The debate between Professors David Rudovsky from the University of Pennsylvania and Lawrence Rosenthal from Chapman University argue over the Constitutional aspects of stop and frisk. David Rudovsky holds Judge Shira Scheindlin to be correct in deciding that stop and frisk was discriminatory against blacks and Hispanics in the case of Floyd et al. v. City of New York. On the other hand, Lawrence Rosenthal argues against the case of Floyd, concluding the New York Police Department stops were based on reasonable suspicion.
David begins his argument by stating police have been given too broad of discretion in determining who should be stopped and frisked. The police were targeting citizens in high crime areas for reasons of vulnerability and
…show more content…
The New York Police Department officers patrol on foot to seek out low-level crimes. The crime rates being down also ensured that lives were being saved. Lawrence states that the homicide victimization rate was “58 per 100,000 for blacks, 44 for Hispanics, and 8 for whites” (Rosenthal 129). There is clear evidence to show that blacks and Hispanics are involved in homicide crimes more than five times as much as whites are. There is no discrimination present when the facts state certain races or ethnicities have higher crime rates. The New York Police Department reported blacks to be involved in shootings 74.1% of the time, while whites are involved in 2.8% of shootings (NYPD 130). The police are looking for certain people who are known to commit crimes over others. The Fourth Amendment is prevalent within stop and frisks because it protected citizens from being violated when searched. The Fourth Amendment includes the risk that innocent people may be frisked. The police are just doing their job while protecting themselves and others in the community when conducting a stop and frisk. Officers are required to fill out UF-250 forms after conducting a stop and frisk. A number of times New York Police Department officers have recorded that a stop was “apparently unjustified” was only 6% of the time (Rosenthal …show more content…
The Supreme Court ordered officers to conduct more stops to increase their UF-250 forms. Officers may not have been truthfully conducting stop and frisks based on reasonable suspicion if the number of stops increased by 7 times. David concludes that the officers were targeting young black and Hispanic men because they were involved in high crime groups.
“An effective stop-and-frisk strategy should not target the population at large, but rather, should be focused where it can do the most good, such as criminogenic hot spots” (Rosenthal 135).
Lawrence Rosenthal has the idea that officers are put in high crime areas to keep crime under control there. There is no discrimination taking place on race. Lawrence solely focused on the crime and where it is taking place. The presence of officers sent a message to the “hot spots” that they patrol in, to deter crime from happening and keep illegal contraband and weapons off the street.
“When it comes to the efficacy of stop-and-frisk, it is striking that Professor Rudovsky offers no alternate explanation for New York’s crime decline” (Rosenthal
Cop in the hood is a book about Peter Moskos experience as a police officer in the eastern district of Baltimore. First, as a sociologist at Harvard, he was very curious about the job of Policing. There is a lot of misconception and myth about the job so what a better way to learn than become one? His coworkers were at first wary of the Harvard liberal, expecting him to do a poor job due to being primarily concerned with his research. Police culture is naturally untrustworthy of outsiders as most citizens have no idea what the job is actually like.
The Stop and Frisk program, set by Terry vs. Ohio, is presently being implemented by the New York Police Department. It grants police officers the ability to stop a person, ask them questions and frisk if necessary. The ruling has been a NYPD instrument for a long time. However, recently it has produced a lot of controversy regarding the exasperating rate in which minorities, who regularly fall under assault and are irritated by the police. The Stop, Question and Frisk ruling should be implemented correctly by following Terry’s vs. Ohio guidelines which include: reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed, identifying himself as a police officer, and making reasonable inquiries.
Explain how the "Stop and Frisk" policies have changed and what role public opinion played in making these changes.
The judicial system in America has always endured much skepticism as to whether or not there is racial profiling amongst arrests. The stop and frisk policy of the NYPD has caused much controversy and publicity since being applied because of the clear racial disparity in stops. Now the question remains; Are cops being racially biased when choosing whom to stop or are they just targeting “high crime” neighborhoods, thus choosing minorities by default? This paper will examine the history behind stop and frisk policies. Along with referenced facts about the Stop and Frisk Policy, this paper will include and discuss methods and findings of my own personal field research.
