Reply to Comments

Abstract

We are delighted our rejoinder to Satzewich and Shaffir (2009) on racial profiling has elicited such vigorous and insightful response. The contributions of scholars from Australia, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States provide an international focus to the commentaries included in this issue which is bound to be of great interest to readers of the journal. In this reply, we will focus on some of the major points made by the contributors, all of whom, with one exception, have ignored the usual said, she said form of what often passes for intellectual debate and have instead concentrated on adding important points of view to this debate. John Crank aptly and simply summarizes the current dialogue as raising the question of whether underlying racism is a prerequisite for racial profiling or whether profiling is a cultural characteristic of policing organizations. Although neither the debate nor the commentaries definitively answer this question, is clearly recognized as an important issue in the study of racial profiling. Janet Chan points to the critical issue of the role of police subculture in fostering racial profiling and agrees aspects of police work and its do support stereotypical opinions about the criminality of some ethnic groups. She reminds us, however, culture is not, in itself, always static (76). Thus, changing political and social conditions may influence police subculture and lead to significant changes in the ability of police officers to negotiate their work. Organizational changes and new regulations and initiatives may be able to influence police so does not tolerate or permit racial prejudice, but nevertheless, Chan concludes that cognitive bias and stereotyping is a feature of police cultural knowledge is not easily changed given the nature of police work as currently structured (77). Crank also notes the concepts of racism, culture, justice, and so on are difficult to define and that, therefore, social scientists have difficulty in establishing a consensus around them. Both papers under review deal with racism and culture; yet the debate is unlikely to be resolved. Ingeniously, Crank, instead, turns his attention to policy implications. Specifically, he questions whether neighbourhoods with high crime rates should receive high levels of policing and, particularly, of police enforcement. He asks what police should do in areas of high crime are also characterized by high levels of poverty and substantial numbers of minority residents. He notes that, if police behaviour is problematic, then the effort to change behaviour becomes a policy issue. Crank also comments the poor minority, especially African Americans, do not choose to live in poverty or deal in gang violence, and they desire the same middle-class life styles and opportunities as middle-class people do. Should there be more policing in such areas if leads to community-based racial profiling and what role should social scientists play in deciding such policies. He cites research to show social scientists can provide cultural analysis as well as contribute to and participate directly in community-directed action by identifying needs, helping implement changes, and generally helping communities to achieve their desired goals. Crank's emphasis on the policy implications of the debates on racial profiling brings another and very important dimension to the study of this phenomenon. Jobard and Levy's intriguing research, conducted in Paris, France, employed a sophisticated methodology included placing observers at various high-traffic locations to track all police stops. They found the police over-stopped and searched minorities (89). Although is difficult to disentangle variables such as youth and dress, it is risky to deny stops and searches have a racial component (91). Their research, like many of the high-profile studies conducted in Canada, created a media sensation. …