed to a racist outlook. When racial prejudice prevents anyone
in the criminal justice system from treating all citizens in a fair and equal manner, the only
solution is to remove such people from positions of public trust.
But the routine use of racial profiling today has more to do with techniques of
"modern" policing than old-fashioned bias. In the middle part of this century,
police officials instituted a new model of "professional policing" in an effort to
deal with corruption. Under this model, police officers were taken off the streets and placed
in radio-dispatched patrol cars, controlled and monitored from a centralized location.
Officers were responsible for large geographical areas and were evaluated based on such
performance measures as number of arrests, number of calls for service handled, and
response times. Departments became 911 driven, and officers were discouraged from
forming close bonds with the community. The result: police officers became detached from
the communities they served.
Today, many police departments (even many of those that promote community-
oriented policing) still emphasize random or reactive tactics. Rarely do police officers (or
their supervisors) begin their day with a specific problem to solve and a defined,
information-driven solution to that problem. Generally, police officers randomly drive
around a loosely defined beat area, responding to calls for service, or using a set of
nonspecific criteria to decide which people and cars to stop. This culture of random policing
has alienated police from the communities they are charged with protecting, fostering an
"us vs. them" mentality in which racial profiling and charges of racially-inspired
police brutality flourish.
The authors of this paper know from personal experience that most police officers
are hard-working, decent people who are struggling to be effective with minimal resources
and under difficult conditions. They are held accountable for preventing crime, but they are
seldom provided up-to-date information regarding crime trends and conditions influencing
crime. This operational environment requires police officers to make discretionary judgments
about who to stop and when to detain people. Lacking reliable information, and sometimes
training in how to establish proper "probable cause," officers often rely on
"hunches" or other superficial criteria--such as a minority person traveling in
"the wrong neighborhood"--to justify detaining and questioning an individual.
They believe that they are making a rational decision based on their experience; that they are
simply doing their job.
Some legal and law enforcement experts argue that the use of racial profiling is
an effective method of strategically addressing specific crime problems. They believe that
the most effective use of their limited resources is to focus on minorities because they are
statistically more likely to be involved in crime. They further argue that racial profiling is
appropriate when the race of an individual is one of a number of legitimate factors used by
police to decide whom to stop and question.
Yet their core premise--that racial profiling is an effective and efficient way to
catch criminals--is fatally flawed. When police use race-based profile resources, they often
devote time and attention to individuals who are not involved in illegal activity-
-leaving actual criminals free to continue committing crimes. Assuming that all members of
a race are legitimate targets for police action because they have the same skin color as
individuals engaged in criminal activity is not a sound assumption on which to base an
enforcement strategy.1 The vast majority of serial
killers are white. Yet no one would argue that because all white people are potentially serial
killers, they should be subject to random police stops. From a law enforcement perspective,
the use of race is not the most effective method for deciding whether a person may be
potentially violating the law.
Tough law enforcement does not require that the police treat some citizens
unfairly. Indeed, some of the most effective community-oriented policing initiatives
combine the goal of curbing crime with a commitment to treat every person with the utmost
respect, regardless of the circumstances. Communities that have embraced this philosophy
of policing have not only realized dramatic reductions in crime, they've also seen citizen
complaints against the police plummet. San Diego, for example, has achieved a reduction
in crime statistically equal to that achieved in New York City through a crime strategy based
on problem solving and community mobilization. Rochester, NY, has adopted an aggressive
crime reduction strategy with a commitment by the chief of police that every citizen will be
treated with maximum respect. Rochester also has witnessed both a substantial reduction
in crime and in citizen complaints.
Racial profiling is inconsistent with the basic freedoms and rights afforded in our
democracy. It erodes the foundation of trust between communities and public authorities.
Worst of all, it inflames racial and ethnic strife and undermines America's progress toward
color-blind justice.
Improving the relationship between minority groups and police is one of the
greatest challenges confronting our criminal justice system. According to Washington, D.C.,
Police Chief Charles Ramsey, "Race relations between the police and the community
is one of the fundamental things that we must work through and 'get right' if we are to have
any hope of significant and lasting progress on stopping illegal drugs, reducing youth crime,
and improving public safety." Acknowledging the gravity of this problem, U.S.
Attorney General Janet Reno and police executives from throughout the country have held
three recent meetings on the subject of profiling and race relations. But no clear strategy has
emerged for resolving this complex issue.
