JazzManJim
On the Downbeat
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2001
- Posts
- 27,360
In all the threads here which have dealt with the act of profiling, there seems to have been one important question which no one has really asked: If profiling draws such public controversy, why does law enforcement still do it?
Yeah, this is a vanity piece and will probably say things that have been said before, but not all of it's just revoicing of stuff that's already been said. I've worked with law enforcement for nearly 13 years, and it's given me an insight that not a lot of people have, and it's those insights I want to share.
The short answer to the question of why police departments profile is "Because it works". Law enforcement has a small amount of resources compared to the tasks to which it's been assigned by our society. It looks for a way to apply itself most efficiently, while still doing the jobs to which it will be held accountable. Profiling fits that bill very well. Imagine a hypothetical crime, wherein a black male has been killed. Around him, at the crime scene, are pieces of literature from a white supremacy group. Further, there is evidence that other black folks will be killed by this same perpetrator, or by others of his organization. Unfortunately, the organization to which he belongs is rather insubstantial. There is no membership roster and no headquarters to which the investigators can readily go. What does the investigator do? He finds a group of "likely suspects": white males who have professed sympathy to white supremacist groups. He then marks other white males as possible members of this group also, regardless of their outward professions and, further, he looks at *certain* white males: those who match characteristics generally common to members of white supremacy groups. After all, they could be hiding their allegiance. Until the perpetrator is caught, and the organization is disbanded, white males are looked on with suspicion, to one degree or another.
Throughout the case, the investigator will cast a broad net for suspects, narrowing it as he has specific information which warrants it. This is profiling in its most simple form and it's a very effective investigatory technique. You take what you know, or at least strongly suspect, based on your best evidence, and draw up a profile of your most likely candidates. As more information comes in, you can narrow your search - your net becomes smaller and smaller, until it ensnares the suspect(s). But at first, and perhaps for a long while, you have a wide net and a lot of people - most of them completely innocent - are going to be in it.
When it comes to police work in general, the police are at several disadvangates. They are charged not only with solving crimes, but with the apparently telepathic act of preventing them. Unfortunately, at any given time, only the criminal known what crime he'll commit, and where he'll commit it. The police have to work with what information they have, which is precious little. What they do have always, is an outline of various crimes and the profiles of those who have committed them most often. They have history of criminals and one thing they can say for a surety is that history tends to bear itself out, or, a certain type of person tends to commit a certain type of crime. Though we'd like to think it isn't true, it is. FBI crime statistics bear this out every single year: each crime has profile of the suspect which has most often committed that crime. Do you want to catch a serial killer? Better go looking for white males in their thirties who have above-average intelligence. Want to catch marijuana smokers? Most of them are white males, under 30, and tend to live in the suburbs. How about crack addicts? Young black males, who live in the inner cities. This isn't racism - it's police work. It's using a probability curve of those who have committed crimes in the past. It's been tested and tried since the 1920's and it's always borne itself out to be valid. It doesn't seem fair on its face, but it works. More importantly, it's far more efficient than other means of investigating, and it allows the police to spread already thin resources the best way they can.
But profiling has a darker side, and this is where the problems exist. When you use a net to filter through a large group of people, you can use that net for any purpose. Valid investigative police work is just one of them. Crime prevention is another one of them. The darker side of this involves repression, genocide, and the euphemistically-phrased "ethnic cleansing". We all have seen these things take place, and we all know how horrible they can be, if we allow them to happen. In fact, most people's immediate reaction to profiling is negative, simply because of the times in which it has been abused. Such reactions are easily understood, but misplaced. The anger should be directed toward the abusers, and not the practice itself.
The answer is not to abandon profiling. Profiling is a tool like any other. It is, in itself, neither good nor bad. It simply exists to be used, for good or ill. The answer is to watch our law enforcement and our politicians carefully to make sure that they don't abuse this tool. This is even more important now, when there are so many stated threats to our ways of life and our lives themselves. We have an obligation to keep ourselves safe, and to allow our law enforcement greater freedom to pursue evildoers and those who would perpetrate heinous acts, but we also have the same obligation to remain vigilant against excess and repression. Is profiling by itself repression? No. Not by a long shot. But it could be used as a stepping stone toward that, and that's what we must watch carefully.
