Pros And Cons Of Stop And Frisk

Quotes: “In our landmark, class-action lawsuit, CCR challenged the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices. The court found racial discrimination and 4th Amendment violations, ordering a reform process that includes input from affected communities” Explanation of how people are affected: A wide range of communities in our society have learned to live in fear of police and a generation of children of color have grown up in an environment where being mistreated by police is an expected part of daily life. Description of occurrence while stop and frisk occurs: Several interviewees reported that stops often result in excessive force by police, describing instances when officers slapped them, threw them up against walls or onto the ground, beat them up, used a Taser on them, or otherwise hurt them physically.

Stop and Frisk first came to be in 1968 after the supreme court of the United States ruled on the case of Terry v. Ohio. The court said that the work of police officer is dangerous and for this reason they need a flexible method to respond, which allow them to react base on information that they posses (DEL CARMEN, R. V. 2010). One stipulation that the courts made was that in order for an officer to stop question and frisk a person that officer needed to have at a minimum reasonable suspicion (DEL CARMEN, R. V. 2010).

Stop and Frisk is a practice used by police officers as it gives them the power to stop,question,and frisk suspects given reasonable circumstances. In the New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander says “ In ‘colorblind’ America criminals are the new whipping boys. They are entitled to no respect and little moral concern” (Alexander). There is no such thing as color blindness. When you first look at me what do you see?

The act of profiling is defined as the analysis of a person’s psychological and behavioral characteristics to help make generalizations/ assumptions about a person’s intent and or capability. An assumption is defined as something that has been accepted as being true without substantial evidence. These assumptions, then lead to what is known as racial profiling, which refers to a sort of discriminatory way in which an individual is targeted for suspicion in a crime based solely on that individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Why make assumptions about a person without having substantial evidence? Why violate and/or humiliate an entire group of people based on an assumption? Having actual and factual data that has been analyzed

Stop and Frisk Stop and Frisk, the tactic that has been going on for only for short time, yet there seems to be racial tension already. But is this new information actually true or is it just good policing? According to Heather Mac Donald from the Manhattan Institute, says “what looks like racial profiling might just be good policing”. However according to Ranjana Natarajan from the Washington post “it’s clear that two issues need to be addressed: racial profiling and police use of excessive force.” Unfortunately we cannot have both ways.

Another valuable search by law enforcement is the Stop and Frisk. Law enforcement officers have the right to protect themselves during brief interviews with citizens. A frisk is a limited pat down of the outer clothing that can occur to an individual when reasonable suspicion is suspected. Under the stop and frisk doctrine, law enforcement officers are looking for weapons.

Stop Injustice, End "Stop and Frisk" Do you want to feel discriminated against? No? If you do not want to feel discriminated against then stop "stop and frisk". "Stop and frisk" is a law that caused much trouble for the people of the United States and the people of planet earth. This law allows police and officers to stop blameless people and frisk them.

The source has limitations because it strictly gives the background of the history of policing strategies to reducing crime. Jeffrey Rosen uses former Mayor Giuliani’s quotes and worked closely with transit-police authority. I would be able to use quotes from this article because it relates to my topic, being in New York and dealing with stop and frisk. My final questions for Rosen would include, why did he not mention more about these policing strategies tie in with Supreme Court cases? Did the Supreme Court tell former Mayor Giuliani to get a more strict policing policy to increase the UF-250 forms?

New York Police Officers feel no commitment in having to treat any black or Hispanic with respect because of their race. The generic debate made by Bob Herbert in his work, Jim Crow Policing, is that stops are a representation of cops being racist and harassers as well. More precisely Herbert feuds that racial profiling has become a tool of harassment. Herbert states, “Rather than a legitimate crime-fighting tool, these stops are a despicable racially oriented tool of harassment”(NY Times Herbert). In the passage, Herbert is specifying that blacks and Hispanics were commonly stopped and frisked for their race.

In his essay “Arrested Development: The Conservative Case Against Racial Profiling” published in the New Republic on September 10, 2001, professor James Forman Jr. illustrates his disagreement with racial profiling. Forman Jr. is a professor at Yale Law School. He teaches Constitutional Law and seminars on race and the criminal justice system. In his piece, Forman primary goal is to create understanding about the effectiveness of racial profiling and how this affects the black community especially youths. Forman achieves this by appealing to a liberal audience.

Even with it, the current protests in Chicago show concern about people's Fourth Amendment rights. Many police officers in Chicago pullover and search people’s cars due to “suspicious” signs of drugs. Most of the people pulled over are black and this not only creates racial tension between

Second problem with his argument is that it is unjustified. For example the law ‘Stop and Frisk’ “Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory. August 12, 2013, New York – In a landmark decision, a federal court found the New York City Police Department 's highly controversial stop-and-frisk practices unconstitutional. Judge Shira Scheindlin found the NYPD’s practices to violate New Yorkers’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and also found that the practices were racially discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” sited from https://ccrjustice.org. In Raza vs City of New York the NYPD used dragnet surveillance which

Not to mention all the undocumented people that feel oppressed by officers and scared to talk back to them with a “no”. In chapter two, the author presents a section titled Just Say No. In this section the author illustrates a time where two police officers stopped a bus to search for drugs. Police officers never warned individuals that they had the right to remain silent and, therefore, minorities were trapped and found guilty for carrying drugs. In addition, the book discusses the Florida vs Botsick case that states that people have the right to refuse answering the police.

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.

The social outcry that the police, the front-line representatives of government are targeting the minorities is false. There’s no credible evidence that racial profiling exists today, yet the crusade to abolish it threatens a decade’s worth of crime-fighting success. The history for racial profiling dates back to slavery. In 1693, Philadelphia’s court officials gave police legal authority to stop and detain any Negro (freed or slaved) seen wandering around on the streets.