Religious Profiling. What's your opinion?
Offline According to AP, the City of Los Angeles Police Department has begun work on a plan to map the City's Muslim Communities. Read the story here. Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing is on the record stating that this program will help determine which parts of the city (which people) are susceptible to "violent, ideologically based extremism." "We want to know where the Pakistanis, Iranians and Chechens are so we can reach out to those communities," said Downing, who heads the counterterrorism bureau.
Now, regardless of what you believe Mr. Downing to mean when he says "reach out to those communities," there's a bigger question here. The majority of Americans believe that profiling based on age, race, or gender is wrong, but what about religion? We are born into our gender and race, and we have no control over our age. Religion, however, is a different matter.
We atheists must be careful of this issue. I admit that my gut reaction to this story was that profiling based on religion is not necessarily bad. After all, it's safe to say that very few Scientologists bomb abortion clinics, and precious few Amish take flying lessons for terrorist attacks. We can effectively isolate entire segments of the population based solely on their religion, and have virtual certainty that future crimes stemming from that religion will be committed only by people in that group. Add to that the notion that religion is a choice, and you have a very strong case for religious profiling. Unfortunately, many of the atheists on this very site have stood behind me and other RRS writers when we've opined at length that the biggest danger of religion is that when it's indoctrinated early in childhood, it becomes like a mental disorder, and people are not really free to leave. That's why we fight it, right? That's why Dawkins is so vehemently opposed to labeling children by their parents' religion.
If I stand behind religious profiling, I must provide enough evidence that it is different from racial, gender, or age profiling. The biggest difference I can see is that religion is not something we acquire at birth. It is ostensibly something we choose. Yet, we have an incredible amount of data suggesting that defection to either atheism or another competing religion is very, very uncommon if the religion has been practiced since early childhood. So, what is the answer?
Should law enforcement use religious profiling to help them find criminals?
Should they use it to try to prevent crime?
Is religious profiling different from age, gender, or race profiling?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
I have a serious problem with allowing profiling of any sort for the very reason demonstrated by your post. When you allow any profiling policy you must attempt to set borders of what profiling is or is not allowed, or who is or is not included within a certain group, and it becomes very easy to allow this or that group to be included. I think in these situation, much as in situations such as the domestic surveillance that was being so thoroughly discussed not long ago, the slope is far too slippery to be traversed.
Even if we don't consider the dangers of slippery slopes we can look at this by adopting the perspective of the affected. Just as a thought experiment, if we saw a group of atheists that started commiting acts of violence in an effort to push some agenda, say they were misguided into thinking it was possible to bring down religion in such a manner, would you be okay with being under heightened scrutiny, profiled (whatever that might entail)because of their actions?
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
No.
Terrorists attack for a reason. They let their purpose known or that defeats the purpose of the attack.
No profiling is required, the terrrorists will tell you what to look for.
For example, the London bombings called for the U.K withdrawl from Iraq. They didn't do it for fun and let law enforcement guess, otherwise it defeats the purpose of the attack.
They state their reasons for attack. Unless they're complete psycho paths.
How does profiling stop crime?
No. Because it isn't based on the facts. Terrorism is a diverse field.
You can be such a prick sometimes.
Anyway, I truly don't have a fully formed opinion on this question. I'm trying to demonstrate some critical freethinking, contrary to Pineapple's kind assessment of us.
Pineapple, suppose there are some terrorists who want the U.S. to convert to an Islamic fundamentalist government. They begin targetting civilians, and each time they kill civilians, they leave a bright banner saying, "We did this because we want you to convert to an Islamic fundamentalist government. We are Islamic Fundamentalists."
No real argument about what they want, or who they are, right? So, America is not going to do what they want, and they're not going to stop terror attacks, right? What's the answer? Each time there's a terror attack, we send squad cars to all the different neighborhoods? Obviously not. We send them to the Muslim part of town. That's profiling, but it's not blind profiling. We know something about the criminal, and we've narrowed our search parameters.
The question of profiling seems to be one of preemption, not actually profiling. After a crime has been committed, we profile the criminal, and then look for him.
So, let's talk about a different crime for perspective. Suppose there was a series of robberies, and no arrests had been made. The onlly thing that had been learned was that there were three robbers who seem to come from this one neighborhood, and they were hispanic. Now, there are unsolved crimes that have been committed, and profile information available. Are the police justified in doing extra patrols through that neighborhood? What about stopping groups of three hispanic men? What about if one was carrying a TV?
You see what I'm getting at? Profiling isn't as well defined as the politicians would like us to believe. All law enforcement uses it. Saying, "Profiling is always wrong" is sort of like saying "Don't use science to catch criminals."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You have a complete lack of humour sometimes. I've seen some sigs that poke fun at religion, so I'm poking fun at freethinkers.
