By: Andre La Brec
In their study titled, “Procedural Justice and Order Maintenance Policing: A Study of Inner City Young Men’s Perceptions of Police Legitimacy”, Gau and Brunson emphasize the importance that procedural justice plays in garnering police legitimacy amongst the community. One of the main functions of the police is order maintenance and crime reduction. Those goals have been increasingly observed in correlation with the implementation of hard line tactics such as aggressive use of stop-and-frisk searches in cities like New York. Stop-and-frisks entail the ability of police to stop, question, and ask to pat down the outer layer of clothing of an individual they have a “reasonable suspicion” of being involved in illicit activity. This practice has been criticized for giving police and enormous amount of discretion in who they decide to conduct a stop-and-frisk on, opening the door to a reliance on racial stereotypes in determining who will be searched and who will not. Indeed, a disproportionate amount of those stopped since the increased use of stop-and-frisks have been on young African-American and Latino men. What’s more is that most of these searches turn up nothing of criminal significance.
The temptation for police departments like NYC’s may be to continue with the aggressive, raced based implementation of stop-and-frisks, forgoing public criticisms and considerations of equal protection in exchange for continued results. Yet this strategy may only be playing the short game, and may lead to a detrimental decrease in the perceived legitimacy of the police within the community. On Monday, a lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, on behalf of four young men of color who claim they were wrongfully subjected to stop-and-frisks, began trial proceedings challenging the practice of stop-and-frisks in NYC. The argument is that while the practice itself may be legal, it is illegally and unconstitutionally being applied on the basis of race (USA TODAY). This lawsuit is being granted class action status, which means that the disproportionate number of young men of color that have been subjected to the aggressive stop-and-frisks policy of the NYPD may now potentially take part in the complaint. Whether the case is successful, it represents an effort by some in the community to openly challenge the legitimacy of the NYPD, or at least, some of their policing practices. This effort is likely to gain more and more participants given the recent history of criticism against the practice within the boroughs in which it has been implemented. It provides support for the argument laid out by Gau and Brunson.
According to Gau and Brunson, citizens value the professionalism of their police, and they feel better about interactions with the criminal justice system when they believe that police are treating them fairly and with respect. When people believe the police are engaging in unfair practices, the community can express diminished trust and support for the police. A situation now exists in NYC where the police department, the institution that should represent the enforcement of law, is ironically being accused by members of the community for breaking the law. In retrospect, it may have been more advantageous for the NYPD to not have overlooked the racist implementation of their aggressive stop-and-frisk policy, because now they faced with a fairly certain hit to the legitimacy of a practice that at least has the potential to be a very useful tactic. In turn, this could likely impede its legitimate implementation in the future. Whatever happens in the future, the case represents the culmination of years of community frustration with the police as well as the manifestation of Gau and Brunson’s suggestion that police departments be cautious of not only what policies they implement, but of exactly how they go about implementing them.
This is always a fascinating topic especially since it can be tied to all three segments of the class. I think about Cops, Teachers, and Counselors and how state agents and street level workers harbor their own biases. With Stop & Frisk the officers are enacting policy with vague language, therefore discretion is necessary and within policing power--however, its abuse should not be alarming. I argue it is intended to have such an effect on marginalized populations and does so with our help. The NYPD may stop and frisk anyone they suspect may be armed and dangerous. This only requires reasonable suspicion which is slightly more than a hunch. What is most intriguing is when I think about my own biases and how that has played out in my daily life. What stories I have heard about black or brown young men that generate real physical reaction. While my experiences and judgments are very different than a police officer it does not mean that they are any less saturated. The only difference is that i can by definition only be a bigot where police officers have the power to be racists. At the level of the individual...we must honestly as ourselves what is truth in regards to identity and what has been fed to us through media, intergenerational bigotry, and our own skewed experiences...how may this play out in terms of racial disparities and discretionary based stops? I think what I like most about the book is that it really call into question the importance of the individual when making such decisions: “Street level workers care as much about who a person is as about what the person has done. Identity matters as much as acts. "p.51. It is easy for us to get lost in fear generating reports about crime, but what we should be asking is who is being attached to such reports and how does this factor in to a perpetuation of racial disparities. To take it one step further how do we as individuals help to maintain the status quo and allow these outwardly prejudicial laws to continue to exist?
