There has been many controversial issues about the “stop-and-frisk” law. One side believes that it is racially profiling the communities of minorities and the other side believes that it is helping communities rise away from violence. There is a lot of history and background on stop-and-frisk and how it originated in the United States, especially in different places around the world. This law has been very controversial even within the law itself, so controversial states are debating on getting rid of it completely. Many politicians speak on this tactic in both positive and negative ways and the statistical growths and decreases on this topic.
Racial profiling has become a national issue starting in 2015 (“Racial”). Judging someone for their race has been a problem ever since a minority group has been noticed. Racial profiling has spread over all over the world. Racial profiling has been a problem through the years, if the human race can learn what racial profiling is, advantages of the profiling, and the disadvantages.
300359810 Mrs. Fahey ERWC 12-Period 2 14 September 2015 Racial Profiling Racial discrimination is becoming a major problem in today 's society. Our nation is facing problems based on the discrimination on race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Racial profiling is a clear violation of the civil rights of the United States.
In conclusion, the idea of racial profiling and the issues on racism in today’s society calls attention to sustain peace and ethnic equality within communities all across the nation and around the world. It is important to acknowledge that the main solution to change the issues on racial profiling and racism is among the duties of government authorities, law enforcement officials, and the people of a nation. Everyone, of any race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or authority needs to understand that our voices and actions are capable of fixing the issues of racial injustice into a more fair environment to all people of color. Therefore, it is up to our knowledge and actions to help people understand that the solution to obtain racial equality
I’m truly not a fan of “Stop and Frisk” because many lives have been taking for bad
The safety of the community is crucial and attempting to deam stop and frisk as unconstitutional limits law enforcement. There is much controversy on how it can target a certain group or race but I believe the goal of any police is to deter crime when implementing stop and frisk. I believe stop and frisk can help reduce crimes and eliminate potential crime in a city, neighborhood, or street. Boyette, C., & Martinez, M. (2013).
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.
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.
This research showcases and supports my thesis. The methods used in this article provides a framework for readers to think and look beyond what they are blinded to in society. The articles helps my thesis to show that stop and frisk is unlawful and unjustified and has affected the daily lives of innocent people. For this article to be strong in my research paper I will need a counter argument so my research is not biased and emotional.
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.
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.
Summary Of Argument, Methods: In 1968, stop and frisk was based on strict guidelines that explained how far an officer can frisk someone according to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Behind the police officers’ stop and frisks, the strategies of broken windows policing and the zero-tolerance policy were introduced. Broken windows theory began in New York during the year of 1982, and former Mayor Giuliani of New York created zero-tolerance policy in 1997. Broken windows was a known policing strategy throughout all departments in the nation.