Racial Profiling and Police Discretion: The Dearborn Case, Community Policing, and Justice Reform

Race Crime and Justice. M2W

Introduction

Racial profiling and discretion have been evident in the criminal justice system in America for many years. Profiling based on race or ethnicity allows police officers to target individuals for investigation and arrest based on their skin color or national origin, rather than on any suspicion of criminal activity. Discretion is the right or power to act and decide on the course of action according to an individual’s judgment. In the criminal justice system, discretion is given to police officers when making decisions about whether or not to stop, question, search, or arrest an individual. This paper will focus on the issue of racial profiling and discretion during the investigations and questioning process after the 9/11 attack. The paper will illustrate the existence of racial profiling during the questioning process as well as the existence of prosecutorial and police discretion.

Racial Profiling in the Dearborn Case

Racial profiling entails use of ethnicity or race as the basis of suspecting whether an individual has committed a crime. It is a practice that has been used by law enforcement officers for many years, but has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. Racial profiling includes discriminatory practices by the law enforcers that target individuals for the suspicion of a certain crime on the basis of their ethnicity, individual race and national originality (Gabbidon and Greene, 2018). Despite the fact that racial profiling is a discriminatory practice by the police, they have relied on the practice as a crime prevention technique. This detection approach is used by the law enforcers, taking racial identity into account to investigate and select suspects.

After the 9/11 attack, the U.S government suggested that the federal agents and the local policing to conduct voluntary questioning within Dearborn. Dearborn is a region within Michigan which is highly concentrated with Arabs. Considerably, one of the main reasons why the government was concern with the investigations was that the Arabs have a close association with the Al-Qaeda groups. The questioning of individuals aimed at Arabs constituted racial profiling since the interviews targeted the Arabs alone which shown that the federal government was suspecting the Arabs within the region to be part of the Al-Qaeda group (Smith and Mason, 2016). The Dearborn region was filled with Arab ethnic group which means that the questioning of the Arabs was a target to the group.

The Dearborn case is one example of racial profiling that has come to light in recent years. In this case, a group of African American men were interviewed by police, even though there was no evidence that they were involved in the 9/11 attacks. The incident caused many to question the practice of racial profiling by law enforcement. Critics of racial profiling argue that it is a form of racism, and that it targets minorities who are more likely to be stopped and searched by police (Glaser, 2015). They also argue that it creates distrust between minority communities and the police. The main reason why the Dearborn case is associated with racial profiling is that it relied on the ethnicity, race and national origin rather than the behavior of an individual.

Additionally, the law enforcers within the Dearborn region were pressured by the Arabs to offer adequate security to the residents after the capacious Arabs were killed. There were also incidents of students being harassed and tortured by the law enforcers which led to demonstration. This is because the local law enforcers failed to put into consideration the allegations and issues of the Arabs seriously. The investigations and interviewing questions offered significant expressions of racism against the Arabs within United States. One of the most evident thing during the interviewing and questioning was racial profiling. For instance, names such as Mohammed and Hussein would lead to further question and torturing among students. Most of the individuals with such names would result in the federal agents and the police officers suspecting them despite being innocent Arabs. Additionally, racial profiling would lead to issues of mistaken identity which was challenging to settle. Ideally, racial profiling results to issues of mistaken identity, which can have a significant impact on the target individual. The innocent person who is targeted by police may be subjected to increased scrutiny and may even be arrested or detained, despite having done nothing wrong. This can lead to a loss of trust in the police department, as well as a feeling of powerlessness and injustice. The interviewee were pressurized despite the fact they federal government stated that the questioning was voluntary. They would be pressed to give any information that would help the government while investigating the 9/11 attack.

Undermining the Principles of Community Policing

Community policing entails all members of the police force working together with the community to identify and solve public safety issues. It is a philosophy that requires everyone to work together to improve communication, relationships, and collaboration. The main principles of community policing include: Building trust and legitimacy, building relationships, problem solving, transparency, partnering with the community and accountability (Schuck, 2019). In order for the police to gain the trust of the community, they must be transparent and accountable. They need to listen to the community and take their concerns seriously. The police need to partner with different members of the community to solve public safety issues. This includes working with businesses, schools, faith-based organizations, and other community groups.

The police need to work with the community to identify and solve public safety issues. This includes finding creative solutions to problems and using data to track progress. The police need to build relationships with the community members they serve. This includes getting to know community members and understanding their needs. The police need to be transparent in their operations and decision-making (Schuck, 2019). This includes providing information to the public about what the police are doing and why. The police need to be accountable to the community they serve. This includes being open to feedback and willing to make changes based on that feedback.

