All
men are pigs. That's stereotyping – a characterization which has,
for a variety of reasons, become embedded in the minds of many women.
Usually they're referring to the sexual appetites of males, and to
their propensity for aggressive and bestial behavior. Sadly, there
is much to support that concern. Women and children have something
to fear and it is reasonable to be wary. The establishment of
registries of sex-offenders is society's way of identifying possible
threats. Would you buy a home for your family next door to that of a
“rehabilitated” rapist?
That's
an easy question, so let me pose another. How do you feel about
“stop and frisk” laws? That, too, is an easy question. The idea
that people might be considered a threat prior to there being a
crime, and lacking evidence that they have criminal intentions, is
abhorrent to our principles. It's unconstitutional, isn't it?
Profiling – an activity that causes us to suspect a particular
individual of being more likely than others to pose a threat – robs
that individual of the presumption of innocence. Indeed, to a
degree, his mere existence incriminates him.
Perhaps,
however, the question is not as straightforward as it seems. We all
profile all the time. It may be termed prejudice or justified
caution, but it's the same thing. Is there a group of “Hell's
Angels” ahead, and a way to reach your destination without walking
the gauntlet? You'll probably take it. Has there been a home
invasion in your neighborhood? And is there a “suspicious” person
on your street looking at the houses? “If you see something, say
something.” No one would accuse you of profiling if you notified
your Neighborhood Watch, but that's what it is.i
Perhaps it would be profiling if we just dragged in “the usual
suspects.”
The
act takes on another dimension, however, when it's done by a
governmental agency. After all, though societies were formed to
protect the individual from harm and our all-knowing government has
instituted the Patriot Act,ii
that Act, and society's obligations notwithstanding, our officials
are the ones bound by the Constitution – even if we're not. So if
a man whom no one knows is seen giving out candy bars to small
children leaving a kindergarten, there is no justification for police
questioning him.iii
Authorities would not question a soldier giving out chocolate to
children in a town his division had just liberated, so the act itself
cannot justify any official suspicion of the man in front of the
school. Even if there has been a rash of kidnapings from the school.
Absent a specific indication that he is linked to those crimes,
questioning his motives isn't justified. Pull out your camera (or
camera-phone) and document police oppression, like this profiling,
ifiv
it occurs.
Yet
profiling by all of us is common.v
It always has been. We think of it now in terms of racevi
and religion,vii
but there's always been a reason. Throughout history, including our
own,viii
specific groups have been chosen as suspect or to be rejected. But
we consider that kind of bias “normal,” and when we focus on
private prejudices like this, we avoid the basic question: Is there
ever any justification for profiling; for using statistics to govern
our own actions? If we act only on the basis of those
prejudices, what we do isn't justified, but the decision about the
rational use of the information available – even is some see bias
in it – cannot be dismissed out of hand. We may not think about it
that way, but it's the cause for most of what we do. The things we
know, and the things we have learned from others, control what we do.
Experience, education, and intuition are our guides to action. Yet
we would deny them to those who represent us. We reject the idea
that they should have preconcieved notions.
When
there is a short circuit or other electrical problem we call in an
electrician who, knowing the most common sources of such failings,
will look at these first. They may or may not be responsible for our
problems, but it is rational to evaluate them before other
possibilities are explored. The same is true of plumbing problems.
We leave to the expert, the one with experience, the determination of
the cause of the problem in our case. Perhaps it will take several
different approaches before the answer is found, but we don't forbid
the expert from any particular one because there isn't a demonstrable
cause. And we don't second-guess. For we know that dispensing with
education, expertise, and experience – the sources of preconceived
notions – is dispensing with common sense.
Years
ago, before some of the currently available medical tools had been
perfected, it was a common practice to perform “exploratory”
surgery when a specific diagnosis couldn't be made otherwise. The
surgeon might have suspected one disease or another, but lacked
certainty. In some cases a particular problem – often incurable –
was located. In some, a process, sometimes unsuspected, was
discovered in an early enough stage that treatment and cure were
possible, while in others it was determined that there wasn't
anything serious going on; the patient wasn't suffering from some
horrible disease, and could be treated conservatively.ix
It was a case of medical profiling. The person with undiagnosed
abdominal symptoms was subjected to surgery whose results couldn't be
foretold. Perhaps the risks were high, but the payoff would be
higher.
And
the same is true of other of society's problems. If Jihad is feared,
action to prevent it is warranted, even if those being investigated
are later found to have no ties to terrorist organizations, and their
caution is viewed as intrusive and unwarranted.x
If rape is a possibility, waiting for it to occur before taking
necessary steps to prevent it may be ideologically pure, but it is
foolish. And waiting for a theft or a murder to take place because,
notwithstanding the knowledge and intuition of a police officer, it
cannot be proved in advance, is nothing less than malfeasance,
cowardice, misconduct, or whatever other description you prefer. A
signed threat should not be required before action is taken. The
officer may be wrong, but inaction is often worse than a mistake.
