Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Excessive force by police
Excessive force by police
Conclusion about police use of force
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Excessive force by police
Did you know that Institutions throughout NYC are legally violating Black and Hispanic citizens civil rights? These circumstances are the result of the NYPD’s attempt to protect the greater good of NYC; Stop and Frisk is the policy that attempts to accomplish this matter at hand. Stop and Frisk constantly targets Black and Hispanic citizens, therefore it does not promote a just and equitable society due to it viewing these ethnicities as more likely to commit a crime. The origin of Stop and Frisk traces back to the Supreme Court case of Terry V. Ohio, which took place in 1968. Terry, an experienced plainclothes officer, stopped and frisked three suspicious men; one produced a gun with no permit. This Supreme Court case essentially claimed Stop and Frisk to be constitutional under the Fourth Amendment (PBS Newshour). Stop and Frisk can essentially limits the rights of certain individuals because it gives the NYPD permission to avoid the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The NYPD is given permission to stop and frisk an individual under the circumstances of probable cause: if an article or substance capable of causing serious physical injury or is not ordinarily carried in pubic places by law-biding persons is present and in plain view, or if the stop and frisk is supported by oath of affirmation (FindLaw). Stop and Frisk negatively impacts Black and Hispanic citizens in NYC because it promotes institutional racism.
The NYPD is promoting institutional racism through carrying out Stop and Frisk. Institutional Racism is policies, and procedures of institutions that have a disproportionately negative effect on racial minorities’ access to and quality of goods, services, a...
... middle of paper ...
...lice are specifically hunting them, which causes them to lose trust and faith in the people they are supposed to trust to protect them. This is a dangerous result as people wont rely on their police when in a situation that requires the NYPD’s help. None of these impacts of Stop and Frisk attribute to a just and equitable society. The way that the NYPD carries out Stop and Frisk results in a lack of fairness, equality, and justice in Black and Hispanic communities throughout NYC. One of the main causes of this phenomenon is that the police feel like they have superior power over these ethnic groups that are inferior; stemming from the police possessing the ability to violate people’s civil rights under the Fourth Amendment. With this evidence, many would agree that Stop and Frisk negatively affects Black and Hispanic citizens because it promotes institutional racism.
Many Latino and black New Yorkers are frisked and harassed because they look like criminals. Peggy McIntosh’s piece White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, describes the privileges white people get without realizing their advantage over others. Peggy talks about racism being a part of everyday life, even though we ignore it. Peggy’s main idea was to inform the readers that whites are taught to ignore the fact that they enjoy social privileges that people of color do not, because we live in a society of white dominance. Even though society has come a long way, it still has a longer way to go in improving social profiling.
The justice system is in place in America to protect its citizens, however in the case of blacks and some other minorities there are some practices that promote unfairness or wrongful doing towards these groups. Racial profiling is amongst these practices. In cases such as drug trafficking and other criminal acts, minorities have been picked out as the main culprits based off of skin color. In the article “Counterpoint: The Case Against Profiling” it recognizes racial profiling as a problem in America and states, “[In order to maintain national security] law-enforcement officers have detained members of minority groups in vehicles more than whites”…. “these officers assume that minorities commit more drug offenses, which is not the case” (Fauchon). In relationship to law enforcement there has also been many cases of police brutality leaving young blacks brutally injured, and even dead in recent years, cases such as Michael Brown, Dontre Hamilton, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and Freddy Gray just to name a few. Many of these young men were unarmed, and the police involved had no good justification for such excess force. They were seen as threats primarily because of their skin color. Despite the fact this nation is trying to attain security, inversely they are weakening bonds between many of its
Jim Crow policing is not a problem, the way certain cops are using it is becoming a problem in certain cities. A Witness of Jim Crow Policing and Racial Profiling, Bob Herbert, believes that the New York police department needs to be restrained due to his personal experiences. The author uses many examples to strengthen his argument in order to influence others to be against Jim Crow policing, yet throughout his article he lets his emotion show too much losing his credibility and straying from logic versus his opinion.
Institutional racism, maintains the unequal outcomes in the criminal justice system result from the practice, resides in the policies, procedures, operations and culture of public or private institutions – reinforcing individual prejudices and being reinforced by them in turn’(Sveinsson, n.d.). This approach was generated by the Macpherson report, Stephen Lawrence, a young black
Since Mayor Rudolph Giuliani first stepped into office in 1993, new rules and policies were implemented to bring change to the then corrupt and dangerous streets of New York City. Quality of life and zero-tolerance policing took in effect and with these new standards came a drastic drop in crime. Even with statistical reports and research about decreased crime rates, the stop and frisk policy of the NYPD has caused much controversy and debate over the issue of racial bias within the judicial system. In the late 1990s, popular, legal, and political concerns were raised across the U.S. about police harassment of minority groups in their everyday encounters with law enforcement. These concerns focused on the extent to which police were stopping people on the highways for “driving while black" (Gelman et al. 2004) Additional concerns were raised about racial bias in pedestrian stops of citizens by police predicated on “zero tolerance" policies to control quality of life crimes and aggressive policing strategies concentrated in minority communities that targeted illegal...
