The issue of stop and search is considered to be an extremely controversial area. There is significant debate on the legitimacy and the accountability of police powers when conducting stop and search, which has led to concerns about the effectiveness of policing. Reiner (2000: 80) has stated that policing is ‘beyond legitimation’ as a result of consistent complaints concerning the abuse of police powers within stop and search. The cause for concern is not only raised by the public, or other agencies, but is now recognised by senior British police officers (Ainsworth, 2002: 28). The cause of concern has been raised through complaints that police target ethnic minorities through stop and search and public opinion, that stop and search is a form police harassment of black individuals (Home Office, 19897). It is said that this is a causal factor of the disproportionate in policing (Delsol and Shiner, 2006). Throughout this essay the effectiveness and legitimacy of stop and search and the negative relationship it has built with the public will be critically discussed. The purpose of stop and search, an investigative tool to prevent crime is arguably different to the current practice of this procedure, current research suggests that it is used to gain intelligence and for social control (Bowling and Phillip, 2007). Following this, there is substantial evidence suggesting that thirty police forces have no understanding of how to use their powers to complete a stop and search (HMIC, 2013). Furthermore, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984, c60) states that a police officer can only stop and search a citizen if they have reasonable grounds to suspect they have stolen or prohibited items on their person. However, statistical evide... ... middle of paper ... ...tistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2010 Ministry of Justice: London Miller, J. (2010) ‘Stop and search in England: a reformed tactic or business as usual?’ British Journal of Criminology 50(5), 954(21) Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984, c.60) London: Stationery Office Quinton, P., Bland, N., Miller, Joel (2000) Paper 130: Police stops, Decision-Making, and Practice. London: Home Office Reiner, R. (2010) The Politics of the Police. Oxford University Press: United Kingdom Stone, V., Pettigrew, Nick. (2000) Paper 129: The Views of the Public on Stops and Searches. London: Home office Waddington, J. A.P. (1999) ‘Police (canteen) sub-culture: an appreciation’ British Journal of Criminology 29(2) Waddington, J. A. P., Stenson, K., Don, D. (2004) ‘In proportion: Race, and Police Stop and Search.’ British Journal of Criminology 44, 889- 914
In the United States of America today, racial profiling is a deeply troubling national problem. Many people, usually minorities, experience it every day, as they suffer the humiliation of being stopped by police while driving, flying, or even walking for no other reason than their color, religion, or ethnicity. Racial profiling is a law enforcement practice steeped in racial stereotypes and different assumptions about the inclination of African-American, Latino, Asian, Native American or Arab people to commit particular types of crimes. The idea that people stay silent because they live in fear of being judged based on their race, allows racial profiling to live on.
Do the institution and also those officers serve it act discriminately to different race group? On the one hand, it has to be admitted that some actions taken by the police are leading to the greater involvement of young black people in the criminal justice system but they cannot be recognised as discriminative behaviours. For example, the police tend to give priority and more effort into certain crime categories and some deprived areas, depending on local and central first concern. As a consequence, some criminals of ethnic groups and ethnic minority residences living in certain areas are inevitably more likely to come into contact with the
The first appearance of the notion of silence or lack of silence occurs at the first presence of the criminal justice system: the initial meeting with a police officer. During the War on Drugs, it became common for police officers to stop and frisk people, including those without suspicious behavior, in search of drug violations. Although, not against the law, the majority of people do not know that they have the option of declining such a search and refuse to answer any questions. Professor Tracey Maclin conducted a study regarding this phenomenon concluding, “the overwhelming majority of people who are confronted by police and asked questions respond, and when asked to be searched, they comply. This is the case even among those… who have every reason to resist these tactics because they actually have something to hide” (Alexander 66). Therefore, the finding suggests that only a few people do not fear a supposed consequence of not abiding by a police officer’s request. Hence, people remain silent and do n...
In 1990, there was a total of 2,245 murders in New York, but over the past nine years, this total has been less than 600 (NYCLU). However, there has not been evident proof that the stop-and-frisk procedure is the reason of the declination of the crime rate. Indeed, stop-and-frisk contributes to some downturn of crime but the number is not high enough for the citizen and police to rely on. Specifically, only 3% of 2.4 million stops result in conviction. Some 2% of those arrests – or 0.1% of all stops – led to a conviction for a violent crime. Only 2% of arrests led to a conviction for possession of a weapon (Gabatt, A., 2013). In other words, the decrease in crime due to stop-and-frisk is mostly due to the discovery of possessed of weapons. Therefore, stop-and- frisk is not an effective procedure to use because it does not represent a huge impact in people’s safety (Gabatt, A., 2013). The author has done research about how police base their initiation towards the procedure of stop-and-frisk. Researchers have found that stop-and-frisk is a crime prevention strategy that gives a police officer the permission to stop a person based on “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity and frisk based on “reasonable suspicion” that the person is armed and dangerous. This controversy is mainly because of racial profiling. “Reasonable suspicion” was described by the court as “common sense” (Avdija, A., 2013). Although, the
Spalek and Imtoual (2007) state that in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 and the following of subsequent terrorist attacks in the UK and Europe, there has been a shift of focus on black minorities to Asian minorities and as a result there has been an increased surveillance amongst Asian and Muslim minority groups. Since the year 2000, numerous contemporary anti-terror laws have been instated the law affecting minority groups the most being most influential the Terrorism Act 2000. The Terrorism Act 2000 affected minority groups by enhancing police powers to investigate terrorism, including wider stop and search powers, and the power to detain suspects after arrest for up to 14 days. (Spalek and Imtoual, 2007). As a result, statistics in Britain in 2002-2003, sugested that under counter-terrorism legislation, stop and searches carried out amongst Asian minorities increased by 302% in a year, in which Hare and Weinstein (2010, p.483) in their literary research on democracy, state that the Muslim Council of Britain claimed that the police are misusing their new enhanced powers and
Walker, S., & Katz, C. (2012). Police in America: An Introduction (8th Edition ed.). New York:
One discriminating practice used by police officers is racial profiling. This is the police practice of stopping, questioning, and searching potential criminal suspects in vehicles or on the street based solely on their racial appearance (Human Rights Watch, 2000). This type of profiling has contributed to racially disproportionate drug arrests, as well as, arrests for other crimes. It makes sense that the more individuals police stop, question and search, the more people they will find with reason for arrest. So, if the majority of these types of stop and frisk searches are done on a certain race then it makes sense that tha...
