The basic form of my question is: Is racial profiling actively harmful to crime prevention efforts?
I think the answer is yes, and very much so. Firstly, racial profiling does not actually cause investigation only into members of the targeted group; many people may seem as though they belong to the group, but are not actually part of it. For example, when targeting Middle Eastern people, security agents often end up investigating a large number of Italian people, who are quite outside the target group. Even if profiling measures were more accurate, the idea is still inefficient; investigating innocent Middle Eastern tourists can easily distract security agents from catching a mixed-heritage criminal. Also, dangerous groups are typically well-informed, so if a terrorist organisation discovers that racial profiling measures are targeting people who look a certain way, they can simply find agents who look different.
Secondly, racial profiling fosters resentment among people who it targets. If Japanese people, for example, were targeted on suspicion of carrying bombs, then many innocent members of that group would likely become angry with this discriminatory attitude, and possibly consider becoming bombers.
Lastly, racial profiling is undeniably discriminatory. Targeting certain groups of people for heightened investigation reinforces artificial boundaries between people, and supports stereotypes and other forms of discrimination. Particularly when the targeted group is already subject to some form of prejudice, racial profiling can serve as yet another manifestation of social inequality and injustice, and social inequality is considerably likely to lead to some form of rebellion - whether it be picketing, boycotting, or terrorism.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Q&A 5, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Should hate crime laws apply only to crimes committed against minorities?
At first, the answer seems quite obviously to be no. However, there are advantages to making hate crime laws specific. Two of these are, first, that having special laws in place which protect only them might help reassure members of targeted minorities, and second, that making hate crime laws exclusive also sends a message to a country's population that the protected minorities are officially recognised and supported by the government. Making hate crime laws general accomplishes neither of these objectives.
However, I still think that the good of generalised laws outweighs the bad. General laws will protect people in the event of a minority becoming the majority too quickly for legal systems to recognise the change; they will protect everyone, thus not causing unfair discrimination against the majority, and they will also help curb resentment by members of the majority. Laws protecting only homosexuals, for instance, are likely to make already prejudiced non-homosexuals angry, and may somewhat bother even people (of all sexualities) who are not biased. General laws would still protect minorities more than majorities, simply because hate crimes are typically directed against members of minority groups, but they would not discriminate against anyone simply because they were part of the majority.
At first, the answer seems quite obviously to be no. However, there are advantages to making hate crime laws specific. Two of these are, first, that having special laws in place which protect only them might help reassure members of targeted minorities, and second, that making hate crime laws exclusive also sends a message to a country's population that the protected minorities are officially recognised and supported by the government. Making hate crime laws general accomplishes neither of these objectives.
However, I still think that the good of generalised laws outweighs the bad. General laws will protect people in the event of a minority becoming the majority too quickly for legal systems to recognise the change; they will protect everyone, thus not causing unfair discrimination against the majority, and they will also help curb resentment by members of the majority. Laws protecting only homosexuals, for instance, are likely to make already prejudiced non-homosexuals angry, and may somewhat bother even people (of all sexualities) who are not biased. General laws would still protect minorities more than majorities, simply because hate crimes are typically directed against members of minority groups, but they would not discriminate against anyone simply because they were part of the majority.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Regressing Is Not Progress
I firmly support environmentalism. However, I often find myself at odds with other environmentalists due to a difference in the direction of our beliefs. While I think that finding ways to produce electricity efficiently and without pollution is the best solution to global warming and environmental deterioration, these other environmentalists often advocate a strategy of regressing - namely, choosing not to use electricity at all. While I agree that minimising one's use of electricity is a good idea, due to the current methods of electricity production, I do not think that abandoning electricity permanently is a good idea.
To many people today, the lifestyles of those in the past may seem idyllic. Living in a beautiful medieval castle, riding horses around rather than taking cars, and farming the land for food may seem like a pretty picture to some, but they are leaving out some very important details. Horses are much slower than cars and cannot carry nearly as much. Subsistence farming is a risky business, as if there is a plague or disease of the crops, the farmers may starve. Lastly, medieval castles had little to no insulation or plumbing. Thus, they stank badly and were very cold in the winter. Furthermore, abandoning electricity would make the production of many medicines difficult or impossible, so the diseases which frequently devastated medieval populations would begin to take their toll on any who chose this lifestyle. Regressing, while it may at first seem appealing, is ultimately a bad idea. There are reasons that we have progressed away from the past.