Without community support, tougher law enforcement can only go so far. If we
are to make deeper inroads into crime, we must employ enforcement strategies that treat all
law-abiding Americans with respect. We also must move beyond police tactics that have
officers driving or walking around at random hoping to find crime, or stopping people or cars
based solely on "hunches." There is growing evidence that communities can reap
significant decreases in crime when police work closely with community members (business
leaders, clergy and residents) to identify local conditions that breed disorder and to craft
information-driven strategies to prevent crime.
In addition to the overriding imperative of better community support, the
progressive alternative to racial profiling is based on the following four key strategies:
Use Technology to Enable the Police and Increase Citizen Participation
Whether in an inner city neighborhood or on an interstate highway, the use of accurate
and timely information allows police to identify both the location of criminal activity and
the people involved in it. Information plays a key role in the identification of "hot
spots" and the repeat offenders that the criminal justice system should target. If state
troopers have information about specific people or vehicles involved in the transportation of
illegal drugs, they will not have to rely on race or ethnic profiles.
Advances in technology promise to significantly change the way we address
crime in our cities, towns, and on our highways. The information technology revolution has
improved the ability of people in the criminal justice system to collect, process, and
disseminate information. Linked information systems, wireless data technology, and systems
that link the community with police will provide police the critical information needed to
identify trends and situations that demand law enforcement focus. Police officers can now
access information and images of persons who are wanted for crimes via laptop computers
in their police cars. Additionally, officers can use these same laptops to file reports and
complete other administrative tasks. This allows them to stay in the field longer.
Information and communication systems will link regional agencies and enable multi-agency
efforts to target the locations where crimes occur and the people who commit them. The
same information systems also can monitor the performance of police officers, highlighting
patterns of behavior that may signal bad decision-making.
These advances will make it easier for citizens to provide information to police
regarding crime-related problems. For example, some police departments are using the
Internet to enable people to file police reports and to get information regarding criminal
activity in their neighborhoods. Other departments are using advanced telecommunications
technology in conjunction with an easy-to-remember, non-emergency number (311) to
improve the response to both emergency and non-emergency calls for service, and to create
discretionary time for community-oriented policing.
Unfortunately, the criminal justice community has been slow to exploit the full
potential of the new technologies. Many agencies can't afford cutting edge technology;
others have senior executives who don't grasp how technology can leverage existing criminal
justice resources toward more effective policing. The federal government should launch an
educational campaign to raise awareness among federal, state, and local criminal justice
agencies about what new information tools are available and how they can be a "force
multiplier" for police.
Concentrate on Crime "Hot Spots"
Research confirms what Americans instinctively understand: crime is heavily
concentrated in certain geographical locations. A small number of addresses tend to
generate a large amount of crime, and these addresses tend to be clustered in particular
neighborhoods. Some studies have indicated that as much as 50 percent of all crime occurs
at about 3 percent of addresses. For violent crime, this concentration is even more
pronounced. The pattern holds true for urban, rural, and suburban settings. It is therefore
crucial for law enforcement authorities and community leaders to cooperate in targeting
resources on those hot spots where most crime takes place. Efforts by police and prosecutors
to target hot spots should also be coordinated with other public and community agencies,
such as those responsible for after school programs, housing, and drug treatment.
Maryland Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has spearheaded a
statewide "HotSpots" program that should be a model for the nation. State
grants initially supported 36 multi agency and community-based efforts to reclaim the
neighborhoods hardest hit by crime and drugs. The state assists crime-ridden communities
in developing a comprehensive strategy that includes community mobilization,
community-oriented policing, community probation,2
and delinquency prevention.
This information-driven approach has had dramatic results. HotSpot locations
recorded significant decreases in serious crime that doubled both national and state averages,
leading Maryland to double the number of HotSpots communities that receive state funds.3
Focus on High-Risk Offenders
Research also has shown that a small proportion of high-risk offenders accounts for a
large proportion of crime. An exhaustive study of career criminals conducted by the
National Academy of Sciences found that while half of all offenders commit more than one
crime per year, 10 percent of offenders committed over 100 crimes per year. A study in
Baltimore found that almost 60 percent of adults arrested are on some type of criminal justice
supervision (probation and parole) at the time of their arrest.
Incredibly, however, many police departments continue to employ crime control
strategies that involve the random search for people committing crime when it is clear that
the majority of crime is committed by individuals who are not only well known to the law
enforcement community, but who are also under criminal justice supervision.
Some jurisdictions have realized impressive reductions in crime by targeting
these high-risk individuals. Boston, for example, quelled a severe epidemic of youth
violence with a multi-faceted approach involving government and the community. The
police identified violence-prone youth, who were then contacted as well by social workers,
probation officers, and church leaders. These youths quickly discovered that they were being
closely monitored not only by law enforcement officials, but by a caring community.