The principles of community policing are based on the idea that the police need to build relationships with the community members they serve (Schuck, 2019). This includes getting to know community members and understanding their needs. The police also need to be transparent in their operations and decision-making. This includes providing information to the public about what the police are doing and why. Accountability is another important principle of community policing. The police need to be accountable to the community they serve. This includes being open to feedback and willing to make changes based on that feedback. These principles are designed to help the police better serve their communities. By building trust and working together, the police and the community can make sure that everyone is safe and that everyone’s rights are respected.

The Dearborn Case undermined the principles of community policing since the community was not properly included in the decision making process of the police department. Furthermore, accountability was also lacking since the department did not own up to their mistakes and instead tried to cover them up. This led to a loss of trust between the police and the community, which makes it harder for the police to do their job effectively. In order to rebuild trust, the police department must be transparent and accountable to the community. They must also work with the community to ensure that everyone’s rights are respected.

The Dearborn racial profiling case is a perfect example of how community policing can go wrong. In this case, the police department was not transparent or accountable to the community. This led to a loss of trust between the police and the community, which made it harder for the police to do their job effectively. In order to rebuild trust, the police department must be transparent and accountable to the community. They must also work with the community to ensure that everyone’s rights are respected.

Police Discretion and the use of Investigative Techniques to Prevent and Probe Crime

Police discretion gives the police officers the opportunity to act according to their perceptions. Police discretion came into inexistence to ensure that the law is flexible in a manner to ensure that the law is satisfied (Mahoro, 2021). In the policing context, discretion means that the officers are offered a leeway in which they can rely on their decisions that influence their relations with the people they are policing. In the case of Dearborn, police needed discretion during questioning process and techniques. Discretion is an important tool during any investigation. This makes discretion significant in the Dearborn Case Investigation. The use of discretion allowed investigators to focus on the most important aspects of the case, while avoiding potential pitfalls that could have arisen from a more stringent approach.

The 9/11 attack was a tragedy that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 people. The subsequent investigation into the attacks was one of the largest and most complex in history. In the aftermath of the attacks, it was imperative that investigators use all available resources to find those responsible and bring them to justice. This meant that investigators had to exercise discretion in order to determine which leads were worth pursuing and which were not. For instance, the questioning process of potential suspects and witnesses could have been very intrusive and led to false confessions if not handled properly. In addition, investigators had to be mindful of the potential for public backlash if it was perceived that they were not doing everything possible to find those responsible.

The use of discretion during the Dearborn case investigation ensured that the investigation was conducted in a manner that was both effective and respectful of the rights of those involved. The investigation would not have been possible without the cooperation of those who were questioned and the willingness of witnesses to come forward. The use of discretion ensured that the investigation was conducted in a manner that was both effective and respectful of the rights of those involved.

The use of discretion during the investigation ensures that the perpetrators are brought to justice and that the rights of those involved were respected. The Dearborn case is a reminder of the importance of using discretion when investigating crimes. The law enforcers must have the lawful authority to rely on decisions and operate under circumstances that are acceptable to others. Ideally, it’s impossible for police offers to investigate crimes and filter offences so that only the significant ones will be investigated. Without discretion, the law enforcement system would be overwhelmed during investigations leading to public displeasure.

How Police and Prosecutorial Discretion Allow for Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System

Police and prosecutorial discretion are important tools in the criminal justice system. They allow law enforcement to focus on cases that they believe are more likely to lead to a conviction, and to use their resources more efficiently. However, these same discretion can also be used to target minority groups and communities. According to Fadillah, Machyawaty and Sitorus, (2020) Blacks are likely to be searched or stopped by the law enforcers and likely to be charged with crimes than white people (Fadillah, Machyawaty and Sitorus, 2020). This disparity is often attributed to racial bias, either conscious or unconscious.

Prosecutorial discretion can also lead to discriminatory outcomes. Prosecutors may be more likely to charge minority defendants with more serious crimes, or may be less likely to offer plea bargains that would result in a lighter sentence. This can have a disproportionate impact on people of color, who are more likely to be convicted and sentenced to longer prison terms than white defendants. Discretionary decisions by police and prosecutors can therefore have a significant impact on the racial disparities within the criminal justice system. While there is no easy solution to this problem, increased transparency and accountability around discretionary decision-making could help to reduce some of the disparities.

