New York Citys Stop and Frisk Policy - Term Paper Example

?New York s Stop and Frisk Policy Part The Stop and Frisk policy that was implemented in New York was done so under the assumption that it would work as the perfect crime deterrent, catching the crime and stopping it before it happens. However, the methods by which the law finds itself being implemented amounts to nothing more than legalized racial profiling in most instances. Hence the objections and outcry from New York residents against the policy. One of the main reasons that there is a clamor to end this policy is the fact that it has not served to prevent nor deter crimes from happening. According to verifiable reports, the New York State Attorney General office “... found that the stops were not actually finding or preventing crimes. 97% percent of stops resulted in no conviction at all, although they did still utilize city time and resources to reach those outcomes. “ (Clark, Meredith “Reports Find 'Stop-and-Frisk' Does Not Cut Crime”). Reports also say that the policy has only served to fuel racial discrimination charges as those stopped are supposedly mostly black and Latino men. A move that according to most, constitutes the violation of a person's constitutional rights. The American public has their right to privacy and has quite strict rules regarding racial discrimination across the country. The New York Stop-and-Frisk policy has chosen to ignore the constitutionally and legally protected rights of the New York citizens in an effort to “keep peace” within their borders. With an average of 88 percent of “stop and frisks” resulting in the release of those being stopped without issuing a ticket or resulting in an arrest (“NY 'Stop and Frisk' Policy Violates Minority Rights, US Constitution - Judge”) , this policy should be seen as nothing but merely a nuisance. Evidence of this constitutional rights violation can be seen in the annals of the New York Attorney General's office as far back as 1999 when it was discovered that “Black and Latino New Yorkers were stopped at far higher rates than white men and women” (“NY 'Stop and Frisk' Policy Violates Minority Rights, US Constitution - Judge”). Such acts can be deemed as racial profiling which is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution declares that people shall be protected from unreasonable searches. Yet in the state of New York, under the Stop-and-Frisk policy, at least 200,000 stops were made without reasonable suspicion from the year 2002 - 2004. Such a high rate of stops overall makes it quite evident that that there is no crime taking place and that the people being stopped were not in any way acting in a suspicious manner (Hanna, Jason “Judge Rules NYC's Stop-and-Frisk Policy Unconstitutional; City Vows Appeal). Over the past decade, a total of 5 million stops have occurred involving mostly Black and Hispanic men. The New York Stop-and-Frisk Policy is nothing more than a violation of one's right to privacy according to some people who have been involved in the implementation of the policy. Under the 14th Amendment people, regardless of gender, race, and ethnicity are also protected and given the equal protection of the law (Adelmann, Bob “Judge Rules New York City's 'Stop and Frisk' Policy Unconstitutional”). This amendment in particular is violated by the stop-and-frisk policy because of the conscious decision of the police force to concentrate their operations on the members of the black, Latino, and Hispanic communities. Due to the existence of the stop-and-frisk policy, New Yorkers are gripped with fear that they can be apprehended on the streets for no apparent reason. It has led people to fear a police state coming into existence in New York City. This is a policy that must be brought to an end because: “The NYPD's practice of making stops that lack individualized reasonable suspicion has been so pervasive and persistent as to become not only a part of the NYPD's standard operating procedure, but a fact of daily life in some New York City neighborhoods." (“NYC Stop-and-Frisk Policy Violates Constitutional Rights, Judge Rules”). Under our court of law, all people are deemed innocent until proven guilty. That is the essence of our judicial process. That is how police are supposed to treat any accused party, even if that person is caught with a smoking gun. But the Stop-and-Frisk policy does the exact opposite. The police officers of New York deem all residents, specially the Blacks, Hispanics, and Latinos as guilty until they prove otherwise to themselves through the unlawful detaining of individuals under the guise of the “stop-and-frisk” policy. Part 2. When the crime rates of New York city saw an alarming increase, it became necessary, for the protection of the people, to enforce certain laws that would ensure their safety in a city that is already severely traumatized by the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombings. The stop-and-frisk policy was created with the safety of the citizens of New York in mind. However, there are times when people, who seemingly need protection from themselves, will view such policies as a violation of their constitutionally protected rights. But that is not to say that a policy, such as the Stop-and-Frisk policy is wrong and should be abolished. Admittedly, the stop-and-frisk policy of the state of New York has created a lot of confusion, friction, and distrust between the public and the law enforcement officials of New York. Just like our constitution, the policy is imperfect and as such, requires the