Diverse policing approaches and considerations

Diverse Policing

Criminal Profiling

While this opinion might be considered unpopular, the reality is that these repetitive stops are reasonable. These repetitive stops represent a phenomenon known as criminal profiling. Criminal profiling is done simply because it does catch criminals. For example, criminal profiling was precisely what helped police investigators catch a criminal known as George Metesky, a bomber who had eluded the police for over 15 years. The frustrated police force asked investigator James Brussel (the assistant commissioner of mental hygiene) to come up with a detail description of the subject based on crime scene photos, notes, and other details provided. Brussel came up with the following description of the subject: "He would be unmarried, foreign, self-educated, in his 50s, living in Connecticut, paranoid and with a vendetta against Con Edison -- the first bomb had targeted the power company's 67th street headquarters" (Winerman, 2004). As experts do admit, some of the details which made up this criminal profile were common sense, others orbited around psychological ideas; regardless, the profile led the police to Metesky who was arrested and confessed (Winerman, 2004). This story is comparable to what George is experiencing in his travels: the police also have to engage in some common sense reasoning. A drug dealer is not going to be driving a Honda; he will probably be driving some sort of flashy car like the one that George is driving. Drug-dealers are notorious for showing off their wealth and for dressing in an unconventional style; after all, they've chosen unconventional lifestyles. Thus, the way in which George is dressing merely plays into those conventions and realities of the drug trade. Thus, the reasoning behind the stops is sound and valid, based on criminal science.

If these stops are based on policy and procedure in Colorado, the major in the Georgia Highway patrol and the Sherriff of the local county could threaten or discipline officers who did not stop George. Such actions would be a violation of procedure and would require that the offending officers understand the importance in correcting their actions, and make immediate efforts to correct their efforts as soon as possible.

Furthermore, the offending officer who left George stranded should be disciplined. While he was wise to explore such a likely potential lead as George, the reality is that a good officer does not leave another citizen stranded on the side of the road with a non-working car that you have caused to be un-drivable. While being proactive and aggressive means that one is a good leader to follow for other drug officers, the reality is that one cannot abandon and exploit innocent citizens.

For example, when it comes to detaining people in airports based on racial profiling, "The decision to stop and question a traveler who is arriving, departing or sometimes simply passing through an airport is 'based on the agent's assessment of the facts in certain circumstances and the agent's experience,'" asserted one spokesperson for the Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington (Belkin, 1990). The Supreme Court has officially endorsed the use of profiles for detaining passengers, ruling that "factors like a person's style of dress, the amount of cash being carried, the destination and the length of stay can amount to a "reasonable suspicion' that allows officers to make a brief 'investigatory stop" (Belkin, 1990).

Part Two: Plea Bargaining

Plea Bargaining refers to "an A plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant in a criminal case. The prosecutor gives the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser charge or to the original charge with less than the maximum sentence. For example, the prosecution and the defense may agree to a misdemeanor charge instead of a felony charge or the parties may agree to a sentence of 12 years instead of 20 years if the recommended sentence for that crime is 10-20 years imprisonment" (Lawinfo, 2012). There are a range of factors which have impacted the emergence of plea-bargaining. The greatest advantage to the defendant is the fact that the uncertainty that a criminal trial presents is completely eliminated, and the maximum sentence is largely avoided. Furthermore, the general public benefits from the fact that plea bargaining generally minimizes court congestion and allows prosecutors to handle more cases (Lawinfo, 2012). While these reasons do have a certain degree of validity, for the most part plea bargaining is widely abused in this country and represents a truly unfair concept to all involved. The problem with plea-bargaining is that it has turned the criminal justice system into a system of pleas, rather than of trials and the bulk of all state and federal cases (94% and 97% respectively) (Weil, 2012). As one expert explains, the system of plea-bargaining is "a system based not on the presumption of innocence, but on the contrary - on the presumption of guilt. Arm-twisting defendants, many of them poor and people of color, into plea bargains means that the government does not have to shoulder its burden of proving the guilt of those they charge with crimes and can simply shirk the constitution for expediency" (Weil, 2012). Thus, this statement reflect the rampant abuse which has been consistently occurring with the act of plea-bargaining, and how in many respects it's unfair to most people and really does undermine much of the greater justice system.