To many people today, the lifestyles of those in the past may seem idyllic. Living in a beautiful medieval castle, riding horses around rather than taking cars, and farming the land for food may seem like a pretty picture to some, but they are leaving out some very important details. Horses are much slower than cars and cannot carry nearly as much. Subsistence farming is a risky business, as if there is a plague or disease of the crops, the farmers may starve. Lastly, medieval castles had little to no insulation or plumbing. Thus, they stank badly and were very cold in the winter. Furthermore, abandoning electricity would make the production of many medicines difficult or impossible, so the diseases which frequently devastated medieval populations would begin to take their toll on any who chose this lifestyle. Regressing, while it may at first seem appealing, is ultimately a bad idea. There are reasons that we have progressed away from the past.
Artificial Necessities
All too often, people spend vast amounts of time, effort, and/or money in order to conform to traditions which are quite unnecessary. In the (few) cases where people actually wish to use the traditions because of their own merits, rather than because they are traditions, then of course there is nothing wrong with this. If, however, people are only performing actions in order to conform with unnecessary tradition, then there is a problem.
Two examples which come to mind at once (probably due to my essay) are aspects of engagement and marriage - specifically, engagement rings and weddings. Many people believe that if a person does not present their potential fiancé with a costly engagement ring, their affection is not genuine. This is entirely phony, as the concept of diamond engagement rings was actually introduced by the diamond industry in order to boost sales. Even amongst those who are aware of this, however, engagement rings continue to be a popular gesture, perhaps primarily because if they fail to conform to the engagement tradition, others (parents and friends especially) will likely question the sincerity of their (or, more commonly, of their fiancé's) affection. Weddings are similarly problematic. It has become a tradition in America to spend a large amount of money on one's wedding. If one does not, or if one marries without a wedding, then many assume that the people getting married are either impoverished, in a rush, or marrying without the approval of their families - furthermore, they often assume that the marrying people will regret their decision to 'skimp' on their wedding later in life. This is ridiculous, as it could be that the people marrying simply do not wish to spend a great deal of money on a single occasion. Having a costly wedding is not inherently bad, but neither is there any reason why it should be considered necessary for a full life.
Two examples which come to mind at once (probably due to my essay) are aspects of engagement and marriage - specifically, engagement rings and weddings. Many people believe that if a person does not present their potential fiancé with a costly engagement ring, their affection is not genuine. This is entirely phony, as the concept of diamond engagement rings was actually introduced by the diamond industry in order to boost sales. Even amongst those who are aware of this, however, engagement rings continue to be a popular gesture, perhaps primarily because if they fail to conform to the engagement tradition, others (parents and friends especially) will likely question the sincerity of their (or, more commonly, of their fiancé's) affection. Weddings are similarly problematic. It has become a tradition in America to spend a large amount of money on one's wedding. If one does not, or if one marries without a wedding, then many assume that the people getting married are either impoverished, in a rush, or marrying without the approval of their families - furthermore, they often assume that the marrying people will regret their decision to 'skimp' on their wedding later in life. This is ridiculous, as it could be that the people marrying simply do not wish to spend a great deal of money on a single occasion. Having a costly wedding is not inherently bad, but neither is there any reason why it should be considered necessary for a full life.
Majority Issues and Minority Effects
Sometimes, issues which most people view as being minor, but affecting the majority of people, can be major issues for minorities. I was thinking about this primarily due to a conference I recently attended about sexuality and gender identity. One thing I noticed at this conference is that there were a lot of transwomen who, due to their height or bone structure, looked less than totally feminine. While these women may have been perfectly satisfied with their bodies and appearances, society's views on femininity could easily lead others to view them in a negative light. This is closely related to the 'majority' issues of the supposedly ideal type of female appearance, and of men who cross-dress.
The first issue can lead to women without genetically determined 'ideal' body structures being viewed as inferior to those with those societally determined ideal bodies. In addition to the obvious problems for a majority of women, however, this can particularly lead to discrimination against transwomen, who rarely have an 'ideal' female bone structure. As such, this issue can cause an already marginalised group to suffer more discrimination unrelated to the original cause of discrimination - certainly a bad thing.