Allegations of being pulled over by the police for simply being of a minority are seen as propitious because they believe that “it’s absurd to look at who’s being stopped without looking at who’s speeding” (Donald, P1010). These individuals also believe that Benchmarks are inaccurate and unreliable, showing that it would be unclear how often police pull over a certain minority group. They also believe that some department stores “may have employees that racially profile there customers but it isn’t the way that our security are trained to seek out those attempting to shoplift” (Smith, P1) Also, they believe that crime rates in high crime areas have lowered because of the stop and frisk policy. “Our crime strategies and tools – have made New York City the safest big city in America”. This shows that this side of the racial profiling argument believes that racial profiling
Police Behavior during Traffic and Street Stops. 2011 . Retrieved November 18, 2013 from: http://www.bjs.gov/index.
Since the Jack the Ripper case, solving crimes has changed a lot. Jack the Ripper was the biggest crime London had encountered(1).Due to the lack of proper police reinforcement Jacks murders were easy to get away with compared to how it is now(2). In this essay I will analyse how much impact the Jack the Ripper case had on investigative policing.
Even before the stop are made (add comma after made?) cops watch possible suspects of any suspicious activity even without any legal right. “Plainclothes officers known as “rakers” were dispatched into ethnic communities, where they eavesdropped on conversations and wrote daily reports on what they heard, often without any allegation of criminal wrong doing.” (NYPD Racial Profiling 1) This quote explains how even before a citizen is officially stopped by a cop, there are times when that they have already had their personal conversations assessed without their knowledge or without them having done any wrong acts. It was done, based solely on their ethnicity and social status alone. (you can add an example of what the people, who were being watched, were doing) Then (comma?) when police are out watching the streets, they proceed to stop people again simply based on racial profiling. In an article called Watching Certain People by Bob Herbert, stated that “not only are most of the people innocent but a vast majority are either black or Hispanic” (Herbert 1). Racism is happening before the suspect even gets a chance to explain themselves or be accused of any crime, and the rules of being able to do such a thing are becoming even more lenient so that police are able to perform such actions. “The rule requiring police to
Profiling could be a very controversial subject due to the fact that people assume that the police officers have an entitlement to stop and search only people that they believe have committed, or are about to commit a crime. The prevention aspect of profiling people seems to threaten society’s Fourth Amendment, and to justify what Americans call a warrantless search. The Fourth is designed to “protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by police officers.” (194) Statics show that one in three African men will serve time in prison if this trend was to continue. In addition, there are even more worries when it comes to racial profiling. The worries about racial profiling are that any profiling based on a person race may create a problem in society, this racism may lead to the abuse and unfair treatment of
Stop and frisk-allowed law enforcement officers to stop and search a person suspected of digital-related weapons based on reasonable suspicion (Pollitt, 2002)
Minorities are unfairly targeted. To give a particularly striking example, one Florida city’s “stop and frisk” policy has been explicitly aimed at all black men. Since 2008, this has led to 99,980 stops which did not produce an arrest in a city with a population of just 110,000. One man alone was stopped 258 times at his job in four years, and arrested for trespassing while working on 62 occasions. Failure to address this issue communicates to police that minorities are a safe target for abuse.
According to Grewal the data stated, “Black people in Brampton and Mississauga are three time more likely to be stopped by Peel police that white people”. Furthermore, Grewal reveals, “Black people made up 9% of Brampton and Mississauga’s population, but accounted for 21% of police street check. While Whites made of 41% of the population and accounted for 28% of the street checks”. This data analysis again reveals significant disparities in the way in which Blacks and Whites are treated by law enforcement officers. The data shows an excessive number of Blacks were stop and checked. According to Bob Mullaly (2010), the oppression of minorities happens because it favors the ruling group, in society. It seek to uphold mainstream views that racialized groups are in subordination to white supremacy (p. 41). Not only are blacks open to the increase of street check by police but their communities are also