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
While the stop and frisk program ultimately seems like a great idea and that it will help residents of New York City feel safer while on the streets, there has been much controversy with this program. The issue of racial profiling is largely discussed when talking about NYPD’s stop and frisk program. Besides police officers targeting lower income neighborhoods, more stops are of African Americans or Latinos than of whites. These stops often end up with a higher arrest rate. Of the 685,784 stopped last year, 92% were male and 87% were African American or Latino (Devereaux, 2012).
Racial profiling is the tactic of stopping someone because of the color of his or her skin and a fleeting suspicion that the person is engaging in criminal behavior (Meeks, p. 4-5). This practice can be conducted with routine traffic stops, or can be completely random based on the car that is driven, the number of people in the car and the race of the driver and passengers. The practice of racial profiling may seem more prevalent in today’s society, but in reality has been a part of American culture since the days of slavery. According to Tracey Maclin, a professor at the Boston University School of Law, racial profiling is an old concept. The historical roots “can be traced to a time in early American society when court officials permitted constables and ordinary citizens the right to ‘take up’ all black persons seen ‘gadding abroad’ without their master’s permission” (Meeks, p. 5). Although slavery is long since gone, the frequency in which racial profiling takes place remains the same. However, because of our advanced electronic media, this issue has been brought to the American public’s attention.
“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...
This is the police practice of stopping, questioning, and searching for 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 a 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 that race would have a higher arrest rate.... ...
Institutional racism is defined in the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) as “the manifestation of racism in social systems and institutions. It is the social, economic, educational, and political forces or policies that operate to foster discriminatory outcomes. It is the combination of policies, practices, or procedures embedded in bureaucratic structure that systematically lead to unequal outcomes for groups of people”(2007). In other words, policy and practices intentionally or unintentionally favor one group or put a racial group at a
Many people claim that racism no longer exists; however, the minorities’ struggle with injustice is ubiquitous. Since there is a mass incarceration of African Americans, it is believed that African Americans are the cause of the severe increase of crimes. This belief has been sent out implicitly by the ruling class through the media. The media send out coded messages that are framed in abstract neutral language that play on white resentment that targets minorities. Disproportionate arrest is the result of racial disparities in the criminal justice system rather than disproportion in offenders. The disparities in the sentencing procedure are ascribed to racial discrimination. Because police officers are also biased, people of color are more likely to be investigated than whites. Police officers practice racial profiling to arrest African Americans under situations when they would not arrest white suspects, and they are more likely to stop African Americans and see them as suspicious (Alexander 150-176). In the “Anything Can Happen With Police Around”: Urban Youth Evaluate Strategies of Surveillance in Public Places,” Michelle Fine and her comrades were inspired to conduct a survey over one of the major social issues - how authority figures use a person’s racial identity as a key factor in determining how to enforce laws and how the surveillance is problematic in public space. Fine believes it is critical to draw attention to the reality in why African Americans are being arrested at a much higher rate. This article reflects the ongoing racial issue by focusing on the injustice in treatment by police officers and the youth of color who are victims. This article is successful in being persuasive about the ongoing racial iss...
Over the past centuries, Black community in Toronto have encountered and persisted violence and discriminations in many different ways. Racial profiling and carding are the two major roots of police brutality. Police officers often have biased perceptions and negative feelings about certain races. Carding can be defined as random police checks that target young African-Canadian men. Police might detain a driver for driving a specific type of vehicle or driving in certain areas that they have assumptions about. “This practice was a systematic violation of the rights of people in our communities, especially of racialized youth” (CBC ABC National, June 1, 2015). Carding results in police abusing their power which leads to assaults, shootings and death. However, police have said
Reports have shown very little benefits from these stops, only one out of 10 yield any wrongdoing and only 1% of the incidents involve a subject carrying a weapon.** Yet NYPD’s officers continue with the stops and spend less time fighting crimes and more time violating a civilian’s Fourth Amendment rights. According the video, not all NYPD’s police officers agree with the harassment and damage Mayor Bloomberg’s policy has caused young people and their families. They are not happy with how these stop-and-frisks have tarnished their image, prohibiting them from doing the real work of protecting people and keeping crime off the streets. Unfortunately, the officers interviewed in the video revealed the reasons why stop-and-frisk numbers are so high and talked about the pressure from their superiors to “make the quota.” They claim that they are asked to “hunt” to meet a numeric goal of stops or face retaliation and penalties. They are promised promotions to the next rank for high numbers or disciplinary action for those with low numbers. Many are fed up with the top down demands to fill their quotas but don’t want to rock the boat and fear filing a complaint about police practice or the system in general, would not be
In New York there is a law called the Stop and Frisk this law promotes racial profiling because police are to confront a person they believe to be suspicious in order to stop or prevent a crime ("Stop And Frisk"). This type of search is limited and does not require a warrant. ("Stop And Frisk"). The police will stop and pat you down to check for any weapons or drugs that may be on the person in question to help deter criminal activity ("Stop And Frisk"). This law has received a lot of backlash since being instated because it is believed that this law has violated the rights of minority groups. Between January 2004 and June 2012 4.4 million stops took place 83% of the stopped population were minorities while 80% of those stops required no further action (Makarechi).