Argumentative Essay On Stop And Frisk

In the article “The Statistical Debate Behind The Stop-and-Frisk Verdict”, John Cassidy analyzes the conclusion of Judge Scheindlin in which states that Stop and Frisk amounts to a policy of indirect racial profiling. In the analysis it is mentioned that Judge Scheindlin feels that the these methods of approach to prevent crime is unconstitutional. She challenges this by using the four and fourteenth amendment which police violate with stop-and-frisk which is an unreasonable search, and the discrimination towards Blacks and Latinos by being stopped a lot more frequently than whites, which is not equal protection under the law. Ultimately Cassidy’s report is to convey Judge Scheindlin’s stance on the method of policing being used today.

One concern is that BWP leads to over incarceration, which Kelling and Bratton respond to this by admitting that, yes, it does; however, the crimes people are being imprisoned for are far less serious than those that are being prevented by BWP and their sentences are thus much shorter. But, the main concern is that SQF, and therefore BWP is inadmissibly discriminatory towards minorities. Once again, Kelling and Bratton give ground by not defending the abhorrent results of the 2011 SQF’s, which resulted in over 700,000 stops and only a 6% success rate. They instead talk about how much their methods have improved with far fewer stops and a higher success rate. This may seem like an odd way to address the claim of discrimination, but the point is that they now are making much more calculated decisions when stopping people, and not just frisking minorities at random.

The preventative landscape of Stop and Frisk is reinforced by Terry v. Ohio, has allotted police officers the authority that a person could be seized based on a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was involved in serious criminal conduct. However when applied to N.Y., empirical evidence regarding both the factors for and outcomes of stops and frisks in New York demonstrates that either the legal standard is too permissive or police-stop documentation is not truthful (Rudovsky). Stop and Frisk allows a great amount of power to officers to determine reasonable doubt which encompasses all criminal activity, no matter how trivial. The power provided to law enforcement to put into practice Stop and Frisk, allowing for more discretion in combating crime. While it does also set the tone for the abuse and misappropriation of stops, as “reasonable doubt” is a more

An officer has the right to stop an individual in public if he has a reasonable doubt of suspicion to temporary stop and frisks the individual. The statistic has shown that many officers have targeted the minorities in the stop and frisk. According to An Analysis of the NYPD 's stop and frisk policy in the context of the claim of racial bias by Andrew Gelman, Jeffrey Fagan, Alex Kiss " the number of arrests of each group in the previous year black were stopped 23% and Hispanics 39% more often than whites"(19). Minorities are stopped twice as often for violent crimes and a

In summary, "stop and frisk" should not be a law anymore because it does not help our community, in fact, it ruins it. The primary reason that shows why to stop and frisk ought not to exist as a law is because guiltless individuals are getting accused of unsafe individual activities. Nevertheless, people still believe that "stop and frisk" protect them and that people from different races are a danger to the society. What people are claiming is false claims because it is not proven by actual statistics. Some people still think that "stop and frisk" is a law that helps bring peace to the nations.

Racial profiling by law enforcement is an overwhelmingly useless and prevalent expression of hate and ignorance to this day. Internationally, a wide variation of races are unrightfully discriminated against by the enforcements who are supposedly there to protect them. Jim Crow policing is an issue that undoubtedly continues, no matter the amount of riots or unjustly arrested/ murdered civilians. Cases like Trayvon Martin, and Mike Brown, as well as Bob Herbert 's article Jim Crow Policing published in the New York Times, February 2nd 2010, explain first hand accounts and statistics to give examples of the fact that racial profiling from the police force consistently takes place.

Lastly, in the presidential debate, Trump stated that when stop and frisk was in motion crime was at an all-time low. This observation proved to be false. According to businessinsider, the New York City Civil Liberties Union, which is a civil-rights organization that is in opposition with the NYPD, “confirmed the decline in stops (Christina Sterbenz). “ In conclusion, Trump’s push to include stop and frisk could be dire for the nonprofit community.

But do they increase accountability”). This proves that police body cameras improve the chance of having better evidence to prove accusations. The statistic shows that jurisdictions can use footage from body cameras as evidence sometimes to prosecute officers. The text states, “... The police department had a video that showed what happened was inconsistent with the officer’s initial statement, thanks to the body-worn camera on the officer.

Police Body Cameras With new and improving technological advancements, police body cameras have become a very controversial topic for quite some time now. Although this is true, there is significant information that supports why the cameras are crucial in police officers work days, as well as why they aren’t. As the years have progressed, so has the distrust in the public as well as police officers. Police body cameras have opened a window into the daily interactions that police officers have with civilians. Everyday police officers are faced with dangerous situations, and having a body camera is one step to help ensure that if any wrong doing is done, there is proof.

With the implementation of stop-and-frisk, not only are we building upon our already immensely lucrative incarceration population, but we also manage to keep African Americans being the majority population who is being targeted,

According to numerous experiments, “analysis have found that racial profiling actually makes police less accurate , not more so in catching criminal activity. (Emily Badger)” Racial profiling causes assumptions on a group of people which changes their outlook within society, and impairs our efforts to remain fair and just. Race-based assumptions within the law enforcement “makes the community less safe… [causing] mistrust that arises in heavily profiled communities, where residents are wary of reporting crime or of cooperating with law enforcement” (Emily

Shannon Sharpe is describing the events displayed on television, newspapers, and on the internet. Although, most people in America will state that racial profiling by law enforcement is minorities complaining based on statistics or perception (Racial Profiling, 2016 ). Thus, racial profiling by law enforcement agencies prevents useful approaches, alienates communities, and impedes public safety (Hubpages and Hubbers, 2009). Prevents Useful Approaches Racial profiling distracts law enforcement agencies from using useful approaches.

Whites are less likely to be searched during a traffic stop because the officer is not racially profiling them and thinking that they are all criminals. Police officers treat whites like human beings and violate their rights. For example, during a traffic stop you see one or two officers in one car. People of color are always searched during a traffic stop and have their rights violated. The police always seem to be threatened by people of color when if it is only one of them.

Throughout history, disputes and tensions between law enforcement officials and communities of minorities have endured hostility and violence between each other. Racial profiling has become a “hot topic” for researchers as well as for politicians and by now it is likely that most citizens are at least aware of the common accusations of racial bias pitted against law enforcement (Cochran & Warren, 2013). Communities of color are being discriminated against and racially profiled by white police officers for any suspicion of criminal activities. It has been widely assumed by policy makers and citizens alike that allegations of racial profiling are mostly associated with the policing practices of white officers and their treatment of racial and ethnic minorities (Cochran & Warren, 2013). Also, individuals of minority descent will certainly recognize that they are being racially profiled during a stop that is being conducted by a white police officer.

Random sample surveys were conducted in Seattle, Washington by telephone, which asked citizen’s various questions concerning their feelings towards police. These questions included their level of happiness in regards to police problem-solving, their views on police hassling citizens, and if they had ever experienced, or perceived to experience racial profiling or bias by law enforcement (Wu, 2014). Of all the citizens that took part in the survey, 64% of African Americans felt that racial profiling was a problem inside their neighborhoods, 28% of Asians, 20% of whites, and 34% of Hispanics agreed (Wu,