Profiling

There can be a fine line between profiling and using intelligent, deductive reasoning. Training of law enforcement officials, regarding profiling, is now extensive and their on the job training is comprehensive. This was not always the case. We have made great strides in eliminating widespread profiling. Also, the makeup of the law enforcement community is more diverse than in previous years.

In one way or another, the majority of people profile. Children, looking to play sports, go to athletic fields, look for kids wearing basketball sneakers, and seek out those who talk sports. They look for athletic types. That’s profiling. At a convention, party, or other gathering, attendees look around to find someone who might be interesting to talk with. They look for outgoing, smiling types. That’s profiling. Little league coaches seek out players whose siblings are known to be good athletes. Science students hang around labs, or look for other students with science books. That’s profiling. Law enforcement agents notice people who look suspicious to them, seem nervous, appear out of place or act in a certain mannerism, and then they take appropriate action. That’s profiling.



Police put themselves at risk when they stop or question someone. There could be physical risk, such as being shot or accosted by the person stopped. There is also the risk of being accused of profiling. Knowing these risks are real, would law enforcement agents indiscriminately confront individuals? Would the majority of police want to put themselves at physical risk, the risk of losing their job or the risk of a lawsuit? Probably not. However, doesn’t our society run a greater risk if law enforcement agents stop using their training and “gut feelings” to detain or question someone?

Profiling is not improper; improper use of profiling is.