As other experts have reflected, plea bargains don't allow criminals to get off easy, but really cause the opposite to occur. Many have voiced their personal concern about how the plea bargain system is actually revolved around coercion, which is "a legal form of extortion" created by the state, which revolves around prosecutors coercing defendants into pleading guilty by racking up and multiplying all charges, making it known to some that punishment will be much less excessive if one pleads guilty from the start (Weil, 2012). The problem with pleas bargaining in this regard is that it does represent a certain stampede of the constitution, resulting only in intimidation and fear; the job of the defense attorney then becomes minimized from one who defends those who have been accused of a crime, to one who negotiates guilty pleas and the sentences which follow (Weil, 2012).

Furthermore, there is evidence to demonstrate that plea bargaining is a system which is racially unfair (like most of the criminal justice system). Consider the following, "sociologist Douglas Savitsky argues that: the bargains struck by Black defendants tend to be worse than those struck by similarly situated white defendants. There are several reasons for this. Black defendants are generally poorer, and they are thus less able to afford a competent defense" (Weil, 2012). Furthermore, black defendants generally are in a minimized position of power than white defendants and prison has become more of a permanent fixture in the life course of the black community (Weil, 2012). Finally, plea bargaining in and of itself undermine the power of mandatory sentencing, eliminating the consequences of this type of discipline and punishment and giving it a certain level of irrelevance (Weil, 2012).

Part Three: Racial Profiling

As already discussed in this paper, there are in fact times when criminal profiling should be considered a necessary evil. Criminal profiling has been found to be an effective way in which criminals are caught and which streets are made safer. However, racial profiling is a more complex matter, and one which has negative impacts on the lives of citizens, causing people to not only be inconvenienced, but to experience the impacts of having their rights removed from them in embarrassing and unjust manners. It's one thing to attempt to prevent crime; however, it is by far another thing to attempt to achieve this through sacrificing the rights of innocent citizens. "The racially discriminatory practice of racial profiling must be challenged when we find we cannot drive down an interstate, walk down the street, work, pray, shop, travel or even enter into our own homes without being detained for questioning by law-enforcement agents merely because of suspicion generated by the color of our skin and other physical characteristics,' said Hilary O. Shelton, director of the NAACP Washington Bureau" (Gordy, 2011). However, racial profiling continues to be a difficult subject to manage and to understand.

For instance, some people say that even if a police officer was engaging in racial profiling while working, if a driver does engage in a motor vehicle violation, then there is no issue. However, this is just an overly simplistic view of the situation. Such a sentiment allows the racially biased and bigoted belief system that racial profiling is based on, be allowed to subsist. Part of the reason that racial profiling is allowed to exist is because "the burden of proof falls on the victims, something that's nearly impossible to do in situations of one-on-one harassment, where third party witnesses or material evidence are often lacking" (Goyette, 2010). This becomes further aggravated by the fact that most states don't have laws which prohibit racial profiling via law enforcement: just a little more than half of all states even mention it (Goyette, 2010). However, some argue that there are legitimate times that an investigation would rely on racial profiling. For example, in our post-9/11 world, there are certain nations and nationalities which more strongly consider the U.S. And enemy. There are certain races which originate from these nations and there is reasonable intelligence to suggest that people of certain nationalities (and thus ethnic groups) will be more likely to engage in a terrorist act against the United States than others. In these cases, racial profiling can be used in specific instances and when it is used as a tool based on very real and very actual intelligence, rather than just by stopping or detaining people who are of a different skin color.

Other times that racial profiling can be used in an effective manner are when it concerns a certain issue that is generally localized to a particular race. For example, illegal immigration is a criminal issue in America that concerns individuals of specific races (like Mexican, for example). Thus, in these instances, racial profiling is an indelible and inextricable aspect of the entire job. However, if states use the ability to engage in racial profiling in an extreme manner, then that's when problems can begin. This is largely the case with the state of Arizona, "United States of America in the form of the Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which allow police officers to use race as a method that added to other factors (up to the criteria of the police officers) such as their activities would allow them to question a person's migratory status under reasonable suspicion. In case they don't carry documents proving their legal status then they could be detained and if their status is proved by the federal government to be one of illegal, then they could be fined and even sent some days to jail and if relapse occurs, the fines and time in prison could be extended to up to 6 months" (debatewise.org). The problem with this legislation is that it too readily opens the door for extreme decisions and for police officers to engage in abuse of this possibility. There is too much of a window for excessive racial profiling to occur, without probable cause and without the specific circumstances to warrant this tactic.

Policies which are pro-racial profiling can have devastating impacts on the community, in that they are more than likely to make residents feel unsafe or feel as though they're under seige or as if they're going to be harassed. If can be a derisive thing which happens in the community and can cause community members to distrust the police and to withhold information from them.