Racial Discrimination: Unconstitutional Or Not?

Racial profiling is a very prevalent issue within the criminal justice system that is quite controversial, but there is a significant number of evidence that shows that racial profiling has been present since the 1600’s and continues to be a significant issue. Racial profiling is evident in the criminal justice system in various ways such as in interrogations, jury selection, misleading statistics, stops, and immigration laws. Racial profiling within interrogations and jury selection can be seen with the Brandley v. Keeshan case. Racial profiling within statistics can be seen in instances where the numbers focus on arrests and incarcerations that do not necessarily mean a crime was committed. Stops are seen as evidence showing racial profiling with a personal experience, and lastly, immigration laws are seen as showing racial profiling by the encounter of a Mexican American women had with an officer in Arizona.

Racial profiling is simply, “the unlawful police practice of using race, color, or ethnic background, as the reason for conducting a traffic stop on an individual.” (Michigan Civil Rights Commission) This definition can be extended to any kind of discrimination mainly based on myths and stereotypes towards a certain race or ethnicity. However, the term racial profiling is commonly used when a police officer or any other law enforcer stops, questions, searches or arrests an individual purely on the basis of their race. African Americans or simply blacks have been the major racial group that has suffered much of racial profiling. Much of this is based on the stereotypes against the blacks are perceived as more likely to engage in criminal activities. For instance, in a 2013 Racial Profiling Data from Ferguson Police Department, out of 5384 police stops, 4632 were against blacks. (Ferguson Police Dept. 1) Despite the low population of blacks in U.S. compared to other races, the former continues being subjected to more racial profiling. Racial profiling against African Americans continues to expose the blacks to humiliation and racial injustices, as this paper will expose, thereby calling for the responsible authorities to address and find solutions for the problem.

Every day people walk down the street of New York wondering if they are going to be stopped. Paul Butler a law professor at Georgetown University and a former United States Department of Justice prosecutor says that “the problem with stop and frisk is not only that it makes the citizens of New York less free, it also makes them less safe” (Butler, 2012). This brings the feeling of the people in New York to light, as they feel like they are less than others and less free with the ability to them being stopped and searched whenever an officer has a suspicion. Not all officers have the right sense in mind when it comes to their suspicion about someone, because “according to the analysis, just 1.5% of all stop-and-frisk arrests resulted in a jail or prison sentence. Just one in 50 stop-and-frisk arrests, 0.1%, led to a conviction for a violent crime or possession of a weapon. Close to half of all stop-and-frisk arrests did not result in a conviction” (Lee, 2013). The percentages show that officers’ suspicions aren’t always correct and that they may use their own stereotype about someone when they stop and frisk. This policy is ineffective because they don’t have a 100 percent on catching people, and many times officers’ own opinions on someone gets in the way. This policy is kept around for the little percentage it has worked and to give the officers an option to do a stop and frisk if they feel necessary. If this policy

Racial disparity in the Criminal Justice system has been a issue of discussion in our law enforcement for years. Statistics say the likelihood of imprisonment in a lifetime is 1 in 3 black men, 1 in 6 Latino men and 1 in 17 white men. (Bonczar2003) The search and seizure 4th amendment was passed in 1789 which was supposed to protect all persons of unreasonable searches, etc. In 1944 Gunner Myrdal wrote “it’s part of a policeman’s philosophy that Negro criminals or suspects that show any sign of insubordination should be punished bodily, to keep the negro in his place.” In the late 1960’s early 70’s there were many riot commissions that recommended changes in police practices, especially aggressive stop-and-risk procedures.(Skolnick1969) Racial disparities have been an issue for years, especially in traffic stops. There are a couple different approaches to help reduce or end racial profiling. The ACLU’s 5 part battle plan to end racial profiling (Harris2003), and The Racial Justice Improvement project (ABA2010). Racial profiling is an issue in many aspects of the Criminal Justice system. This paper will mainly be based on traffic stops and in sentencing.

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.

Eighty-seven percent of stops in 2012, were Black and Hispanic people. Compare that percentage to the amount of water on Earth, only seventy percent. Now, imagine eighty-seven percent water covering the Earth. That would make the world unbalanced and difficult to live in, which is how life is for the minorities impacted by Stop and Frisk. One of the most debated and controversial topics in New York City is the Stop and Frisk policy, and the impact it has on police, Latinos, and African Americans. Stop and Frisk fails to promote justice and equitable society because it creates a society where one group is lesser than another. The Stop and Frisk policy was created in Ohio, 1968, because of the a Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio (US Courts).