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of the Zimmerman text that examined the decrease in crime and police tactic changes in the NYPD. At that time, because there were many changes in tactics, the resulting decrease in crime cannot be pinpointed on any one tactic since correlation does not mean causation. Because the media portrays perpetrators as colored, young men and police are stopping and frisking individuals in this category, the negative stereotype is being reinforced even though 95% of the searches found nothing as a result of the search. Particularly dangerous is the notion of discretion because of its vagueness; it can be stretched to fit any justification even if the police had ill intentions. It's good that there is now class action so that voices can be heard. It brings back the emphasized point from the Oakland PD speakers that trust is key in maintaining legitimacy and a stronger PD because without it, civilians will not help the PD and take matters into their own hands. It is ironic for these men being stopped that even though law enforcement is supposed to make them feel secure, they are the same actors that these men are afraid of and changing their behaviors for (carrying ID, etc).
ReplyDeleteThe disproportionate policy effects on certain racial groups reminded me of the young man that had been stopped and frisked four or five times throughout his young life. This man had lost any connection whatsoever to the local police, and felt less like the police were there to protect him and more as if they were out to get him. I understand the intent and the potential benefits of such a policy in crime-ridden neighborhoods, but the stop and frisk policy must be carried out in a way that doesn't violate trust (a core element in community policing). On the other hand, if the practice is carried out in a lawful way yet still victimizes a greater a disproportionately minority population, that may have to remain an unintended, yet unavoidable consequence. Crime doesn't occur evenly throughout racial, age and economic categories, and this is something that should be considered when examining the intent and effect of such policies. There may never be a solution that satisfies all parties. First and foremost, the safety of the community should be the number one priority.
ReplyDeleteMichael B
First and foremost, the practice of stop-and-frisk was never fully legitimized by the black community. This law gave police justification for racial and prejudiced-based actions against members of the black and latino community because that is exactly who stop-and-frisk targets. It is no surprise that this practice has a disparate impact on these minorities. At its core stop-and-frisk is a numbers game, a highly inefficient method at stopping crime akin to throwing darts at a board and hoping one sticks. It also represents a lose-lose situation for minorities. If you are black or latino you are automatically targeted, and if you refuse to submit to the stop-and-frisk then you become even more suspicious in the eyes of the law. I fear that stop-and-frisk may become a precursor to a larger legitimacy crisis that could arise in the future. Let's just hope the next Rodney King does not come as a consequence from stop-and-frisk.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very well thought out and written post. That said I think the distinction between what is being enforced and how it is being enforced is very problematic. Police officers are given an extreme amount of discretion with respect to their job, and while for the most part this is in the best interest of the system, at time it leads to unfair judgement and treatment of citizens. While I think that the racial discrimination is a problem, I think that the level of discretion for this policy shouldn't be changed because it is why the policy has the potential to be so effective. I think that a better response would be to educate the police force on racial discrimination and how to avoid letting it effect their work.
ReplyDeleteIt was only until recently that certain police departments in Los Angeles stopped using the term "the usual" in their suspect descriptions, both on and off radio. Prior to this initiative, which urged police departments and their officers to become more politically correct, a typical report over the radio would sound something like, "Suspect the usual, wearing a black hoodie and jeans". This description was always understood to mean that the suspect was a young male, either black or Hispanic.
ReplyDeleteIt is clearly not just in stop-and-frisks that we see race-oriented problems emerging. For "efficiency" and "convenience's sake", young black and Hispanic males were called out over the radio like a Big Mac ordered at a drive-thru McDonald's. While the effect of labeling this demographic as "the usual" was reportedly effective in conveying the intended suspect description, racialized stop-and-frisk behavior has proven to be largely ineffective. Anytime it becomes known that a peace officer's behavior is propagating ethnic marginalization in this day and age, they in turn receive a reciprocal degree of delegitimization in the eyes of the public. Therefore, with the risk of delegitimization in mind, analyzing the costs and benefits of racialized law enforcement procedures boils down to perspective: there are deep conflicts between the mindset of the public and that of law enforcement personnel. Only a few are on the other side of the thin blue line, and this makes it difficult for the general public to understand the perspective and intentions of racialized conduct by the police. All we see are the results, and for stop-and-frisk, we aren't seeing much.
- Christine Sun
Piggybacking off of Jimmy's response, I also wonder about the possibility of a legitimacy crisis in the future. Stop and Frisk has been shown to have a disparate impact. I wonder whether disparate impact can result in a legitimacy crisis or disparate treatment is necessary. The practice of Stop and Frisk does not seem to have a discriminatory intent but it clearly has a disproportionate, discriminatory effect. It will be interesting to see how affected communities react in the near future.
ReplyDelete-Amir
There is always room for human error as a state agent. Stop-and-frisks even with reasonable cause will always bring a question of efficacy. It may have worked well as a tactic for broken windows, perhaps it is time to rethink the legitimacy of the stop-and-frisks.
ReplyDeleteJackie Ji Park