Proof is one end of a spectrum and infinitesimal possibility is the
other. In between are many gradations, and somewhere we have to draw
the line. We have to follow up on valid suspicions even if they
don't pay off.
We're
all gamblers. We play the odds. “Slick” Willie Sutton is
credited with robbing banks because “that's where the money is.”xi
Our practices, of course, are more mundane: We look for books in
the library and meat at the butcher rather than go to the automobile
dealership for both. There's an excellent chance of success, though
no guarantee that we'll find the book we're after nor the cut of meat
needed for the recipe we've chosen, at the “right” distributors,
and the odds that are certainly better than they would be at a car
salesroom. A suspicious individual is more likely to be a bomber in
Kabul than Keokuk. And if the line in front of the movie theater is
long, we'll probably avoid it, rather than stand on it only to find
out that we're still waiting when the film we want to see has
started. Our prior experience and our intuition are likely to pay
off.
So
when it comes to profiling, the keys to success with the least
disruption of public order and personal rights, are the goodwill and
credibility of the investigator and the minimization of any
prejudices. If the authority that invests him with a badge or other
similar credential, determines, after extensive testing and
psychological probing (and that authority is pledged to investigate
when any suspicion of overreaching arises) that he is worthy of
trust, then we should be cautious about second guessing.xii
Thresholds of suspicion will certainly vary from one individual to
another, but a society that would remain free will have to tolerate
them. The system won't be perfect, but we're not perfect. We're
inclined to tell the police to stop profiling and do “police work.”
But we never define that work, and we never acknowledge that it
includes experience and intuition in assessing threats. And
profiling is part of that.xiii
It's
not an easy question.
Next
episode: “Forget It” – As if you remembered in the
first place.
i Just
as it would be profiling if you became suspicious if you reported a
known jewel thief looking furtive in front of Harry Winston, or an
apparent Middle-Easterner wearing a bulky coat on a hot summer day
and walking toward a crowd. As a matter of fact, it's not
unreasonable to view the refusal to buy a house next door to a
rehabilitated rapist as profiling. You're doing so if he's served
his term, isn't suspected of anything, and hasn't broken any laws
since release.
ii And
the Alien and Sedition Acts in the past, as well as Supreme Court
decisions restricting Freedom of Speech.
iii Although
we might attack him.
iv Actually,
when it occurs. The police are known to trample on the
rights of individuals who are not violating any laws, so you know
it's going to happen.
v Perhaps
the “rapist” who might be next door really is rehabilitated and
wants to forget the past and move on. Perhaps he just wants to be
left alone and actually represents no risk. Perhaps he was wrongly
convicted and doesn't belong in the registry. Is it worth the risk?
vi We
always think first of blacks when a crime has been committed and
when we want to prevent crime. There may be no specific reason to
suspect someone apart from his race, but that statistic is sometimes
used for selective stopping and questioning when a crime is being
investigated and when authorities seek to keep the streets safe.
vii Muslims,
and those that police and the public believe to be Muslims, are
often the targets when people are getting nervous about the
possibility of terrorism. It's based on the reality that most of
terrorist attacks around the globe, whether or not associated with a
known terrorist group, are perpetrated by Muslims. Even if the vast
majority of Muslims oppose violence (at least in this country), the
stain of Jihad has covered everyone, and the determination not to
risk a future disaster colors the thinking of those who protect us.
viii Blacks,
Catholics, Irish, Jews, and Italians are among many groups that
have, in the past, been singled out for special exclusion and
condemnation.
ix It
was interesting to see how often patients, no longer suspected of a
fatal disease like cancer, weren't relieved, but (after signing a
consent which acknowledged this as a possibility – a possibility
for which they probably prayed) questioned why they had had surgery
if there was nothing wrong. There was no recognition that such a
procedure, however painful, could also be beneficial and could
provide useful information or guidance for further therapy. But
once bitten, twice shy. The surgeon might then choose to do nothing
for future patients until signs of a specific disease were obvious.
But by that time it might be too late. Avoiding “red flags,”
and waiting for proof might make the search academic, but the
patient couldn't accuse him of action with insufficient evidence. A
balance between intuition and provable fact has to be accepted.
x The
increased number of attacks by individuals not associated with known
organizations makes proof of institutional membership a questionable
criterion for consideration of a suspect.
xi In
his biography he denied ever having said it. “Quote Investigator”
suggests its origin is an Alfred Tennyson poem “The
Northern Farmer, New Style” published by 1870, which includes the
following: Doänt thou marry for munny, but
goä wheer munny is! (See
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/10/where-money-is/)
xii If,
in one or more particular cases, a properly designed tool is abused,
more attention should be paid to training people in the correct way
to use it rather than tossing it out. In this instance the tool is
profiling, which is used to great advantage in many other countries.
xiii The
tools are likely to be better in the future but we can only work
with what we have. And if someone who would abuse a current tool
slips through the system, and we take away what we're now using,
he'll find some other outlet for his bias. It's the screening and
training of those we entrust with our safety that deserve a greater
part of our attention than efforts to limit their authority and
their tools.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.