Stop and Frisk is a procedure put into use by the New York Police Department that allows an officer to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they consider her or him to be. The NYPD don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. Officers solely need to regard you as “suspicious” to violate your fourth amendment rights without consequences. Since its Beginning, New York City’s stop and frisk program has brought in much controversy originating from the excessive rate of arrest. While the argument that Stop and Frisk violates an individual’s fourth amendment rights of protection from unreasonable search and seizure could definitely be said, that argument it’s similar to the argument of discrimination. An unfair number of Hispanics and
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
“From 2005 to mid-2008, approximately eighty percent of total stops made were of Blacks and Latinos, who comprise twenty-five percent and twenty-eight percent of New York City’s total population, respectively. During this same time period, only about ten percent of stops were of Whites, who comprise forty-four percent of the city’s population” (“Restoring a National Consensus”). Ray Kelly, appointed Police Commissioner by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, of New York in 2013, has not only accepted stop-and-frisk, a program that allows law enforcers to stop individuals and search them, but has multiplied its use. Kelly argued that New Yorkers of color, who have been unevenly targeted un...
The stop-and-frisk policy could be considered a big controversy facing New York in recent times. The whole concept behind this stopping-and-frisking is the police officer, with reasonable suspicion of some crime committed or about to be committed, stops a pedestrian, questions them, then if needed frisks the person. This policy started gaining public attention back in 1968 from the Terry v. Ohio case. A police officer saw the three men casing a store and he believed they were going to rob the store; this led to him stopping and frisking them. After frisking them, he found a pistol and took the weapon from the men. The men then cried foul and claimed they were unconstitutionally targeted and frisked.
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...
For the past few years there has been an ongoing debate surrounding the issue of racial profiling. The act of racial profiling may rest on the assumption that African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to commit crimes than any individual of other races or ethnicities. Both David Cole in the article "The Color of Justice" and William in the article "Road Rage" take stance on this issue and argue against it in order to make humanity aware of how erroneous it is to judge people without evidence. Although Cole and William were very successful in matters of showing situations and qualitative information about racial profiling in their articles, both of them fail at some points.
"The Supreme Court and Racial Profiling." National Motorists Association, n. d. Web. 4 Mar. 2014. .
This essay will bring to light the problem of racial profiling in the police force and propose the eradication of any discrimination. The Fourth Amendment states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Despite this right, multiple minorities across the country suffer at the hands of police officers through racial profiling; the singling out of a person or persons as the main suspect of a crime based on their race. Many people have also suffered the loss of a loved one because police believed the suspect to be a threat based on their races therefore the officers use their authority to take out the “threat”. Although racial profiling may make sense to police officers in the line of duty, through the eyes of the public and those affected by police actions, it is a form a racism that is not being confronted and is allowing unjust convictions and deaths.
Law Enforcement policy is designed to help law enforcement agencies cut down on the amount of crime in communities and give structure to the agency. It also helps lessen the number of certain cases in certain areas, as well as from a certain group of people. There are several policies that I disagree with, but there is one policy I will be discussing. Law enforcement officers sometimes stop and frisk people based on gender, race, financial status, and social ranking. It is a very controversial issue because anything dealing with race and ethnicity can cause a lot of disagreement and discord. According to a New York judge on dealing with the stop and frisk laws, "If you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don't you bring a lawsuit? You can certainly mark it as related . . . . I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit" (Carter, 2013, pp.4). The stop and frisk law is one reason I do not believe in law enforcement profiling. Even though some law enforcement officers allow personal feelings and power to allow them to not follow policy, some policies are not followed morally because I do not feel that officers should be allowed to frisk someone who is innocent and has not committed a crime because it takes the focus off real criminals and onto innocent people; it causes emotional stress. I know because I have been through this several times.
The stop and frisk program is a concept that has been employed in the New York City for some few decades not. The program was conceptualized after a careful consideration of the crime rates increasing in the city. As such its core function has been to promote a crime-free society within and in the city. However, the program has had mixed feeling from various stakeholders especially the civilians who have filed complaints with Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) against NYPD police officers.
In the Vancouver Aquarium, there are many aquatic animals that have been encaged for research purposes and entertainment. Some people may say animals have a right to life, and human have no right to interfere in their natural lives because they are living creatures just like us. However, Kant (239) suggests that “animals are not included in the moral community because they lack rational autonomy”. Based on this principle, in Kant’s view, disagrees having animal right that people do not have an obligation to treat animals as same as other human beings.