Stop and frisk
Introduction
Social interaction between humans at the initial stages is influenced by the very natural way of evaluating anything they encounter. This process helps the two persons (strangers) in their encounter to gain insight, directions, perceivements, beliefs, and influences hence affecting their tendency to interact with each other. Sometimes this evaluation may influence through prejudgment and suspicion, a person’s behavior and characteristics which can create a negative or positive first impression, as per the evaluator’s intuitive and self-reasoning abilities. In alignment to this social interaction theory, the US policing system incorporated within its jurisdiction the stop and Frisk rule for enforcement in control of crime, also known as the Jim crows’ policy. ‘Stop and frisk ‘is the intrusive and proactive form of police stop of a suspect or temporary detainment, questioning and sometimes searching a suspect on the street for weapons or contraband. The practice has been applied in day-to-day efforts of crime prevention by the police department to ensure safer communities for its residents. This policy and guidelines are addressed in the fourth amendment of the American constitution and stipulate that Police officers must have a reasonable suspicion that the person believed by him to be armed or dangerous and protects the citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. This law applies to all citizens irrespective of their race.
However, police have been accused of misusing this policy, with citizens claiming the constant humiliation by police officers, who have invoked the policy targeting young black and Hispanic New Yorkers, even the children. The Native and Non-native Americans, especially black Americans, claim that this policy has helped propagate implicit bias and racial profiling between the black Americans, Hispanians, whites, and other Asians living within the USA. Statics show that since 2003, this law has primarily oppressed African-American citizens (Ridgeway 2008). As they have been subjected to most seizures and suspicions over illegal arms, contrabands, intention to commit a crime, among other crimes but very minimal arrests, proving they were wrongly targeted. Advocacy institutions and activists have accused the police of vividly abusing this law, create a rift in whether to abolish this law or keep it.
Available information shows that the question of Jim Crows’ policy has attracted many supporters and critics across American society (Mitchell 2018). The supporters of this policy have defended its statistics linking the high-stop frisks cases with low hit and arrest rates as evidence to why the policy has worked and been successful. They argue that increased Stop and Frisks, with minimal arrests, means criminals have been controlled; hence they don’t carry arms or contrabands due to fear of suspicion and arrest. On the other hand, the critics are terming this as an indication of the policy’s failure (Devon 2013). This paper elaborates my views as per the opinions arising on either side.
First, some critics of this policy have termed the Jim Crow policy unreasonable policing. It was demonstrated in the ruling by Judge Shira A. Scheindline that proved this rule unconstitutional. The verdict drew massive applause from the critic majority. I can’t entirely agree with this terming of the law as unreasonable. It’s just a policy that has been misused when looked upon from the racist angle. The policy has, over the years, assisted the communities in crime control(Mitchell 2018). Statistics since 2009 prove that the application of this policy has helped arrest and recover weapons, narcotics, or even possible crime prevention. It’s only been misinterpreted in relation to the nature of suspicion. It demonstrates that not all police suspicions were wrong and futile. In addition, the tactic has been linked to being practiced by the black Police officers to their fellow blacks. Hence, a better solution may only arise if we talk about the policy without instigating racism because racism of color here has proven to some extent not to be a major factor.
Further, the critics have claimed that mostly, the police target innocent Black Americans, and among the arrests done. The subject was framed with planted pieces of evidence hence further doubting the statics. There is limited research on the Stop and Frisk policy; therefore, more technology, community practice, and research need to be employed. Whereas this opinion could be valid to some extent, I would say generalization is the wrong way to conclude police behavior with statistical data from just a few samples (Zheng 2014). Some honest officers conducted the tactic with pure intention and reasonable suspicion within the police service in the past. Some were exposing themselves to dangers and risk of being attacked by the suspects leading to unintended consequences. Though data in numbers differ, it’s evident that whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Black Americans were stopped at some point across history. Police need to therefore incorporate fairness in their arrests, especially with high crime areas.
