Racial Profiling Rodriguez Argues That Thesis

As such, the question of fairness is not easily decided. Yet, we see that the Supreme Court has upheld racial profiling if used as a complementary technique. The American people as well support the utilitarian view that racial profiling is fair when evaluated in the context of all stakeholders, even if it seems unfair to a small few. The philosophical outlook of some may lead them to label racial profiling as unfair, but it is equally unfair to assume that one outlook -- especially a minority one -- is the only right outlook by which to evaluate racial profiling. Both legally and morally, America supports the use of racial profiling in limited context. To Americans, then, it is fair, because racial profiling is a valuable law enforcement tool that for all of its problems delivers more benefit to American society than it costs.

Works Cited:

Bunzel, H. & Marcoul, P. (2005). On the use of racial profiling as a law enforcement tool. Iowa State University. Staff General Research Papers 12397.

Cleary, J. (2000). Racial profiling studies in law enforcement: Issues and methodology. Minnesota House of Representatives, Information Brief. Retrieved February 23, 2010 from http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/raceprof.pdf

Fetto, J. (2002). The usual suspects. American Demographics. Retrieved February 23, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2002_June_1/ai_88679061/

Siggins, P. (2002). Racial profiling in an age of terrorism. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

Weitzer, R. & Tuch, S. (2002). Perceptions of racial profiling: Race, class and personal experience. Criminology. Vol. 40, 2.

Whren v. United States. Supreme Court of the United States No. 95-5841.

Wong, C. (2000). The Los Alamos incident and its effects on Chinese-American scientists. Forum for International Physics. May 2000.