Forst writes "Fear of terrorism and enmity toward Muslims grew substantially as the media became preoccupied with stories of terrorist activities and threats of fringe extremists, both real and imagined" (para. 2).

Though Forst examines causes of terrorism and a balanced perspective response, the criminal justice system appears to respond to the general fear of terrorism.

Here is a current example: 'They thought it was a bomb': 9th grader arrested after bringing a home-built clock to school (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/16/they-thought-it-was-a-bomb-ahmed-mohamed-texas-9th-grader-arrested-after-bringing-a-home-built-clock-to-school/) (Kaplan & Philip, 2015, Sept. 16).

I grant no charges will be filed - but this child was arrested on mere suspicion rather than legitimate probable cause. The question surrounding his school suspension is an administrative concept - not a matter of our discussion surrounding criminal justice.
Multiple opinion and editorial articles already exist, including a focus on why racial profiling is ineffective: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9341037/ahmed-mohamed-racial-profiling

Forst wrote regarding balanced approach in 2007 - eight years later - a Muslim 14 year old is arrested for ingenuity - and perhaps poor judgment (not atypical of a 14 year old). He is arrested in an educational setting - and maybe I can grant the institutional fear of the school (though not really).

But how do we excuse and justify the actions of criminal justice in response?

Has arrest and criminal record become the default - and the system can figure it out later?

How can we justify such a response in a global setting and how can we not equate this to a continuing Muslim fear?