The New York City Police Department has a successful, but highly controversial street crime policy called “Stop, question, and frisk” which allows an officer to check a citizen if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” of illegal activity . The drop in crime in New York City in the past two decades is largely credited to this policy; however, many citizens claim this policy to be a violation of privacy and rights. Another controversial topic related to the “Stop, question, and frisk” policy is racial profiling. In my opinion, the NYPD’s street crime policy yields positive results and the department does not racially profile when stopping individuals. I also believe that the violation of privacy varies from case to case therefore making a conclusion on that subject to be difficult.
According
to nymag.com, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne claims that between 7,000-8,000 guns
have been confiscated due to stop, question, and frisk tactics. This positive
result is beneficial in preventing violent crimes because illegal weapons are
removed from the streets reducing the amount of options a criminal has in committing
a crime. Not only does removing weapons reduce murders and shootings, it also
reduces the amount of robberies and hold ups because without a gun, a criminal
poses less of threat. The amount of weapons removed from the streets of New York
City justifies the use of “Stop, question, and frisk” as a valid street crime
tactic.
Many
opponents of the “Stop, question, and frisk” tactic claim that the police stop
suspects based on their race. Blacks and
Hispanics, especially males, make up the majority of the stop and frisk cases. The
opponents find this to be a problem but they fail to compare the stop and frisk
statistics with the crimes committed by race statistics. In an fair world, the
percent of stop and frisk cases by race should match up with the percent of
crimes committed by that race. Based on nydailynews.com’s statistics, people who label the stop
and frisk tactics as racist are incorrect. During the first half of 2013, the
percent of people stopped by the NYPD who were black was 55%. However, of the
222 people who were arrested for shootings 70% of these people were black. The
numbers for Hispanics are relatively similar, 29% of the people stopped were
Hispanic, and 25% of shooters were Hispanic. I believe that this data refutes
the statement that the NYPD’s “Stop, question and frisk” tactic is based on
racial profiling.
I
believe that people who are following the law should not be concerned about the
stop and frisk tactic. If indeed the stopped citizen is doing nothing wrong,
then that person will be released and can continue on their way. The positive
aspect of the stop and frisk policy is that citizens have the mindset that they
can get caught doing illegal actions in the streets. With this mindset
implemented, citizens will choose not to carry an illegal gun or substance which
will improve the quality and safety of life in New York City’s streets. The NYPD’s
“Stop, question and frisk” policy is beneficial to the citizens of New York
City and does not deserve a lot of the criticism that the tactic receives.
Sources:
This piece is very well written. It reads clear from top to bottom with no distraction. The first and second paragraphs are very informative with good data. However there is one point that may or may not be incorrect. Based on my understanding and the definition I received from the American Civil Liberties Union, racial profiling is when cops or other law enforcement officials use race in decisions on when to attempt enforcement. Your first paragraph states that the NYPD does not racially profile when stopping individuals, however the whole basis of your third paragraph is that race should be used when deciding what individuals to stop. The evidence is contrary to your statements on the matter. The last paragraph sums up the piece well but the legitimacy of your data should be evaluated before writing it down. I apologize if this is harsh or if I’m beating a dead horse, I might even be wrong about the data but it wouldn’t hurt to go through your writings before publishing them and make sure the ideas make sense together and flow well (the second of which you did). Also the use of lots of statistics and numbers was useful and seems to be a part of your individual style.
ReplyDeleteThanks Christian, what I meant by the statistics is that the majority of suspects are African American which translates into the majority of the stopped people being African American. I think you may be inferring that the stops are random, but the truth is when they often occur its because the police officers receive a description of the suspect to look out for. If the majority of the suspects are black then the majority of the stops will be of black individuals.
ReplyDeleteGreat topic Denis, and great discussion with Christian. I confess, I thought the same thing Christian did as I was reading. Your argument implies that the NYPD does practice racial profiling - in its most literal sense - and that this approach is logical. Your response to Christian is important. Any explanation of the "Stop, Question, Frisk" law really needs to include a detailed explanation of the exact criteria that police consider before the "Stop" someone.
ReplyDeleteThis is an important topic, and I am glad you had the courage to address it. Similar to Will's post, this forces us to consider that very fine line that exists between authoritarian rule and personal liberty. This is an issue that Americans are forever destined to debate.
Thank you for including so much evidence. Although the logic of your argument is a bit skewed, the evidence you present makes your post a valuable one nonetheless.