Nothing wrong with sending squad cars. However, once they start kicking down doors, than it's a whole new kettle of fish.
You don't even send squad cars to terrorist investigation. That's a Federal matter (FBI).
They decide where to send the cars and who to arrest based on evidence.
See below.
Can you at least glance over the consitution?
You need evidence. You can't just stop three hispanic men, do you know how many hispanics there are?
Even if you could, what the fuck are you suppose to do with them?
'Hey guys, rob any banks lately?'
If they had a description of the suspect, then yes, then can stop you if you fit that description.
As for if he was carrying a T.V, that depends of the situation. Was he carrying out through a broken window of a house? Was he just walking down the street.
Do you know what 'probable cause' is?
If the bank robbers were white males, would you be okay with the cops stopping you for no other reason?
Like Vessel said, what if a group of atheists cause trouble?
The president of the Muslim association at my university was detained at the U.S border for 12 hours (He was from Lebanon). He wasn't a terrorist . How is that consitutional? How is that not profiling?
Poke away.
This is closer to the reason I think you're a prick sometimes. You know perfectly well what I was saying, but you felt it was important to say this, just so you can prove something... what, I truly don't care to guess.
As for the rest of your post, you've not really addressed anything I was saying. Imagine that. Opine more if you like, but every time I try to have a conversation with you, I remember why I keep swearing off of trying to have conversations with you.
That's what I'm asking, Pineapple. If you'd get off your horse for a second and recognize that I was asking questions, not making an argument, you might realize that you're simply re-asking all the questions I've already asked, or implied (for those who don't need everything spelled out for them).
If you'd like to demonstrate your keen grasp of the questions involved in profiling again, please feel free, but I'm much more interested in educated answers.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The biggest problem with profiling is that it has a lot of very strong arguments for it. If used properly with the proper controls in place it helps a lot, just like data mining and surveillance. The problem is all this is just in theory, it gets corrupted/abused way to easily. As per one of hte best lines in The Simpsons "In THEORY, communism works". That's where it all breaks down.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Everyone is fine/indifferent to racial/religious profiling until it's their race/religion that is being profiled.
While the points Hamdy made are valid, I've never met an Amish person even remotely interested in flying, I think allowing them to profile Muslims will only make it easier for them to start profile others.
How close to the Muslims do you think we are on their list?
So, maybe the question should actually be, "How do we solve the problems of abuse such that profiling can be used benevolently?"
Like I mentioned earlier, I think profiling is poorly defined in the public discourse. Once a crime has been committed, profiling is literally how we find the criminal. We are looking for a profile that fits the data that we have, and we are looking for patterns to extrapolate from known data. For instance, if we know that a white, thirty-something housewife has been killed in a trailer park, we save an awful lot of time by looking at her immediate family before we look at any Muslim terrorists.
What causes all the public stir is preemptive profiling. When someone is stopped at an airport simply because they're Muslim, we say it's profiling. Similarly, stopping random groups of three hispanic men in a hispanic neighborhood is profiling, but stopping a group of three hispanic men with a TV after suspicious activity was reported a block away might not be.
What I'm really interested in is knowing where people think the boundaries ought to lie, and more importantly, why that's where they should be.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
For terrorism, not very close at all.
For selective harrassment, close. We're dangerous because we don't trust FAUX News, and we tend to value facts. Not only that, we have a dangerous tendency to be less patriotic simply because we happen to have been born here.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
oh BTW:
This is closer to the reason I think you're a prick sometimes. You know perfectly well what I was saying, but you felt it was important to say this, just so you can prove something... what, I truly don't care to guess.
I said that to be a prick.
I would have to say I think the boundaries should lie where preemptive profiling starts. I just don't think it can be allowed. It could probably be a useful tool in thwarting terrorist attempts, but it is at the sacrifice of freedoms like privacy and presumed innocence, and as much as it sometimes sucks and, to an extent, puts us in a more vulnerable position that we have to try and maintain these ideals, I think they are very necessary for a free society.
There are many things that would be beneficial for certain aspects of society that we simply should not allow because of the precedents they set and the paths down which they can lead. This is where profiling falls, in my mind.
If we are interested in preemptive actions to lower incidents of terrorism I think education programs specifically geared towards these high risk communities, doing more to raise the global standard of living, working as many here do to champion the benefits of rational thought and reality based worldviews are avenues that should be persued. Of course, in the interim it would probably be effective to preemptively profile, but just because it is effective tool does not mean it is one that should be employed.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Muslim profiling is justified.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Easy to say, but is it that easy to delineate? If a group of Muslim looking young men with big jackets walked into a meeting of Atheists for the Liberation of the Middle East From The Evil of Islam (IFLMETEI), would it be reasonable to ask the security guard to give them a quick pat down before they were allowed to approach the table with the top twenty atheist activists in the world?
