If it were not for profiling, I believe that only seeing an actual crime in progress, such as actually witnessing a man snatch a womens purse. As well as people who match the description of a someone on a “wanted” flyer, people who are loitering or acting strangely such as emotional, angry, intoxicated and etc. In addition to the above, if it were not for profiling other reasons that would constitute a reason for a stop by a police would include officers being in a high-crime area as well a witness people running away or engaging in a discreet manner such as attempting to avoid notice or attention.
The proof required for a Terry stop includes reasonable suspicion by the officer to believe that a crime is “afoot” (pg. 344), or in other words
…show more content…
The elimination of criminal profiling would result in more casualties for both officers and innocent bystanders as well as more criminals on the street. Street police officers are confronted with many decisions that require split second decisions, so if you eliminate profiling then officers who have reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur, will not be able to do anything about. Instead of being proactive and stopping suspects before a crime occurs, officers would have to look for other methods of detaining someone before hand or just wait for a crime to …show more content…
If goes on to discuss how often African Americans are targeted more, arrested nire, and given longer prison sentences than caucasians. This would be a con against criminal profiling because one of the descriptions of criminal profiling is that it is an investigative tool used by law enforcement agencies to identify likely suspects and analyze patterns that may foreshadow future offenses and/or victims. If the only thing that identifies suspects is the color of their skin, then criminal profiling does not