General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsProfiling. Is any sort of profiling okay?
Specifically, I have heard it postulated that behavioral profiling might be more effective than the pat downs and xrays when it comes to airline security.
Is that acceptable?
Is profiling of any sort inherently wrong?
Don't we all - on a personal level - do some subconscious profiling every day in almost every new human encounter?
No doubt, racial and ethnic profiling is wrong. This is about other kinds of profiling and specifically about behavioral profiling.
What are your thoughts?
Please don't project anything into the asking of this question. If I supported the idea or if I rejected the idea, I would have so stated and would have asked the question differently.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)many, if not most criminal cases which are not obvious are solved through profiling of one sort or another..
bemildred
(90,061 posts)You get to choose your own friends, for any reason you like, but you don't get to detain or arrest people unless they did something, and most especially not because you disapprove of how they look.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)but in the sense you're talking about, no, profiling isn't okay because even if you're right 2 out of 10 times you're still wrong the other 8.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)a 22 year old guy flying in from Pakistan on a 1-way ticket, paid for in cash, than a 22 year old guy flying back to Kansas City after a 7-day trip to Orlando that was booked six months earlier?
I would say "yes".
panader0
(25,816 posts)human encounter?" Absolutely. First impressions can tell us a lot. It is a very natural instinct, a personal radar that tells us when to feel trust or caution or attraction. On that level it is quite different from racial or ethnic profiling, which should not be a tool of the authorities.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)But for police profiling a person that hasn't done a thing wrong well that is a different story. Stopping people and asking them questions isn't right. There must be a reason to stop a person and that should be they way it always is. I am beginning not to trust the police. I hear they are planting evidence to arrest people. If that is true this country is in trouble.
alc
(1,151 posts)There was a period where my state stopped including the victim's and suspect's color in the warnings that scrolled accross my TV.
I don't know that it would help much to include, but "180 lb man with a 7yo girl in a blue sedan" probably results in a lot more incorrect 9-1-1 calls than "180 lb white man with a 7yo white girl in a blue sedan". Even worse, I've incorrectly assumed the colors (in both directions). Pretty useless for me to be on the lookout for a black/white man when the suspect is white/black.
If law enforcement has a specific suspect, they had sure as hell better be focusing on individuals matching the profile, and not inconveniencing everyone. Others may be helping, but focus on the specifics.
If there is a "credible & specific threat", law enforcement can broaden the scope some, but should focus on the knowns. For example, when looking for the Georgia militia terrorists a few months ago law enforcement should not have needed to inconvenience blacks or middle-easterners. That doesn't mean to ignore the other groups, but "white male" deserved the most scrutiny.
I've lived in neighborhoods where I wanted a patrol car 24/7, and others where I'm fine if I never see one. I'd call it profiling to put the patrols where there's "more likely to be crime" rather than having every street patrolled equally.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Yes, there is a difference.
Not all private communication is constitutionally protected. However, the 4th Amendment says the feds have to get a warrant to monitor US persons. If a Judge finds probable cause, I have no problem with police or national security surveillance. But, without one, the feds are just another Stassi in just another Police State.
Get a warrant or get off the line.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)as does racial/ethnic if you're looking for a specific person fitting that description (although that may not be considered profiling).
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Matching a description of a suspect is legally (and constitutionally) very different from being profiled for a crime that hasn't been committed.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)In pursuit of viable suspects for a particular crime. Most certainly ok.
To "screen for terrorists," not so much. For the simple reason that it ends up being counter-productive to the goal, even if it weren't just plain wrong. Pretending those dedicated to committing terrorist acts wouldn't exploit the obvious weaknesses in a flawed system, just isn't living in the real world.