Coupled with this initiative was an expanded gun enforcement effort to track down those
who were selling guns to youths. The results were impressive. For two years, there were no
gun related homicides committed against or by a person under the age of 18. Additionally,
Boston substantially reduced its level of youth violence through these collaborative
initiatives.
A success like Boston's shows that it is not only assertive police action that can
reduce disorder and violence. Community-backed approaches work better than reliance
solely on police action.
Strengthen Police Training and Accountability
Police officers hired to protect our communities must recognize that treating citizens
with respect is the highest priority of the profession. Police departments must redouble
efforts to screen applicants for this ability and eliminate those who lack it. While hiring
requirements should be set locally based on the specific needs of specific communities,
departments across the nation are exploring residency4
and mandatory education requirements as ways to enhance the quality of their law
enforcement officers.
Many police agencies have begun requiring an associate's degree as a minimum
academic credential while others require or offer signing and retention bonuses for people
with bachelor's degrees. It is generally agreed that applicants with higher levels of education
have better communications skills and show greater versatility in problem-solving.
However, such requirements often make it difficult to recruit minority officers, since there
is intense competition in the job market for minority candidates with college degrees.
Law enforcement agencies traditionally have tended to recruit college students
majoring in criminal justice or criminology. Many police agencies will also provide
continuing education benefits to their officers only for criminal justice studies. To widen the
pool of potential recruits, law enforcement should look also to students with a broader
educational focus.
Everywhere, the quality of police training must be dramatically improved. Law
enforcement professionals must be trained to identify conditions, trends, and behaviors that
are true indicators of criminal activity. They must also be trained to understand and
articulate the cornerstone principles of American justice, such as the doctrine of probable
cause. Police training must focus on improving the quality of decisionmaking and use of
discretion. We must invest more in innovative training techniques, such as interactive
software programs that present trainees with scenarios and evaluate their reactions.
Police executives must be willing to bring minority representatives into full
collaboration as they develop policies and programs aimed at lessening racial tension. Police
strategies and tactics should be developed with community input, so the community is aware
of what objectives are being sought and how the strategies will work. Police must not only
tell the community what they are doing, but must learn what true collaboration means.
Community oversight boards and federal supervision over local police focus attention on this
issue but do not foster collaboration and therefore, in themselves, are not the answer. Most
importantly, we must remember that this is not just a problem for police. Federal, state, and
local government officials (in the legislative and executive branches) must provide the
leadership, the ideas, and the commitment needed to spark a new revolution in criminal
justice practices, learning from what has been successful and abandoning strategies that have
failed.
Finally, leadership matters. Racial tensions between the police and communities
are low where police executives take a strong stand against discriminatory or biased actions
and hold their police officers strictly accountable when they violate such strictures. Police
officers will not become involved in situations that increase racial tensions if police
managers make it clear that inappropriate police behavior will not be tolerated.
Today's welcome reductions in crime allow many Americans to feel safer in their
communities. Yet some Americans--particularly minorities--live with fear daily, not just of
crime but also of abuse at the hands of police.
A progressive anti-crime strategy, therefore, should strive toward two key aims:
reducing crime and improving relations between minority communities and the police.
Fortunately, these goals are compatible and mutually reinforcing. There is simply no need
for Americans to choose between greater public safety and policing methods that fail to treat
all citizens with equal respect.
It is, therefore, time to end racial profiling and replace it with information-driven
strategies--enabled by the new tools of technology and grounded in strong community
support--that constitute a Third Way approach to public safety for the 21st century.
1. A recent report released by the National Institute of Justice found that it is the social and
economic status of a neighborhood, not the racial or ethnic makeup, that is a key contributor to a community's subculture of crime and violence.
2. Community prosecution involves having prosecutors focus their activities based on the
location of a crime, not the type of crime. Under community prosecution, a prosecutor will have responsibility for working with police and community members to solve problems and prosecute most arrests for crimes in that community.
3. From July through December 1998, Baltimore City, HotSpots reported a 31 percent
decrease in serious crime as compared to an 11 percent decrease citywide. Statewide, for the same period, HotSpots reported a 20 percent decrease in crime compared to a 10 percent decrease in non-HotSpots.
4. Calls for police officers to live in the communities they police tend to reflect the desire
for police officers to show greater sensitivity to community issues and concerns. However, others believe that the quality of policing is important, not where the officer resides. In addition, residency requirements make police recruitment more difficult, and are subject to various state laws that prohibit this criterion.
