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 of the biggest reason stop-and-frisk should be abolished is in hopes to decrease such blatant racial profiling that has been going on under the name of “stop-and-frisk”. In 2007, 55% of the people stopped in New York were blacks and 30% were Hispanic (“Update: Crime and Race”). When checked again in 2011 a total of 685,000 people were stopped by the police of that 685,000, 52.9% were African Americans, 33.7% were Latino, and 9.3% were white (“Racial Profiling”). There is a story of an innocent victim of the stop-and-frisk policy, a man by the name of Robert Taylor. Police in Torrance stopped the elderly man and claimed he fit the description of a suspect that was linked to a robbery. But there was one simple problem; Taylor is a light complexioned, tall, 60 year-old man and the suspect was believed to be a short, dark complexioned, stocky man in his thirties; nothing like Taylor at all (Hutchinson). His shows that the police do not always stop people based on the right reasons, they tend to stop people based on the color of thei... ... middle of paper ... .... Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "California Police Stop Proves Racial Profiling Is Alive and Well." 2010. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Mac Donald, Heather. "Stop the Killing, Keep "Stop-and-Frisk"" City-Journal. N.p., 23 July 2012. Web. 08 Nov. 2013. "Racial Profiling." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 3 Sept. 2012. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. "Stop and Frisk." Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 9. Detroit: Gale, 2010. 391-392. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Sullum, Jacob. "When policing becomes harassment: why the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program is unconstitutional." Reason July 2013: 8. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. "Update: Crime and Race." Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 25 May 2007. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
Some issues with stop and frisk in some parts of New York they have to have practice of stop and frisk and there are some people have issues about it because they are ignoring the people's right of the
People of color are being pursued on the highways in the land of the free. In Bob Herbert’s “Hounding the innocent” acts of racial profiling are displayed flagrantly. Racial profiling should be illegal, since it is unfair to its victims, demoralizing, and it breaks the trust between the public and the police.
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
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).
Toby, Jackson. “Racial Profiling Doesn’t Prove Cops are Racist.” Wall Street Journal (March 1999). N. pag. Online. AT&T Worldnet. Internet. 30 Nov 2000. Available: www.frontpagemag.com/archives/racerelations/toby3-11-99.htm
“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...
Before any argument can be made against racial profiling, it is important to understand what racial profiling is. The American Civil Liberties Union, defines racial profiling as "the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin"(Racial Profiling: Definition). Using this definition we can determine that racial profiling excludes any evidence of wrong-doing and relies solely on the characteristics listed above. We can also see that racial profiling is different from criminal profiling, which uses evidence of wrong-doing and facts which can include information obtained from outside sources and evidence gathered from investigation. Based on these definitions, I will show that racial profiling is unfair and ineffective because it relies on stereotyping, encourages discrimination, and in many cases can be circumvented.
Every day you see and hear about minorities groups complain about cops and their tactics against them stopping them while in traffic taking them in to custody or even getting kill over nothing. Racial Profiling is a common thing in this community and it is causing a lot of trouble. According to Minnesota House of Representatives analyst Jim Cleary, "there appear to be at least two clearly distinguishable definitions of the term 'racial profiling ': a narrow definition and a broad definition... Under the narrow definition, racial profiling occurs when a police officer stops, questions, arrests, and/or searches someone solely on the basis of the person 's race or ethnicity... Some ways to stop it is find out who is guilty of it, look at their
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.
Racial tension has been a part of America ever since the Civil War. Today we have a different issue with race, which is called racial profiling. Over the years, the relationship between the police and community of color has gone bitterly racial profiling. America’s society today tends to be tainted by racial profiling and stereotypes. These issues can have great effects on our society.
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.
Stop-and-frisk has been a contentious police practice since first approved by the Supreme Court in 1968. In Floyd v City of New York, the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices violate both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In New York City, stop-and-frisk practices have generated strong debate on the wisdom and legality of these procedures. From January 2004 through June 2012, the New York City Police Department made 4.4 million pedestrian stops, of which over 80 percent were African Americans or Latinos (Rudovsky & Rosenthal 2013). More than half of those stopped were also subjected to a frisk (Rudovsky & Rosenthal 2013). The number of stops per year rose sharply from 314,000 in 2004 to a high of 686,000 in 2011. 52 percent of all stops were followed by a protective frisk for weapons; a weapon was found in only 1.5 percent of these frisks (Rudovsky & Rosenthal 2013). 8 percent of all stops led to a search into the stopped person’s clothing because the officer felt an object during the frisk that he either suspected to be a weapon or immediately perceived to be other contraband. In 9 percent of these searches, the object was a weapon. 6 percent of all 4.4 million stops resulted in an arrest; 6 percent resulted in a summons. The remaining 88 percent resulted in no further law enforcement action. The officer used force in 23 percent of the stops of Blacks, in 24 percent of Hispanics, and in 17 percent of the stops in Whites. Weapons were seized in 1 percent of the stops of Blacks, 1.1 of the stops in Hispanics and 1.4 percent of the stops of Whites. Contraband other than weapons was seized in 1.8 percent of the stops of Blacks, in 1.7 percent of the stops of...
tactics used in the world. Sometimes even though it may look like there was a reduction in crime, it is not always clear on if there was a sole explanation to an overall decrease in crime or if there were multiple justifications for the decline. In the case of stop and frisks, at least in New York City, the negatives outweigh the positives. “The New York City policy of aggressive stops and frisks had an extremely negative impact on its principle targets” which have “major implications for crime reduction.” (109) Those implications being the legitimacy of the criminal justice system itself.
The U.S Census Bureau reports that over 13 percent of the total population were African American, 17 percent are Hispanic, and 61 percent are White. My report will center around police stops and searches. In recent years, the two common ways of police searching of citizens that were not involved in a crime are traffic stops and random searches known as Stop & Frisk. My reason for choosing this topic is to highlight facts that led to the inconsistencies in arrest rates among ethic groups demographically.
In the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York ruled in David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis, and David Ourlicht, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly stated v. The City Of New York (2013), the rights of law enforcement to cease and desist the practices of “Stop-and-Frisk”. This practice was credited by Mayor Bloomberg for having a strong reduction in the amount of crime in New York City but at a cost of violating the 4th amendment rights of citizens but also especially against