Ethnic discrimination during police and prosecution discretion is a huge problem in the United States (Siegler and Admussen, 2020). Police are able to use their discretion when deciding whether or not to pursue a suspect and this often leads to them disproportionately targeting people of color. Prosecutors also have a great deal of discretion when it comes to deciding what charges to bring against a defendant and how far to push for a conviction. This can result in minority defendants being charged with more serious crimes and given harsher sentences than their white counterparts. For instance, during stop and searches, the decision on whether to stop someone is based on the “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity. This gives police a lot of power to target people of color, who are often seen as more suspicious simply because of their skin color. Studies have shown that black and Latino drivers are more likely to be pulled over than white drivers, even though they are no more likely to be engaging in criminal activity. Prosecutors also have a great deal of discretion when it comes to charging someone with a crime. They can choose to charge someone with a more serious offense than what they actually did, or they can choose not to charge someone at all. This means that minorities are more likely to be charged with crimes than whites, even if they did the same thing.

The use of such discretion is undesirable even when used fairly since it results to ethnic discrimination. Critics of police and prosecutorial discretion argue that it can lead to racial and ethnic discrimination in the criminal justice system (Siegler and Admussen, 2020). Because discretion gives law enforcement officials a great deal of power, it can be used to target minorities. For example, a police officer may pull over a black or Latino driver for a minor traffic violation, even though he would not pull over a white driver for the same violation. A prosecutor may choose to charge a black or Latino defendant with a more serious crime than he would charge a white defendant, even when they have similar criminal histories. This is because prosecutors and judges often view minorities as more dangerous and more likely to reoffend. Discretion also allows for disparities in sentencing. Studies have shown that black and Latino defendants are more likely to be sentenced to prison than white defendants, even when they have similar criminal histories. This is because prosecutors and judges often view minorities as more dangerous and more likely to reoffend.

Ways of Curbing Wrongful Discretion to Make the System more Fair

Discretion is an important part of the criminal justice system. It allows prosecutors and police officers to use their judgment to decide which cases to pursue and how to handle them. However, discretion can also be abused, leading to racial and ethnic discrimination in the criminal justice system. One way of curbing discretion is through the use of data and analytics (Brayne, 2020). For example, police departments can track the number of traffic stops and searches by race, to ensure that officers are not disproportionately targeting minorities. Prosecutors can use data to identify patterns of discrimination in charging and sentencing decisions. Another way of curbing discretion is through training and education. For example, police officers can be trained in bias prevention, and prosecutors can be educated on the impact of their discretion on defendants’ lives. Finally, accountability and transparency measures can help to ensure that prosecutors and judges are using their discretion fairly. For example, prosecutors can be required to provide written explanations for why they chose to charge or sentence a defendant in a certain way. Judges can be required to give reasons for their sentencing decisions.

Another way is through the use of written policies that clearly state when and how officers can use their discretion. For example, a policy may state that officers can only use deadly force when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Another way to limit police discretion is through the use of independent review boards or citizens’ oversight committees. These groups can review officers’ use of discretion and make recommendations for changes in policy or training. Finally, increasing transparency and accountability through the use of body-worn cameras can also help to limit police discretion. Body cameras provide an unbiased account of police-citizen interactions and can help to hold officers accountable for their actions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, racial profiling has negative consequences in community policing since it creates an environment of mistrust and resentment. Police discretion has been linked to ethnic and racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. While there are ways to limit police discretion, it is important to remember that discretion is a necessary part of policing. In many cases, it is the only way for officers to effectively do their jobs. For example, officers often need to make split-second decisions when they are responding to a call. In these cases, discretion is necessary in order to ensure public safety. Discretion is also important because it allows officers to use their judgment and experience to make decisions. In some cases, the letter of the law may not be the best way to handle a situation.

References

Brayne, S. (2020). Predict and surveil: Data, discretion, and the future of policing. Oxford University Press, USA.

Fadillah, F., Machyawaty, T., & Sitorus, T. (2020). Police discretion is a judgmental skill. Technium Soc. Sci. J., 14, 1.

Gabbidon, S. L., & Greene, H. T. (2018). Race and crime. Sage Publications.

Glaser, J. (2015). Suspect race: Causes and consequences of racial profiling. Oxford University Press, USA.

Mahoro, J. C. G. (2021). Police Discretion: An Issue of Untestable Reasonability in a Law Enforcement Process. In Police Behavior, Hiring, and Crime Fighting (pp. 97-110). Routledge.

Schuck, A. M. (2019). Community policing, coproduction, and social control: Restoring police legitimacy. In Political authority, social control and public policy. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Siegler, A., & Admussen, W. (2020). Discovering racial discrimination by the police. Nw. UL Rev., 115, 987.

Smith, A. L., & Mason, S. E. (2016). The age of racial profiling in the context of terrorism. Modern Psychological Studies, 21(2), 10.