The state recognizes its current practices of racial profiling, prohibits the use of ethnicity and race in its risk profiles, and focuses on proven and effective instruments against racial profiling. These tools are implemented and compliance is actively enforced. Additionally, police engages in active monitoring to ensure a steady reduction in racial profiling.
The definition most used in Europe is also being used by Controle Alt Delete. It defines racial profiling as follows: “The use […], with no objective and reasonable justification, of grounds such as race, color, languages, religion, nationality or national or ethnic origin in control, surveillance or investigation activities.”
Simply put: we speak of racial profiling when a law enforcement officer uses someone’s (supposed) race or ethnicity to decide whether to stop this person.
One of our achievements (in cooperation with Amnesty International) is the Dutch police adopting this definition as of January 2018.
Controle Alt Delete identifies three main drivers of racial profiling: risk profiles that incorporate race, conscious bias, unconscious bias.
The first driver is the use of risk profiles which include race or ethnicity as a factor. Risk profiles are used to evaluate, score, calculate or predict the probability of norm violation of people or groups. A risk profile is a set of one or more criteria (indicators), on the basis of which an estimate is made of a risk of norm violation and on the basis of which a selection decision is then made. A characteristic feature of risk profiles is that they are used proactively by governments or implementing organizations, i.e. without concrete, individualized suspicion of norm violation. If these descriptions include certain ethnicities, as was proven to be the case at the Dutch Tax Office, Police and the Border Police, racial profiling is likely to ensue. The second driver is conscious bias, of which we have seen examples in law enforcement making racist statements or using racial slurs at civilians. The third driver is unconscious bias: personal attitudes that are officials are not aware of, but nonetheless result in unequal treatment.
Racial profiling erodes public trust in law enforcement and (contrary to popular belief) reduces the effectiveness of efforts to fight crime. The documentary ‘Verdacht’ [‘Suspect’] offers a powerful insight in the personal impact of racial profiling. It is crucial for law enforcement to judge civilians on their acts as individuals, rather than on the groups they belong to.
Racial profiling is a form of discrimination and violates human rights. Every recent study on racial profiling has provided indications that racial profiling occurs often. For example, see “De Controle van Marsmannetjes en ander Schorriemorrie” [2012], “Proactief politieoptreden vormt risico voor mensenrechten” [proactive law enforcement puts human rights at risk, 2014], “Etnisch profileren in Den Haag” [racial profiling in The Hague, 2014], “Ervaren discriminatie in Nederland” [Experiences of discrimination in the Netherlands, 2014], “effecten van ervaren selectiviteit bij politiecontroles” [Consequences of experienced selectivity during police stops, 2015], “Boeven vangen” [Catching criminals, 2016], “Beslissen in grensgebieden” [Making decisions in border areas, 2016], the EU-MIDIS II rapportage [2017], “Politieaanpak van etnisch profileren in Amsterdam” [Police handling of racial profiling in Amsterdam, 2019] and the “Monitor Etnisch Profileren” [Monitor Racial Profiling, 2020].
There is an ongoing debate in the Netherlands on the exact frequency of racial profiling. There is no singular answer to this as most studies are qualitative in nature. The Netherlands has no quantitative datasets on the prevalence of racial profiling, as there is neither systematic registration of police stops nor yearly surveys of experiences of profiling among civilians. The Monitor Racial Profiling, carried out by Controle Alt Delete in cooperation with the Vrije Universiteit’s (VU) Talent Lab, contains a survey among nearly 2000 respondents in Amsterdam. It highlighted that men in Amsterdam with a non-western migration background are twice as likely to be submitted to police stops than white Dutch men.
Regarding racial profiling by special investigative officers (BOA’s) and Dutch Border Police, no datasets currently exist.
Yes, racial profiling is a structural problem. Policy and manuals sometimes explicitly instruct officers to conduct racial profiling. Additionally, no measures are being taken against individual officers that are caught racially profiling.
The state permits the use of ethnicity and nationality in risk profiling civilians that are in no way suspected of or indicated in any criminal activity. Racial profiling remains a structural problem because no measures are being taken against this important driver of racial profiling.
As long as the government keeps permitting law enforcement officials who explicitly discriminate to keep their jobs, it keeps creating space for discrimination to take place. To our knowledge, not a single police, border police, or investigative officer has been punished or fired over racial profiling. This also contributes to the perseverance of racial profiling as a structural problem.
Finally, there is structural unequal treatment throughout the entire criminal justice system. Both white youths as young people of color report similar amounts of criminal behavior. Nonetheless, men with a non-western migration background are subject to twice as many police stops as their white counterparts. Young people of color are five times more likely to be labeled as a suspect and ten times more likely to be sentenced to jail – for the same offense. Moreover, judges give harsher sentences to suspects with a migration background.