Stop and Frisk is a very hot topic among many New Yorkers and Americans. Its constitutionality is debated by many from both sides of the political spectrum. Stop and Frisk is statistically proven to be more helpful than hurtful to New York City, and it should not only be encouraged in NYC but adopted by police forces across the state. The broken window theory is the theory that if you leave a car with a broken window in any town, good or bad, it will end up a total wreck in weeks, however a car with all its windows intact in the same neighborhood, is much less likely to be touched. This metaphor was used to convey that if the police don't enforce minor laws, major laws are more likely to be broken. Stop and frisk in New York City made the crime rate plummet. Before stop and frisk was implemented, New York had 527,257 victims of “serious crimes”(NYCLU.org). In 2011, the height of stops made by police, there were 106,064 serious crime victims (NYCLU.org). This massive drop in stops by police is due to opponents of stop and frisk purporting that it is unconstitutional, and promotes racial profiling. Stop and Frisk was used by the NYPD in the early 2000s, based off of the “broken window theory” and implemented by then mayor Rudy Giuliani. Stop and Frisk was not designed to make arrests as its primary function. Its primary function is to scare would-be criminals out of carrying drugs or guns. In fact, 9 in 10 New Yorkers stopped and frisked are totally innocent. In 1990, the
“"Stop and frisk" is a practice that permits a police officer to stop any individual if the officer has reason to believe "criminal activity may be afoot"” (Fallon, 2013, p. 321). There are many cases that ruled in favor
In the 1990s, the growth of violent crime reached its all-time high. In reply to the number of high murder rates in 1990, the New York City Police Department realized that whatever they are doing to reduce violent was not working. The local news reported that New Yorkers were afraid to wear their jewelry in public. Some New Yorkers reported that they sprint to the subway exit to avoid victimization when the door opened. The New York City Police Department decided to implement a practice of Stop, Question, and Frisk. This law became to know as the Stop -and- Frisk (Bellin, 2014). Stop-and Frisk” was a method that was implemented by the New York City Police Department in which an officer stops a pedestrian and asked them a question, and then frisks them for any weapon or contraband (Rengifo & Slocum, 2016). By the last 1990, Stop-and Frisk became a common practice implemented by New York City Police Department (Bellin, 2014).
The stop and frisk policy came about many years ago. The stop and frisk is used for protection for the officer or officers. An officer can stop a suspect and frisk him/her for weapons, contraband or any other items if the officer feels any other suspicion. A Stop and Frisk do not require a warrant. This practice is very common now days, but similar procedures to stop and frisk policy started in the 1980s. According to Clark (2015), the earliest origins of stop and frisk were used in 1994 by Street Crime Unit to prevent the carrying of illegal guns in well-known hot spots and areas with high crime rates. The crime rates decreased over time, but it caused another issue in the communities.
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
The New York Police Department's stop and frisk has been around for several years and people recently have been taking action about it but this is a very important and useful practice that officer conduct on a daily base, police officer are doing the right thing especially if neighborhoods are known for criminal or violent activities then these people should be stopped, questioned and frisked, from January to June of 2013 the NYPD's report shows that African American and Hispanics are more active to commit crimes like robbery, rape, murder and manslaughter, felonious assault, grand larceny, misdemeanor sex crime, misdemeanor assault, petit larceny, criminal mischief, shootings, procession of drugs, firearms, and other illegal substance overall blacks and latinos being targeted not only because what they are wearing or how they but also cause of what the numbers show us. The new soon to be Major of New York Bill de Blasio has said that he is against the stop and frisk but many officers say that taking away the stop and frisk will increase crime tremendously, people are going to start to walk around with weapons, the whole point about the stop and frisk and why police officers conduct it many times is because they want the public to see that anyone can be patted down meaning that if they carry weapons with them then they will get arrested. Bill de Blasio has also said
The NYPD’s stop and frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Departments own reports on its stop and frisk activity confirm what many people in
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).
The statistics show that to be an African American or Hispanic in New York you are more than twice as likely to get stopped as a white or Asian person. Studies of reports show that 15,000 or 30% of stops are deemed unconstitutional; and those are just the ones that are reported, imagine all of those that go unreported. Imagine all of those people who were victimized just because of the color of their skin. The stop-and-frisk procedure was once a good thing that helped clean up the streets, but now it’s becoming an epidemic of racial profiling, and teaching racism and intolerance to anyone who is a victim or witness of these stops.
There should not be people who abuse their power through the law; however, in New York City (NYC) cops are using their authority in a negative way. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, 2009 to 2013, implemented a policy called stop and frisk where the New York City Police Department (NYPD) has the right to question and search anybody who looks suspicious. Because of this act in NYC, many men and women, especially of color, have protested against the policy. In addition, the Pierce County Tribune’s article “Stop and Frisk Practice Ethically, Morally Wrong” by Bryce Berginski argues that stop and frisk violates the fourth and fourteenth amendment. Stop and Frisk is an ineffective policy because it allows police officers to abuse their power and violates
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
When thinking about stop and frisks, their goal may be to lower fear and ensure quality of life, while also trying to combat crime and maintain order, but the data surrounding its use tends to paint a different picture. The point of stop and frisk is to try to prevent crime before it can even occur, while trying to ensure the safety of the community members; however, with how the police tends to utilize the discretion of its use, it seems to me, as well as many people in communities across the nation, that the technique is flawed in too many ways. This technique is linked to racial profiling and the victimizing of minority communities, primarily African Americans and Latinos, which increases fear in communities. This issue coupled with their goal to try to focus on crime prevention minimizes its success. Furthermore, I grew up hearing this phrase very often: “great on paper but, when implemented, not so much.” This relates too well with the use of stop and frisk, as the technique may seem great in theory, where it tries to accomplish a broad group of goals, crime prevention, order, fear reduction and quality of life, but it does not accomplish it. It ends up being relatively narrow, where it can only be crime focused.
The policy of New York Police Department‘s (NYPD) stop question and frisk for some time been a highly controversial situation of policing under Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Commissioner Raymond Kelly administration. This administration praised the stop and frisk policy as a valuable resource to the City‘s successful mitigation in reducing violent crime. A resource to removing guns from the streets as well improving the quality of life for the communities that are most affected by those
stop and frisk is the practice of when a police man has the right to stop and search anybody not matter what race they are base on their instinct. stop and frisk was made legal in new york state. stop and frisk made headline news, of the way the people of new york are been protected. for the first few months it sounded like a good idea, because nobody knew what people around them are carrying, if they look suspicious the new york state police have the right to stop them. later on the citizen of new york started to see a pardon on the race group the new york state police pick on the most, the new york state police mostly target hispanic, arabic and black. they target hispanic and black race because they think all black and hispanic
Stop and frisk practices may have helped reduce crime (Zimring, 2006), especially regarding robberies and burglaries (Smith & Purtell, 2008). This is a statistic that has been shown in many areas that stop and frisk has been used but the causality issue is present. Stop and frisk practices, in general, are not unconstitutional, but the way it has been utilized has been. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) supported an independent monitoring to overlook reforming stop and frisk for New York City (La Vigne, Nancy G., 2014).