Before you answer that everyone is being checked, remember that they're not. We're good at saying that we do stuff like that universally, but we don't. The guy wearing the "Jesus can go Fuck his Mother" T-shirt gets less attention than the Muslims.
It's profiling, and it's preemptive.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Delineate between what is preemptive and what isn't? Well, it is the way law enforcement, presumably, operates presently. Of course there are abuses and the lines get blurred and crossed but that is a matter for the courts. The laws that are presently in place to prevent profiling should include religious profiling under the same protection as racial profiling. I just can't justify encroaching upon civil liberties.
I think if you aren't checking everyone, or randomly, then, though your suspicion may be justified, you cross a line by acting on it without justifiable probable cause. There are no perfect answers and, at times, we have to sacrifice some things. When it comes to protecting freedoms and civil liberties I think safety risks are often acceptable.
Great acronym by the way. How exactly is that pronounced?
Yes, it is and I think its wrong. Of course, I have been called an idealist from time to time so, yeah, that is what it is. I'd like to find a way for these ideals to peacefully cohabitate with reality, and I think they can, but I don't expect everyone else to hold to such optimism. I just do what I can to try and convince people to.
In the situation you've described above there's always the chance I'd end up dead because of my ideals but I don't know how to rightly justify persecution or discrimination and I can't see preemptive profiling as anything else.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Wrong, police can stop and question anyone they think is suspicious or out of place. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects you from being questioned by a police officer.
The usual questions every police officer asks of everyone. What are your doing, where are you headed, blah blah blah. Haven't you ever been questioned by a cop?
Probable cause only matters when it comes to doing physical searches or actually detaining an individual beyond routine questions. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that police have the power to ask routine questions of anyone and not answering or being beligerent can qualify as probable cause to search.
Yeah. Might be a little pissed if I was in a hurry.
Then the cops might want to look at the atheist club where all the known atheists hang out. Or maybe the Darwin Fish on the car might be someone you want to question.
People who are not citizens of America have no Constitutional rights especially before they are on American soil. Can you at least glance at the Constitution?
Come to think of it, I was detained at the US border for 6 hours and I'm white and a citizen with a passport, in the military at the time and hadn't broken any laws that I remember.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Beyond Saving, I actually agree with Hamby, that there must be a line drawn, but the question is where?
For example, you mentioned 'routine questions', and yet haven't set a parameter of what steps out of 'routine', or the criteria for going beyond 'routine questioning.'
I somewhat agree. But first, they should collect the evidence from the crime scene. Start question people in the neighbourhood where the crime took place (in case they're witnesses) etc...
If he wasn't on American soil, American authorities have no juristiction.
I'm pretty sure the border is considered American soil.
And what reason did they give?
Hamby, I'm surprised you haven't figured this out yet:
That comment didn't give you a clue?
Yeah, there is a line and it has been pretty well marked out by the Supreme Court. This is about as settled as Constitutional Law gets. As far as questioning is concerned you are not dealing with a constitutional issue. The Fourth Amendment says nothing about police asking questions. Those limits are in place through regular law. The Constitution only comes in for search and seizure or detaining an individual beyond questioning. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
This site is a good one for researching the subject because it has links to relevent cases. The case that has mde the most difference in this area of the law is United States v. Montoya de Hernandez where the Supreme Court created what is referred to the Terry standard. Which requires reasonable suspicion having a particularized and objective basis. A rather vague standard but then most constitutional law is vague. Basically, a police officer can detain you if they can state particular reasons why they thought you were lying or suspicious. For example, a cop might say I thought something was wrong because his hands were sweating and his voice was high pitched.
The border is actually rather fuzzy. Yes it is under American control but the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution applies differently to the border. The government has the right to search anyone or anything coming across the border without probable cause or extended demonstration.
None at first. They thought I looked suspicious and thought I might have drugs on me. Probably because I was a bit of a smartass to the customs agent.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
To finally get around to responding to the OP, I believe profiling is not a bad thing all the time and is an integral part of law enforcement even when based on race, age or gender. Now before everyone starts calling me a biggot, let me explain there is a huge difference between profiling and harrassing a sector of the population. Like it or not, certain crimes are committed more often within some demographics then others.