“There’s no evidence that the stop-and-frisk is lowering or suppressing homicide rates in NYC. Murders have dropped steadily in 1990,” says Chris Dunn, spokesperson for the NYCLU. He’s saying that stop and frisks have nothing to do with the drop in homicides, statistics show that in 2002 97,296 people were stopped and there were 587 homicides, the numbers in 2012 were 685,724 and 532. With almost a 600% increase in stops there is no reason that we should only have 55 less homicides. There is a reason though; police are stopping people simply because they’re a minority. Or perhaps it’s because they are wearing a hoodie in the summer or shorts in the winter, which is cause for reasonable suspicion. This leads to distrust for law

The stop, question, and frisk policy was implemented in the NYPD in an effort to make the city a safer place. With weapons becoming more easily accessible than ever, they are becoming more of a problem, and officers and the general public are now in more danger than ever of being killed by a firearm, knife, or a weapon. Although the policy is intended to prevent harm and protect society, it has been under major scrutiny in not only the past few years, but also the past few decades as well. Due to the fact that minorities are believed to be the main target of this policing tactic, many people have argued it is inherently corrupt should be abolished. On the other hand, it has shown to provide some positive outcomes and as a result, it is a necessary

The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop and frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino. In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times. 605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent). 350,743 were black (53 percent). 223,740

Introduction As Americans, we are entitled to our freedoms. So, hearing the term Stop and Frisk gives the American people mixed feelings. Stop and Frisk has become a hot topic since all it takes to get Stopped and Frisked is reasonable suspicion. While the people being stopped in New York may see it as inconvenience, other bystanders see it as an extra safety precaution to keep them, their friends, and their family safe. For some people, they want to know if Stop and Frisk is constitutional, influenced by race, and why it was instated.

The black or white, either-or and this or that misconceptions that are common in conversations with children seems to be arising over the Stop and Frisk Law in New York City. It has long been an issue of debate over whether it is a form of practicing racial profiling since its implementation. Arguments between advocates and critics of the law appear to be so incompatible that people are simply taking sides rather than trying to push the discussion forward. Frankly, supporters and protestors of the practice have established their opinions with incomplete information and lack of adequate critical reasoning. While those in favor have failed to admit to the apparent existence of racial profiling, those who are against the law only focus on racial profiling and do not participate in the broader discussion of whether or not it actually brings safety to the city. The conversation might be able to move forward if both sides were to emphasize on the most crucial issue of whether safety trumps civil rights.

Racial profiling is an example of police brutality, which is defined by Gross and Livingston (2002) as “the practice of some officers of stopping motorists of certain racial or ethnic groups because the officer believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crimes” (p.1413). Therefore, individuals are treated unfairly by law enforcement solely based on their race. This type of mistreatment is unmerited and ultimately a violation of an individual’s rights. However, in many instances the courts do not find it a violation of their civil rights based on the fact that racial profiling is difficult to prove. Often, prosecutors are disinclined in bringing forth a case against officers on this particular matter. Officers are permitted to stop and search individuals and their vehicles whenever there is reasonable suspicion, however, there has been studies that prove that some law enforcement officers restrict these rights primarily to minority groups. Bowling and Phillips found that although there was no formal monitoring of use of these powers, it was concluded that it was particularly heavy use of these powers against ethnic minorities, largely of young black people (as cited in Sharp & Atherton, 2007, p. 747) . In several cases, officers argue that they reasonably pulled an individual over for other probable grounds such as: traffic violations, suspicious behavior, etc., with race never being an

“One. The police stop blacks and Latinos at rates that are much higher than whites. In New York City, where people of color make up about half of the population, 80% of the NYPD stops were of blacks and Latinos. When whites were stopped, only 8% were frisked (Quigley, 2010).” Police stops are a very common effect on society. It isn’t fair that police don’t hold everyone accountable the same way. Not every cop is that way but there are that selected few who still have that racist mindset and hold it against innocent people. It’s no secret that in New York especially, there is a lot of crime and gang activity produced by different minority groups in the city. However, The facts does not provide a good reason that in routine stops are people of color targeted and frisked down compared to

04). For example, arrests and penalties for less serious crimes like spray-painting graffiti, breaking windows, and littering keeps the landscape clean and orderly and does not allow for an environment conducive to further criminal acts. Eliminating these lesser gateway crimes performs as a deterrent to the commission of major criminal offenses. These strategies produce both positive and negative results. Positive results include the possibility that the apprehension and punishment of a youthful offender will dissuade advancement to more serious criminal activities. It also encourages citizens to come together with local officials and police departments to improve the condition of their communities. In contrast, critics of the policing tactics produced from this theory charge that it often results in aggressive over-policing of communities populated by minorities, inciting individual harassment generated by racial and socioeconomic profiling, thereby producing police brutality. The Stop and Frisk policy is a good example of this. The policy allows officers to detain an individual and frisk them without cause. It is further asserted that arresting people for these small crimes leads to an overload of the criminal justice system (including the prison population), burdens the underprivileged with imposed fees and fines, and adversely affects public relations between law enforcement officers and the communities they have sworn to protect and

Not enough is being done with these discriminatory and fruitless actions. Stop-and-Frisk does not appear necessary to decrease crime rates in urban areas or make them safer places. Data has shown that “violent crimes fell twenty-nine percent