Pros And Cons Of Stop And Frisk

1159 Words5 Pages

Each new program instituted to combat crimes comes with some controversy and its opponents. None has come under as much scrutiny as New York’s almost notorious Stop and Frick policy. Introduced as an approach to lever crime in The Big Apply, it has been scrutinized by what is being characterized as unconstitutional practice. Created under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, it has been credited at curbing crime and a fundamental tool in effective policing. Conversely, critics have pointed to the policy as being ineffective, racially driven and in clear violation of a person’s civil liberties. Through analysis of the negative and positive pieces of this controversial policy one can determine whether it is in fact effective or should be done away with. …show more content…

This stop and frisk approach to policing is not isolated to N.Y. and is known as the Terry law in many other states. Terry v. Ohio decision made the suspicion of danger grounds for a reasonable search. In principle Stop and Fisk is a reflection of the broken window approach of policing theory suggests that neighborhoods with greater concentration of physical and social disorder should evidence higher stop and frisk activity, especially for "quality of life" crimes (Fagan, Davies). In effect the unchecked citizens are in fact the broken window. How this approach effectively addresses concerns with crime will be analyzed from both …show more content…

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

Open Document