Contrary, Supporters of the policy argue that the past statistics do not in any way relate to racial profiling. They link some black police officers to humiliating and harassments their fellow black Americas under this same rule. The policy has just been misused and unrestrained but has proven impactful in preventing crime (Ridgeway 2008). They claim that the law doesn’t target a particular race or color but relate the number of stops and arrest to the high population of black-American in high crime areas and the probable possibility to commit the crime. They are further linking it to appearance, mode of dressing, and sites of patrol. However, my opinion, in this, terms it a question of intention and attitude. Research shows that the purpose of the officer employing this policy and the perspective of the suspect and general community to a great extent influence the outcome (Mitchell 2018). I admit, in some instances, the stop and frisk policy applied to both native and non-native Americans and a large number of black Americans and Hispanics were subjected to the extent of harassing children. This signals racial stereotyping. Still, true judgment lies in the officer’s intention, invoking this policy, which only the officer can tell.
All the races, irrespective of color, are American citizens, and an issue that creates a divide interferes with the unity of the whole nation. This policy has been existence and has saved the citizens, prevented crimes, and helped the policing systems maintain law and order just in like other law segments. Racism is a creation of humans, and so does its ending. The only solution to the above battle is completely getting rid of either racism or policing. One has to be alleviated completely. Policing is the government and this never ends. Therefore, my take would be to end racism. To ensure a government that talks of policing without propagating racism.
To fight this, then the community and police need to agree on several protocols for law enforcement. Hence promoting community-oriented policing. The approach should invest highly in improving interactions between the police and social instruments. The exchanges should be all around as the community needs a platform to pass complaints and opinions. The law enforcers, the court systems, and the political divides have also been linked to spur different paradigms; hence uniting all these aspects will be the initial step to understanding .
The policing system also offers diverse approaches to deal with suspected crime—the proactive and reactive undertakings. Careful training and streamlining of the police curriculum are important as alternatives to invoking the fourth amendment law should be an option depending on the situation.
Conclusion
As termed by the police spokesman, the policy is lifesaving, although most officers misuse this fact. It’s also a fact that some cruel officers have used the approach to cause harm, propagate racist culture, and even sexual assault on people. A person’s color, appearance, or clothing method shouldn’t be used to determine their probability of causing crime. However, as in the constitutions, the policy gives a mandate to officers to apply the stop and frisk policy and protects citizens against unreasonable frisk and seizures. The law should apply to both sides.
The content described above links the statistics on the cases to a high rate of harassment as compared to arrest issues. It’s also discussed that this has been as a result of racist officers, negative attitudes, and misinterpretation of policy intention. These are all social factors that can be tamed from within the policing institutions, the community, and the government.
The community needs to have a voice and be listened to whenever complaints arise regarding the mishandling of civilians by police. And the court needs to deliver justice to violators who disregard this policy. The critics of this policy feel it’s high time it became abolished, but at the essence, I think it’s high time the government and citizens streamlined this policy. It’s time to change our attitude and do away with racism and police brutality. This is because the first step has been taken already, with the applause of the recent ruling and jailing of a brutal officer who wrongly violated this policy. It is possible to kill racism in America and bring peace across all citizens and policing structures.
References
Canada., & Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. (1972). International perspectives. Ottawa: International Perspectives
Ridgeway, G., New York City Police Foundation., Rand Safety and Justice (Program), & Rand Corporation. (2008). Analysis of racial disparities in the New York Police Department’s stop, question, and frisk practices. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.
Mitchell, D. R., & Connor, G. J. (2018). Stop and frisk: Legal perspectives, strategic thinking, and tactical procedures
Zheng, L. F. (2014). Evidence of racial biasness in New York City’s Stop and Frisk policy: An analysis of New York Police Department’s 2010 administrative data
Devon W. Carbado, Cheryl I Harris and Kimberle Williams Crenshaw (2013). Newyork times, Racial profiling lives on. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/opinion/racial-profiling-lives-on.html