Yeah, this is a vanity piece and will probably say things that have been said before, but not all of it's just revoicing of stuff that's already been said. I've worked with law enforcement for nearly 13 years, and it's given me an insight that not a lot of people have, and it's those insights I want to share.
The short answer to the question of why police departments profile is "Because it works". Law enforcement has a small amount of resources compared to the tasks to which it's been assigned by our society. It looks for a way to apply itself most efficiently, while still doing the jobs to which it will be held accountable. Profiling fits that bill very well. Imagine a hypothetical crime, wherein a black male has been killed. Around him, at the crime scene, are pieces of literature from a white supremacy group. Further, there is evidence that other black folks will be killed by this same perpetrator, or by others of his organization. Unfortunately, the organization to which he belongs is rather insubstantial. There is no membership roster and no headquarters to which the investigators can readily go. What does the investigator do? He finds a group of "likely suspects": white males who have professed sympathy to white supremacist groups. He then marks other white males as possible members of this group also, regardless of their outward professions and, further, he looks at *certain* white males: those who match characteristics generally common to members of white supremacy groups. After all, they could be hiding their allegiance. Until the perpetrator is caught, and the organization is disbanded, white males are looked on with suspicion, to one degree or another.
Throughout the case, the investigator will cast a broad net for suspects, narrowing it as he has specific information which warrants it. This is profiling in its most simple form and it's a very effective investigatory technique. You take what you know, or at least strongly suspect, based on your best evidence, and draw up a profile of your most likely candidates. As more information comes in, you can narrow your search - your net becomes smaller and smaller, until it ensnares the suspect(s). But at first, and perhaps for a long while, you have a wide net and a lot of people - most of them completely innocent - are going to be in it.
When it comes to police work in general, the police are at several disadvangates. They are charged not only with solving crimes, but with the apparently telepathic act of preventing them. Unfortunately, at any given time, only the criminal known what crime he'll commit, and where he'll commit it. The police have to work with what information they have, which is precious little. What they do have always, is an outline of various crimes and the profiles of those who have committed them most often. They have history of criminals and one thing they can say for a surety is that history tends to bear itself out, or, a certain type of person tends to commit a certain type of crime. Though we'd like to think it isn't true, it is. FBI crime statistics bear this out every single year: each crime has profile of the suspect which has most often committed that crime. Do you want to catch a serial killer? Better go looking for white males in their thirties who have above-average intelligence. Want to catch marijuana smokers? Most of them are white males, under 30, and tend to live in the suburbs. How about crack addicts? Young black males, who live in the inner cities. This isn't racism - it's police work. It's using a probability curve of those who have committed crimes in the past. It's been tested and tried since the 1920's and it's always borne itself out to be valid. It doesn't seem fair on its face, but it works. More importantly, it's far more efficient than other means of investigating, and it allows the police to spread already thin resources the best way they can.
But profiling has a darker side, and this is where the problems exist. When you use a net to filter through a large group of people, you can use that net for any purpose. Valid investigative police work is just one of them. Crime prevention is another one of them. The darker side of this involves repression, genocide, and the euphemistically-phrased "ethnic cleansing". We all have seen these things take place, and we all know how horrible they can be, if we allow them to happen. In fact, most people's immediate reaction to profiling is negative, simply because of the times in which it has been abused. Such reactions are easily understood, but misplaced. The anger should be directed toward the abusers, and not the practice itself.
The answer is not to abandon profiling. Profiling is a tool like any other. It is, in itself, neither good nor bad. It simply exists to be used, for good or ill. The answer is to watch our law enforcement and our politicians carefully to make sure that they don't abuse this tool. This is even more important now, when there are so many stated threats to our ways of life and our lives themselves. We have an obligation to keep ourselves safe, and to allow our law enforcement greater freedom to pursue evildoers and those who would perpetrate heinous acts, but we also have the same obligation to remain vigilant against excess and repression. Is profiling by itself repression? No. Not by a long shot. But it could be used as a stepping stone toward that, and that's what we must watch carefully.
