My question is: What types of racial profiling exist today?
Officially speaking, the United States does not sanction racial profiling. Of course, in practice, it occurs fairly often, usually in the context of law enforcement investigatory practices (such as 'randomly determined' security searches, or 'random' selection of speeders to pull over). Canada also does not officially sanction racial profiling, but has had similar cases of unofficial occurrence. Other countries have stricter policies banning racial profiling, and still others not only allow it, but encourage it. The practices regarding the subject vary considerably from nation to nation, depending on diversity of population, distribution of wealth between those with differing racial backgrounds, form of government, policies and social perceptions regarding race, and a large number of other factors.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Q&A 6, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Why would people support the idea of racial profiling despite knowing that it does not work?
While I imagine that most supporters of racial profiling believe that it does work, there are also likely people who are aware of its inefficacy, yet who continue to support it. It is difficult to determine why they do this. The theory which springs most readily to mind is that they wish to use racial profiling to continue the oppression of minorities. However, any one person who is subject to racial profiling is unlikely to incur much more than minor, temporary irritation, feelings of injustice, or other relatively insignificant psychological trauma. How, then, could racial profiling reinforce isolation or oppression of minority groups?
There are two ways which I can think of at the moment. One is that, although the effects of each individual profiling may be negligible, they can have the combined effect of reinforcing feelings of separation, inferiority, or other oppression-contributing emotions in the profilee. The other, which is, I think, the more likely of the two is that racial profiling can send a message to the majority that the profiled minority is different from, and lesser than, the majority is.
While I imagine that most supporters of racial profiling believe that it does work, there are also likely people who are aware of its inefficacy, yet who continue to support it. It is difficult to determine why they do this. The theory which springs most readily to mind is that they wish to use racial profiling to continue the oppression of minorities. However, any one person who is subject to racial profiling is unlikely to incur much more than minor, temporary irritation, feelings of injustice, or other relatively insignificant psychological trauma. How, then, could racial profiling reinforce isolation or oppression of minority groups?
There are two ways which I can think of at the moment. One is that, although the effects of each individual profiling may be negligible, they can have the combined effect of reinforcing feelings of separation, inferiority, or other oppression-contributing emotions in the profilee. The other, which is, I think, the more likely of the two is that racial profiling can send a message to the majority that the profiled minority is different from, and lesser than, the majority is.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Verbal Aggression and Hate Speech
One of the more common reasons for creating hate speech codes is that hate speech often causes psychological or emotional trauma to victims. This is undoubtedly true. However, I do not think that hate speech is by any means the only type of verbal aggression which can cause severe emotional trauma, and so I would suggest that speech codes should not be limited to hate speech, but should instead apply to any kind of repeated, intentional verbal aggression.
Calling someone a 'n-word' is extremely rude, extremely racist, overall inappropriate, and likely to cause the target at least some emotional trauma. Calling someone a 'piece of s*** (profane equivalent of crap)' is also extremely rude, overall inappropriate, and likely to cause the target at least some emotional trauma. I do not think that the single missing element, that of racism, is the most significant part of the problem by any means. As such, I think that both types of verbal aggression merit preventative measures - most likely a combination of educational programs (which would have minimal effect, but would hopefully help prevent unintentional insults) and, perhaps, fines or negative academic consequences for those who repeatedly and intentionally violated the measures.
Calling someone a 'n-word' is extremely rude, extremely racist, overall inappropriate, and likely to cause the target at least some emotional trauma. Calling someone a 'piece of s*** (profane equivalent of crap)' is also extremely rude, overall inappropriate, and likely to cause the target at least some emotional trauma. I do not think that the single missing element, that of racism, is the most significant part of the problem by any means. As such, I think that both types of verbal aggression merit preventative measures - most likely a combination of educational programs (which would have minimal effect, but would hopefully help prevent unintentional insults) and, perhaps, fines or negative academic consequences for those who repeatedly and intentionally violated the measures.
Response: The Actual Point of Justice
In response to Brian's post "Discussing the Death Penalty Beyond Race" (April 7, 2012):
I agree that the death penalty is immoral. This is primarily because the point of the justice system is, at least in theory, supposed to be to protect people from those who have committed criminal acts. Even if one is opposed to the more rehabilitation-focused justice system strategies in some other countries (I am not; the article on that Norwegian prison was great, by the way), one can at least admit that a life sentence is essentially as effective as the death penalty in this respect. The only reason for the death penalty to exist is to satisfy some people's desire for revenge - hardly an appropriate basis for a government policy which literally controls the life or death of other people. Some also try to justify its existence by claiming that it is a more effective deterrent to crime than other sentences, but there is absolutely no evidence to prove this is the case; in fact, if the statistics on crime and prison return rates in countries with more lenient justice systems are anything to go by, it may actually be less effective in preventing crime than other, immeasurably more humane crime prevention methods.
I agree that the death penalty is immoral. This is primarily because the point of the justice system is, at least in theory, supposed to be to protect people from those who have committed criminal acts. Even if one is opposed to the more rehabilitation-focused justice system strategies in some other countries (I am not; the article on that Norwegian prison was great, by the way), one can at least admit that a life sentence is essentially as effective as the death penalty in this respect. The only reason for the death penalty to exist is to satisfy some people's desire for revenge - hardly an appropriate basis for a government policy which literally controls the life or death of other people. Some also try to justify its existence by claiming that it is a more effective deterrent to crime than other sentences, but there is absolutely no evidence to prove this is the case; in fact, if the statistics on crime and prison return rates in countries with more lenient justice systems are anything to go by, it may actually be less effective in preventing crime than other, immeasurably more humane crime prevention methods.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)