The second issue may be even more detrimental. Of course it does restrict the freedom of men who may wish to cross-dress, which is unjust and undoubtedly a bad thing, but it can lead to actual violence against transwomen. While transmen who do not 'pass' (that is, appear male to all observers) usually suffer the inconvenience and embarrassment of being wrongly referred to as female, but are subject to no other negative effects (due to being thought merely tomboys or, possibly and slightly more dangerously, lesbians), non-passing transwomen are sometimes attacked, on the assumption that they are cross-dressing men. It is true that actual men who cross-dress can also become victims of attack, such men typically suffer much less from refraining to cross-dress than transwomen suffer from dressing as men - the women have to actively hide an important part of their identity. While I do not mean to marginalise the negative effects of men being denied the opportunity to cross-dress when they wish, it is undeniable that the deaths of women perceived as cross-dressing men are a much more serious issue. However, due to the fact that transgendered people are a minority, society usually only focuses on the more minor issue.
The first issue can lead to women without genetically determined 'ideal' body structures being viewed as inferior to those with those societally determined ideal bodies. In addition to the obvious problems for a majority of women, however, this can particularly lead to discrimination against transwomen, who rarely have an 'ideal' female bone structure. As such, this issue can cause an already marginalised group to suffer more discrimination unrelated to the original cause of discrimination - certainly a bad thing.
The second issue may be even more detrimental. Of course it does restrict the freedom of men who may wish to cross-dress, which is unjust and undoubtedly a bad thing, but it can lead to actual violence against transwomen. While transmen who do not 'pass' (that is, appear male to all observers) usually suffer the inconvenience and embarrassment of being wrongly referred to as female, but are subject to no other negative effects (due to being thought merely tomboys or, possibly and slightly more dangerously, lesbians), non-passing transwomen are sometimes attacked, on the assumption that they are cross-dressing men. It is true that actual men who cross-dress can also become victims of attack, such men typically suffer much less from refraining to cross-dress than transwomen suffer from dressing as men - the women have to actively hide an important part of their identity. While I do not mean to marginalise the negative effects of men being denied the opportunity to cross-dress when they wish, it is undeniable that the deaths of women perceived as cross-dressing men are a much more serious issue. However, due to the fact that transgendered people are a minority, society usually only focuses on the more minor issue.
Response: Justified Censorship
In response to Brian's post "A Quote Misattributed to Mark Twain" (March 31, 2012):
I agree that most censorship is both unnecessary and unethical. However, I think that in some cases it is justified. For example, because exposing children to excessive violence, gore, or sexual imagery at a young age often causes psychological harm to those children, and as such censoring those things is justified. Of course, adults can take advantage of media including the above elements, as long as they ensure that it does not end up making its way into the hands of minors.
Certain things which American society considers worthy of censorship are certainly unjustly banned or restricted. Rating a film higher because it includes people of the same gender kissing is ridiculous; if exposing children to images of people kissing is psychologically harmful (which I am pretty sure it is not) then all films showing people kissing should be rated higher, up to an including 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.' Furthermore, no adults should ever kiss whilst in view of children. To do otherwise is clearly an illustration of homophobia; homoromantic behaviour is not inherently more 'edgy' than heteroromantic behaviour, nor is it more closely linked to sexual behaviour. There are many other examples of unjust censorship as well, but I think that there are also some things which should be censored due to their effects on the psychological well-being of children.
I agree that most censorship is both unnecessary and unethical. However, I think that in some cases it is justified. For example, because exposing children to excessive violence, gore, or sexual imagery at a young age often causes psychological harm to those children, and as such censoring those things is justified. Of course, adults can take advantage of media including the above elements, as long as they ensure that it does not end up making its way into the hands of minors.
Certain things which American society considers worthy of censorship are certainly unjustly banned or restricted. Rating a film higher because it includes people of the same gender kissing is ridiculous; if exposing children to images of people kissing is psychologically harmful (which I am pretty sure it is not) then all films showing people kissing should be rated higher, up to an including 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.' Furthermore, no adults should ever kiss whilst in view of children. To do otherwise is clearly an illustration of homophobia; homoromantic behaviour is not inherently more 'edgy' than heteroromantic behaviour, nor is it more closely linked to sexual behaviour. There are many other examples of unjust censorship as well, but I think that there are also some things which should be censored due to their effects on the psychological well-being of children.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)