For example, there is a lot of statistical data that shows robbery is more common in poor communities. In America, there are more african americans and latinos in poor communities than whites. Therefore, to solve the problem of robbery, police need to patrol poor communities more often than wealthy communities. This means cops are patrolling african american communities more than wealthy white communities. Is that profiling? Yes. But it is absurd to suggest that it is wrong. The cops know where the crime is happening and know that the perpetrators are predominantly african american or latino young males. If a cop is driving around and sees a group of these young men the cop is perfectly justified in stopping to ask them some questions and check them out because they fit the demographic that is likely to commit the crime. Especially if the group is in a place where they are not likely to be on a daily basis, such as a rich white community. It is not the cops fault that certain demographics commit particular crimes more often than other demographics. If you have a problem with profiling you should focus your attention on the culture that perpetuates poverty in these groups which in turn perpetuates crimes such as robbery. It would be a waste of a cops time to patrol a gated wealthy community looking for robbers because rich people are far less likely to commit robbery on a regular basis. Just like it would probably be a waste of time for someone looking for white collar crimes to go patrol the projects.
Now harrassment of a certain segment of the population is different (and is not a Constitutional issue). If a police force is consistently coming down hard on a particular segment of the population but allowing another segment to get away with the same crime you have a problem. Perhaps the simplest example is speeding. I am not aware of any study that has shown any segment of the population speeds more than others. If cops are pulling over african americans for speeding and writing them tickets but allowing other groups to go without a ticket there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Now to specifically address the news article, the LAPD is walking a tightrope. Everyone was quick to get mad that the government did not identify the 9/11 hijackers before 9/11 but then we get mad when they take steps to find potential terrorists. I'm not clear on exactly what the LAPD is doing or why some moron went public with a press release. I would not be opposed to the LAPD recruiting informants or inserting undercover officers into the communities whose role would be to watch for anything suspicious that might be plans for a terrorist attack. It would certainly be more worthwhile than using undercover agents to bust prostitutes which we do all the time. If an undercover agent or informant goes into a Mosque and everyone there is saying that all Americans should die then yes, those individuals should be put under surveilance. Note, the government has done the same thing with militias in Montana and Idaho and has actually prevented violent attacks by monitoring white crazy assholes.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I'm actually Canadian, so that site is helpful
It shouldn't take 12 hours to search someone.
Did you 'get the glove?'
Those guards were pricks then, as were the other ones. They shouldn't abuse their authority.
For the love of God, please don't answer this. Seriously.
I was being sarcastic. Thus why I added the "seriously" bit onto the end. I found the glove question disturbing and off-topic and I was hoping this wouldn't derail into the ins and outs of searching someone.
As far as the OP. I don't have a problem with religious profiling. As stated, people choose their religion and people actually do *act* on their religion. You don't rob a store BECAUSE you are black or BECAUSE you are young... but we've all seen how religion condones certain criminal hateful activites.
That being said, I see many flaws in profiling. Specifically that it causes law enforcement to overlook others and religion isn't apparent when you aren't wearing a jesus piece, burka, etc...
Cavity searches are never off-topic.
But I do feel I am discussing the topic that is the limits of the profiling.
Like somebody else said:
So if an atheist group starts bombing churches, would you support profiling atheists?
As for this
Anybody can wear a cross/burka etc...
People aren't stupid. Your point about law enforcement overlooking others is a good one, because how hard would it be for a non-Muslim to leave behind inscriptions of Allah etc.. to throw law enforcement off track?
If the bombing of churches directly coorelated with atheism, then yes. Profile away.
I do see the point of 'routine questioning', it's a matter of extremes on both ends.
On one end, we don't want to be too extreme, on the other, we want to actually catch the damn criminals, and not worry about a lawsuit or the case getting thrown out if the police question/search someone they have a legitimate reason to.
How far would you let them go?
Warrentless searches? Wire taps?
Would you support that treatment to profiling of other religions?
Than explains a lot.
That is what happens when you have government bureaucrats doing things. Although most of the time for me wasn't searching. It was spent running an FBI background check. I imagine it was the same for him. Piece of advice if you come to the border. Keep your mouth shut and only speak when questions are asked. The answer that comes to mind first should be bypassed and make sure you have fully recovered from the effects of any tequila.
No. If I did I would probably have ended up shot.
Being a prick is somewhat a requirement to be a US Customs agent or to work for the TSA.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Religious profiling, of course would include profiling of atheists. This is a Christian nation (though not yet a Christian State). With the majority of Americans claiming to be Christians, it would not be hard with profiling atheists, ostensibly for the purpose of "monitoring crime" or some other such rubbish, to pull off the later. (CS Lewis, It Can't Happen Here)
CPT Pineapple, I enjoy both your photograph and reading your blog.