There are at least two ethical theories that attest wrongness of racial profiling: the respect for people, and the mutual concurrence behind the cloak of ignorance (Essays, n. d. ). The idea of respect for person is focused on the premise that “the same respect must be offered to the personhood of all human beings” (Essays, n. d. ). An action is correct if a person can consent to everyone’s tolerance with the moral rule known by the action. On the other hand, an upright society is one in which no person has an unreasonable advantage over others.
In the latter ethical theory, every individual has the privilege of liberty and such liberty must be equally provided to everyone; and if there should be discrimination in society, it must be to every person’s advantage. Currently, the law enforcement in their battle against violence is seeking members of identified groups with confirmed intent to kill, harm, and perpetrate crimes. Despite the fact that race should not be employed as foundations for prediction of a person’s behaviour, it may be employed as a description of a particular group of people or individual hunted by law enforcement for criminal doing (Lapin, 2003, p. 1).
Employing any descriptive profile to recognize potential members of those groups within the boundaries of the law is ethical (Lapin, 2003, p. 1). Specifically, profiling founded on race is beyond doubt helpful only when it is coupled with other factors. In general, this means that well-done, careful profiling that entails good-faith endeavours at accuracy; achievement and nominal intrusiveness are ethically tolerable even though race is a factor.
Nevertheless, law enforcement must be on their guard to avoid an overflow into legitimizing racial profiling as an approach in conservative crime deterrence. Legal Reasons Against Racial Profiling Racial profiling as the expression has been used in latest public debates in the United States, demotes to government activity concentrating at a group of suspects or a suspect for the reason of their race. Racial profiling infringes a minority person or group’s fundamental freedom of protection from the Fourth Amendment. According to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (FindLaw, n. d. ) The Fourth Amendment guards every person’s rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; this suggests that police must have reasonable doubt that an offence is happening before they bring to a halt a suspect.
Also, under the State and federal civil rights laws and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, the police may not judge race in their enforcement activity, except when they search for a particular person described to some extent by race. Under Fourth Amendment test, the characteristics of intent is assessed if the action of the law enforcement is constitutional, and under the Fourteenth Amendment disputes to the practice are measured under the traditional strict analysis for racial classifications (Siggins, n. d. ).