necessary action of policy adjustment and amendment every so often. As such, I propose that the Stop-and-Frisk policy be allowed to continue in the state provided amendments are enforced within the policy. I propose that the police force be made to take note of their number of stops in relation to the gender, race, and ethnicity of the people. An equal number of stops must be enforced in order to keep the balance and prove the non-discriminatory enforcement of the policy. There should be no race-based suspicions in the enforcement of the stop-and-frisk policy. Any statements or instructions within the policy that may be deemed to be a method of racial profiling must be either reworded or when necessary, completely removed from the policy dictates. The enforcement of the Stop-and-Frisk policies should be re-envisioned and written in accordance with the 4th and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution. As such, the policy must be reworded in such a way that law enforcers will be enacting the law with the conscious knowledge that the 4th and 14 amendment rights of the people of New York will not be violated. An independent committee should be established with the sole responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the stop-and-frisk policy among the police officers of New York. Accordingly, a complaint center and/or hot-line must be created in order to handle any possible complaints of 4th and 14th amendment violations. Police officers who receive complaints must be placed on suspension while an investigation is on-going. Those found in violation of the 4th and 14 amendment rights of an individual should face dishonorable dismissal from service with their retirement benefits revoked. Since the Stop-and-Frisk policy is one that has been place for more than a decade, it is important to retrain the police officers of New York to remove their mindset from what they believed to be the original implementation rules of the policy. That said, the New York Police Academy students must also be part of the new generation of police officers that will properly implement stop-and-frisk. This means that their training will now be based on the revised stop-and-frisk policies of New York. I believe that by having: NYPD patrol officers in five precincts -- one per borough -- (must) wear video cameras. The chosen precincts would be those with the most stops in 2012.... The recordings should ... alleviate some of the mistrust that has developed between the police and the black and Hispanic communities," and "will be equally helpful to members of NYPD who are wrongly accused of inappropriate behavior... " (qtd. in Hanna). For all the questions about the constitutionality of the Stop-and Frisk policy in New York we must also accept that the policy has had its positive effects upon the city. People now feel that most of the guns and dangerous weapons were taken off the streets because of fear of being frisked and caught. That peace of mind alone outweighs the costs of the program. In a way, the policy serves as a deterrent to those who are thinking of implementing the crime. Had the policy not been suspended, the Boston Marathon Bombing may have been totally avoided. The policy has allowed New Yorkers to freely come forward and report suspicious activities to the police. What others consider to be racial profiling may simply be a tip from the concerned citizen that a Hispanic, Latino, or black person was seen acting suspiciously. It serves to reason that these are the people who will be stopped and frisked. Explaining the situation to those being stopped should resolve the racial profiling issue (“The Case For Stop and Frisk Policies”) . It is of the utmost importance that the citizens of New York be educated and informed about the do's and don'ts of the stop-and-frisk policy. By allowing them open access to the information about the policy, they will be more at ease when they are stopped by police officers for questioning and possible frisking. It is all a matter of both parties understanding what is expected of them in the instance and how each party is expected to act during the proceedings. Clarifying these points should result in the smooth, miscommunication free implementation of the policy. Implementing adjustments to the policy will result in an even safer New York City. There is no need to totally abdicate the policy when most of the policy works. Adjustments whenever necessary should be more than enough to prevent any future problems in the implementation of the policy. Works Cited Adelmann, Bob. Judge Rules New York City's 'Stop and Frisk' Policy Unconstitutional. The New American. thenewamerican.com 13 Aug. 2013. Web. 12 Aug. 2013. Clark, Meredith. Reports Find 'Stop and Frisk' Does not Cut Crime. msnbc.com. msnbc.com 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. Hanna, Jason. Judge Rules NYC's Stop-and-Frisk Policy, Unconstitutional; City Vows Appeal. cnn.com. cnn.com 23 Aug. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. “Judge Rules New York City Stop-and Frisk Policy Violated Rights. New York News. abclocal.go.com. 12 Aug. 2013. 14 Web. Aug. 2013. “NYC Stop-and-Frisk Policy Violates Constitutional Rights, Federal Judge Rules”. CBS News. cbsnews.com. 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. “NY 'Stop-and-Frisk' Policy Violates Minorities Rights, US Constitution - Judge”. rt.com. rt.com 14 Aug. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. “The Case for Stop and Frisk Policies”. stopandfrisk.com. stopandfrisk.com. n.d. Web. 15 Nov 2013. Read More