Critical Thinking: Stop and Frisk

Introduction

Stop and frisk was a rule initiated by His Excellency the President of the United States of America with the aim of reducing crime rates in the cities. Under the policy, the New York police officers were granted the power to detain and search people to discern the illegal items or commodities they might be in possession of. The policy was aimed at firearms crimes as the rationale for the policies use. It was mainly aimed at finding illegal firearms from the criminals; the President used the case study in New York City claiming that the policy is rational and it will reduce the crime rate. It worked on the context that, if one was found with any illegal material then he/ she would be arrested, tried in a court of law and if found guilty be jailed for carrying out criminal activity. The main target was searching for those who are in possession of deadly weapons and other illegal commodities. The paper provides a detailed description of the stop and frisk policy introduced in the USA and its impacts on the state of security and the citizens.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

A federal judge Shira A. Scheindlin, deemed the stop and frisk policy unconstitutional and discriminatory therefore was dropped by the court of law but was challenged by some the city rulers and brought back by the President (Ridgeway & Greg, 687). He argued that it was going to be effective in reducing crime rates in America and gave case studies of its implementation in New York City and became successful. Most citizens were against the rule as they claimed that it was humiliating. The police officers were not fair in action and its said that they had their agendas in carrying out the policy. The law was even against the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution which fought against unreasonable searches as was done by the policemen. The search leads to social profiling of given minority groups in America.

The broader lapse observed in the policy is that it affected profoundly one community of given color. Statistics have it that the policy was mainly aimed at people of black color and other minority groups like Hispanics. According to the study done by NYCLU, it was found that half of the criminals detained comprised of the black and a third included Latino. A federal judge called for a release of data by NYPD of the stop and frisk policy on a quarterly basis. It was to determine the frequency of the race that was most targeted because he felt that it was the blacks who were mostly mistreated by the law. The unfair mistreat even confirmed by a junior officer who was told to target the blacks and the Hispanics more in the search mission (Chu, ChinChih, et al. 113). Mr. Michael Bloomberg also confirmed the same unfair treatment of the blacks in 2013 in the radio interview. Such a statement ought not to have come from a leader who was yet to rule the same people he contradicts. He claimed that the young nonwhite men committed most of the crimes; this is a discriminatory statement.

De Blasio while still an advocate, released a report showing that the stop of the whites was twice likely to result in the discovery of illegal items as compared to the blacks. According to the report, most people were innocent, but the whites were more likely found to breaking the laws concerning possession of illegal weapons. The policy can be implemented in a way that reduces crime and discrimination only if the rule is formulated once more to be impartial to all.

The police officers as the custodians to the law should practice the policy in a fair and universal way that do not target a given group. Everyone should be stopped and frisked and if in case one is found with a weapon they should be reprimanded on the same ground. It is also upon the judiciary and the executive to closely check on the implementation of the rule. The policy should also follow the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches, and any policeman in contradiction should face the law accordingly. Besides, officers should conduct the frisking only when they are justified, and they should provide a report enlisting the weapons got from the person. Law enforcement executives should formulate policies that advocate for zero tolerance of police misconduct. The police officers in applying the rule should reach the most affected communities but not the innocent, and finally, the police officers should be trained to conduct the process peacefully and respectfully.

Generally, the application of the stop and frisk policy has not yielded to significant impacts in bringing back sanity in most of the communities where they were applied. However, some communities realized a slight change in safety due to the respectful methods the police applied. Unfortunately, later on, due to the police biasness in treating other groups of people, the policy became ineffective (Simmons & Kami 867). From the disrespectful ways in which the police officers treat people in SF, the policy is unlikely to succeed in eliminating the crimes in the city. Due, to the public outcry the SF government have got plans to eliminate the policy. Crime reduction is apparently as a result of other lawful tools and implementation procedures. It needs a well calculated, strict and continuous implementation of laws and policies in collaboration with all the stakeholders including the communities at the grassroots level.

Conclusion

In conclusion, stop and frisk policy has resulted in increased instances of racial profiling and mistreatments directed towards other groups of people. It has led to several problems than it was expected to solve. The policy has the potential of reducing the crime rates but only if it is practiced decently. Its application calls for equality in gender, race, and color on the people it applies to. The policy has led to vulnerabilities among minority groups such as the blacks and the Hispanics by being subjected to thorough frisk and apprehension with no evidence. Therefore, stop and frisk rule should be abandoned, but only applied at the particular circumstances where its required after validation.

Works Cited

Chu, ChinChih, et al. "Grounding Police Accountability and Performance in Context: A Comparative Study of Stop and Frisk between New York City and Taipei City." Public Administration & Development, vol. 36, no. 2, May 2016, pp. 108-120

Ridgeway, Greg. "Stop-And-Frisk Is Essential ... And Requires Restraint." Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, vol. 36, no. 3, Summer 2017, pp. 683-689.

Simmons, Kami Chavis. "The Legacy of Stop and Frisk: Addressing the Vestiges of a Violent Police Culture." Wake Forest Law Review, vol. 49, no. 3, Fall 2014, pp. 849-872.