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.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...0 stops, another ostensible reason for supporting stop frisks. This ineffective program continues to consume police time, tax payer dollars and leave minority youth their communities feeling oppressed by an agent of government that formerly was held in high esteem.
Reference
Dunn, C., (2012). Stop-and frisk, guns and the Supreme Court. New York Law Journal.
Retrieved from http://www.newyorklawjournal.com
Eterno, J. (2012). Policing by the numbers. New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2012). Crime statistics
Retrieved from http://www/fbi.com
Huffington post (2012). NYC stop and frisk.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com
New York Civil Liberties Union (2012). Stop-and-frisk campaign: About the issue.
Retrieved from http://www.nyclu.org/issues/raciall-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices
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.
Stop and Frisk is a practice that was put into play by which a police officer initiates a stop of an individual on the street supposedly based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity “Stop and frisk” and other discriminatory policing practices have spiraled out of control.
These stops included “harsh encounters in which physical violence, racial/ethnic degradation, and homophobia are commonplace”. What this does is create physical and emotional harm to those who are being violently frisked and searched even if they have no reason to be, especially Black or Latino males. The article had done a population based survey specifically in New York about young men's encounter with police officers. The results were that those who had higher levels of anxiety, trauma symptoms, and signs of PTSD were the ones who had been stopped by police multiple times. However, the article also mentions that it could also be because they may be exaggerating the experience they had. The individuals could also have “attracted greater reasonable suspicion or responded to police questioning in ways that escalated their situations”. Even though these could be factors as to why they had such a high negative experience we also need to remember not all of them could be the same and should still be taken
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
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...
Racial profiling in the dictionary is “the assumption of criminality among ethnic groups: the alleged policy of some police to attribute criminal intentions to members of some ethnic groups and to stop and question them in disproportionate numbers without probable cause (“Racial Profiling”).” In other words racial profiling is making assumptions that certain individuals are more likely to be involved in misconduct or criminal activity based on that individual’s race or ethnicity. Racial profiling propels a brutalizing message to citizens of the United States that they are pre-judged by the color of their skin rather than who they are and this then leads to assumptions of ruthlessness inside the American criminal justice system. With race-based assumptions in the law enforcement system a “lose-lose” situation is created due to America’s diverse democracy and destroys the ability to keep the criminal justice system just and fair. Although most police officers perform their duties with fairness, honor, and dedication, the few officers who portray to be biased then harm the whole justice system resulting in the general public stereotyping every law enforcement officer as a racial profiler (Fact Sheet Racial Profiling). When thinking about racial profiling many people automatically think it happens only to blacks but sadly this is mistaken for far more ethnic groups and races such as Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, Native Americans, and many more are racially profiled on a day to day basis. Many people believe racial profiling to be a myth because they see it as police officers merely taking precautions of preventing a crime before it happens, but in reality racial profiling has just become an approved term for discrimination and unjust actio...
According to Dr. Carl S. Taylor, the relationship between minority groups and police in the United States has historically been strained. Some cities have a deep and bitter history of bias and prejudice interwoven in their past relationships. The feeling in many communities today is that the system pits law enforcement as an occupying army versus the neighborhood. Dr. Taylor wrote about easing tensions between police and minorities, but stated “If there is any good news in the current situation, it is that the history of this strain has found the 1990’s ripe for change.
First of all, stop and frisk is an act of racism. Stop and Frisk is a great evidence of an ineffective policy which, under the guise of
Although some would believe that racial profiling does not occur and if it does it is used to keep the society safe, it is more correct to say that it disrespects and mistreats innocent citizens. More and more people are being stopped each year for crimes they did not commit and being singled out because of their race. Being racially profiled, harassed and mistreated is something that Latinos, Asians and African Americans go through every day. I believe that people should not be stopped and judged because of physical appearance. This is something that takes away ones individual’s rights and is very disrespectful.
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.
Despite the fact racism has been around for hundreds of years, upcoming generations are becoming more open minded and less likely to publicly berate minorities; racial profiling, however, is the one loophole of racism America overlooks. Police officials often use the practices of racial profiling to discretely single out minority races. A common approach to this is through traffic patrols. According to a statistic based in San Jose, CA, nearly 100,000 drivers were stopped; during the year ending in June 2000; and of these drivers less than 32% were white, the remaining 68% of drivers were a... ... middle of paper ... ...
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.
Officers are trained and taught different polices that require them not to be biased towards any gender or race. Such officers include Sunil Dutta, if you don’t want to get shot, tasted pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you.” (Dutta) uses policies to their advantage. Lack of African-American officers, mainly in communities with citizens of color, can lead to an inquiry that there is a bias in law enforcement agencies and their policies. With recent events in the news displaying the misconduct of officers in an African-American communities like, in July of 2014, where the death of Eric Garner because of “chokehold” by a police officer hit home for many African-Americans and made them question the legislative decisions on policies causing a distrust and lack of confidence within the police departments, shying away citizens from