By: Tayler Davis
One topic we have covered in class and discussion is the technique of stop and frisk used by public police in order to reduce crime in their cities. New York City is the main city that has made use of this aggressive form of policing. New York City has been the nation's leading city in crime reduction, as crime, specifically violent crime, has been declining since 1990. Many researchers have looked to the techniques the NYPD uses to evaluate which methods are most responsible for reducing their crime rate. The ultimate goal is to identify this and apply the same techniques to other cities around the country. An article written in the New York Times this month, dismisses the idea that it is the stop and frisk method that has been the reason for the decrease seen in violent crime in New York City.
Stop and frisk methods have been very controversial due to the high amounts of innocent people being stopped, as well as the fact that the majority of people stopped and frisked are Latinos or African American males. Last summer, it was announced that the police department would decrease the number of stop and frisks. People of New York City expressed their concerns that cutting down this method and being “soft-on-thugs” would result in “more blood in the streets”. However, this has not been the case. In 2012, New York experienced the fewest amount of homicides it has had in 50 years. This shows that there may be no direct correlation between stop and frisk and homicide rates.
Franklin Zimring’s book Policing in New York City relates to this article as it touches on the issue of stop and frisk in chapter 5. He explains that stop and frisk cannot be seen as the only explanation for the decrease in crime in New York City. As Zimring explains, since the decline in crime, there have been a multitude of different tactics that have been intertwined and used together. Their combination has attributed to the success of the NYPD (Zimring 132). To point to one tactic as the reason for crime reduction is improbable.
Though the stop and frisk methods have only been limited and not completely put to an end, I think it is a step in the right direction as stop and frisk does not prove to be an effective form of policing. As stated in the article, 90% of the people that are stopped are innocent. This method does more harm than good as it threatens the legitimacy of the police. Other tactics should be considered and employed in attempt to suppress crime.
well reasoned and good tie into Zimring as well as NYtimes investigative work on stop and frisk. What are the costs of relying heavily on stop and frisk?
ReplyDeleteYou do a nice job of illustrating that the stop and frisk policies endanger the legitimacy of the police. The costs associated with relying heavily on stop and frisk policies are the impacts to the legitimacy of the police. The police are relying on fear of increasingly marginalized groups which may cause those groups to reject the legitimacy of the police to continually stop and frisk them. A reliance on coercive power for legitimacy has its limits.
ReplyDeleteChristina A. Henriquez
Although stop and frisk may be a good vehicle of surveillance, I do agree that this type of method is ineffective. This is because (as stated in the Zimring article) stop and frisk has the same effect as racial profiling. The police officers are given a great deal of power to decide who is a criminal based on a small characteristic such as playing loud music.
ReplyDeleteAlso, on an interesting note, I heard on the news that the Oakland PD are thinking about using this stop and frisk method (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/01/16/oakland-plan-to-hire-police-consultant-under-fire-over-stop-and-frisk/). I could only assume that this would further decrease the legitimacy of the Oakland PD.
- Tiffani Toy
The stop and frisk laws in the state of New York have been gearing towards reducing the rates of crime in the state. They are effective laws when it comes to having a crime free environment. In order for these laws to work effectively, they require a police force that is competent in implementing the laws without any biases or discrimination. The idea behind the laws might be good, but without effective implementation the whole concept is highly risky. Having this in mind the police force tasked with the responsibility of conducting the stop frisk, should ensure that they do not portray a sense of biases in terms of race, age or color. By doing this, they will prevent the occurrence of violence and rebellion against this rule.
ReplyDeleteSehun Lee
There are certain aspects of the Stop and Frisk tactic that I agree with, and some that I disagree with. I think that it is unfair that racial minorities are mostly profiled by this surveillance strategy, which I do not think is acceptable. But on the other hand, if a person is not doing anything wrong than there need not be anything to worry about, simply a minor inconvenience to enhance the greater safety of the community.
ReplyDelete-Eric Walbridge
I wouldn't go far to confirm that there is no direct correlation between stop and frisk and homicide rates. Even though the numbers may show otherwise, I do not believe stop and frisk is entirely useless. When the law enforcement stop and frisk citizens, they must be doing it with reasonable cause. While I do think stop and frisk is a proactive form of policing, it must be used in moderation and when it is absolutely positive for the law enforcement to have a decent reason to do so. If 90% are innocent, then that must mean 10% are guilty. I would rather have stop and frisk existing in the city if it means that the police can catch the 10%.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion may be unpopular, but I also believe that stop and frisk should be allowed and continued with good reason -- if police received a report and a description of the suspect, they should be free to stop and frisk anyone matching the description. I believe it is the proactive method of policing, whether or not it is significantly effective.
Jackie Ji Park
Certainly how stop and frisk is used matters. That it has proliferated in use in some jurisdictions is clear. When it does, there are signs that it erodes police legitimacy and effectiveness. As for what drives stops in this context, it is best understood as combining judgements of identity and place, of who belongs where, something we will continue to develop in the course. Great exchange of differences. Important to read and take into account Zimring's evaluation of stop and frisk in NYC. Professor Musheno
ReplyDeletePersonally I do not agree with any aspect of stop and frisk. That is probably because I am someone who would most likely be targeted with a policy like this but I see it as an aggressive policing practice that is strictly based off of racial profiling regardless of the way the practice is covered up.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this interesting article Tayler! I also agree that stop and frisk methods cannot be seen as a direct correlation to the decrease in crime. Zimring mentions how the changes in policing methods such as using hot spots can account for some of the decrease in crime in NY. I am completely against the stop and frisk methods because of the amount of innocent individuals who have been racially profiled.
ReplyDelete