The United States of America has been given many nicknames, but “melting pot” seems to be the most well-known. This means that over the years as our country has been growing and evolving, it has encountered many different races and ethnicities from all the immigration that has occurred. These different types of people are all mixed together in our country, like that of a melting pot.  All of the different ethnicities mixed together in turn causes diffusion and arguments about being treated fairly under the law. Some believe that the color of one’s own skin or their physical appearance determines how they are treated. This “discrimination”, as some people would call it, is known as racial profiling. An example of racial profiling happening in our everyday lives is basically making assumptions about a particular person’s ethnicity or religion based on their physical appearance. Racial profiling is a common occurrence throughout the world, but it is more common in the United States. Ian Ayres, a professor at Yale Law School believes that “African Americans and Hispanics are over-stopped, over-frisked, over-searched, and over-arrested” (Nelson). This brings into topic the difficult question of whether or not racial profiling somebody based on their appearance is morally justifiable. Should racial profiling be legal in order to protect the safety of the citizens of our country? It is important to clarify the true motives behind racial profiling, review the statistics of actual ethnicity crime reports, and look at the different laws that are trying to be put into place in order to decide if it is justifiable in certain circumstances. This issue has been an impending one that has caused many arguments as well as civil law cases in our country for years. The high amount of different ethnicities intensifies the need for racial profiling in the United States.

When analyzing whether or not racial profiling is justifiable, it is important to consider what the true motives behind the profiling are, and whether or not those are truly justifiable. It gets a little complicated when trying to decide what is justifiable and what is not, in which it is imperative that racial profiling should be required to have precise descriptions. It is accurate that along with many successful racial profiling cases, there are errors that can occur within these cases. An example of a possible error would be arresting somebody immediately based on what they look like because that person might come close to the description of so-called criminal. It is important that police do not just act on instinct when seeing somebody that may look similar to the possible suspects. In order for racial profiling to be morally justifiable, the treatment of all possible suspects under question must be equal, no matter what ethnicity, background, or race they may have. The kinds of questions asked should be the exact same for each person that is accused. This is to make sure that it is fair and that one person is not more inconvenienced than the other.

In addition, being too broad with profiling results in stereotypes being created, which is one of the main roots of the reasons why there are protests and arguments against the law being able to racial profile. The more precise a description is, the less stereotypical it becomes, and therefore less arguments can be created about it. For example, if a crime occurs and there is a witness present, that witness is required to give the police a description of the criminal as precise as possible. If the witness described a 5’8 white male with blonde hair and blue eyes, the police will start to target and look specifically for 5’8 white males with blonde hair and blue eyes. Should the police not be able to interrogate somebody based on their appearance just because it may “offend” them? Although taking in personal feelings is important, the more imperative goal of our police and other security is to protect the safety of all citizens. They have to do what is best for society as a whole, not focus on each individual’s needs and desires.

In the previous example, the ethnic background of the witness is very important to take into account just as it is important that the ethnic background of the accused criminal is investigated. Some witnesses may be biased, which by definition is, “prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair” (Definition of in Oxford Dictionary). Many, but not all, U.S. Caucasian citizens fear or dislike the African Americans in our country because of possible previous prejudices that they may have against them. It needs to be realized that anyone can be dangerous, not just a certain race. The police need to take into account when a Caucasian witness accuses an African American of committing a crime, for fear of bias occurring. As said by President Kennedy, when asked about the topic of racial profiling, “careful attention must be paid to the accuracy of the information used in making such assessments…” (Nelson). This proves that the United States government even supports the fact that some people may lie or the information given may not always be accurate, which is why it is important that in such cases everybody is treated the same way when being questioned.

Typically, African Americans and Hispanics have been a big target for police officers when they are profiling, which is a topic that brings about controversy. To back up the police and the decisions that they made, in the year 2007, the LAPD, which stands for Los Angeles Police Department, investigated a total of 394 murders in their area. In Los Angeles that year, the percentage of African Americans living there was 9.6 percent. Of the 394 murder cases, 36% of the accused, and later found guilty, criminals were African American. These outstanding numbers point to the reason as to why some police are more cautious or go after that race more often. When it came to the Hispanics in Los Angeles that year, they made up 49% of the Los Angeles population in 2007. Out of the 394 murder cases that were investigated, 54% of Hispanics in that area were victims of murder, and 55% of them were suspects of murder (Nelson). These astonishing statistics all prove why people of African American or Hispanic ethnicity are stopped more often than other ethnicities. People should not become angry at a certain race for being more likely to experience profiling if there are statistics and evidence to back it up. The police want the very best chance that they can get at catching criminals and protecting the safety of our nation.

The first step towards making racial profiling a justifiable action is by passing laws that allow it, and some states have already accomplished this. In the case Brown v. City of Oneonta, the issue came up of whether or not police should be able to use race in their investigation of a crime. The rule that had emerged from this case was that “when police officers receive a description that includes race as one of several descriptive factors of the suspect, the police may use race to determine who to interact with in conducting their investigation” (Nelson). This ruling is very helpful to the police department because instead of just searching for any person on the planet that could have committed the crime, this allows them to narrow it down to a more selective group and helps them become more successful in bringing people to justice.

In addition to new laws being created pertaining to racial profiling, recently the Obama administration announced that they were expanding the definition of racial profiling. They banned profiling based on religion, gender, national origin, and sexual orientation. The only places in which these procedures are allowed to occur are at border patrol stops to prevent an overload of immigration. But, these new rules do not permit the FBI from “mapping.” Mapping means that they collect the numbers of racial and ethnic people in certain neighborhoods and the crime rates that correlate with them. These laws will end up prohibiting the power to racial profile, and might even end up causing crimes to happen that could have been stopped.

When considering all of these different aspects of racial profiling, it is clear to see that legalizing it in a fair and communal way to all ethnicities is the best course for the United States law enforcement to protect the overall safety of the citizens of our country. Although there are many arguments against racial profiling, there are clear facts and statistics that point to the fact that it is almost a necessary thing to occur in order for more crimes to be solved and more criminals to be brought to justice. Although racial profiling can be taken as offensive to some ethnicities, it is most important to do what is best for the country as a whole. We have to do what is best for the group, not the individual. The state government, more importantly, the United States government, has a responsibility to protect the people under them. Not being able to racially profile would result in a lot of cases becoming unsolved, and criminals still being on the loose. It is important for the citizens of the United States to realize this and not fight against it. It is a necessary thing that needs to occur so that there can be more peace in our country and less fighting.