Stop-and-Frisk Research Paper
Introduction to Law Enforcement
Professor Michael Glendon
Imagine innocently walking down the street in a city you’ve lived in your whole life, when all of a sudden you hear the dreaded “woop woop” and see those flashing red and blue lights. The police. They interrogate you, ask your whereabouts, and finally, they “frisk” you. Of course, they find nothing; they rarely do when they search people. Although it’s wrong and demoralizing, you know it’s something you’ll have to get used to as an African American living in New York City.
The stop-and-frisk was implemented after the Terry v. Ohio case, which ruled …show more content…
The police are supposed to be the heroes, and no one should have to fear walking down the street and getting stopped because of their race.
While keeping guns and violence of the streets is a necessity, there are other more fair ways to do so. One example is a tactic used in Baltimore and Chicago that have gotten 43-71 less shootings in Chicago depending on the neighborhood since 2004. The programs are called the Safe Streets or Cease Fire programs. What these programs do is they enlist ex-prisoners to go to “bad” neighborhoods to prevent violent crimes. When they hear about a conflict, they approach the people involved and talk it out and try to put them down the right path. It’s not a sure fire method and won’t make streets entirely safe, but it’s better than stopping innocent people and only preventing violence 12% of the time.
All in all, while the stop-and-frisk was once an equal treatment procedure and helped make the streets of New York safe and friendly, that is no longer the case. The stop-and-frisk needs to be terminated immediately because it isn’t proven to be effective, it has a low weapon seizure rate, and most of all it demoralized, victimizes, and violates a majority of those who are stopped. They are rarely stopped due to a legitimate suspicion, but mostly due to the color of their skin. What’s the use of gaining of few guns when others