Stop and Frisk Policy

Stop and Frisk Policy

Statement of the Problem
The Stop and Frisk Policy is New York Police Department policy that empowers the policy with the power to detain and then question pedestrians, and perhaps even frisk them. The law declares that if the police have what is known as reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, could commit is in the process of committing a felony or a Penal Law offense. The purpose of this policy was to reduce the rate of crime with the New York Police Department controlled jurisdiction. However, the policy has been very controversial, with many activists pointing to the glaring racial bias when the policy is being implemented by police officers. The critics assert that those charged with its implementation have violated the civil rights, and used racial profiling. In contrast, advocates on the policy insist that the policy has achieved commendable gains since it was implemented, as it help in the protection of police officers and civilians while also assisting police officers in detaining people the police believe could be in possession of concealed weapons without authorization. These two ideologically opposing factions on the policy has led to a considerable amount of strain between controlling of criminal activities and the due process, and the pressure exerts a significant amount of the region’s criminal control strategies and activities. In the last few years, district courts have conducted a review of this controversial policy, and in spite of the criticisms that the policy is pegged on racial profiling, and it violates the civil rights of others the application of the policy is still perverse in the region.

The Stop and Frisk policy affect individuals and families profoundly in certain aspects that shall be discussed later in this paper. This paper provides a comprehensive presentation on the Stop and Frisk Policy being implemented with New York City.
Review of the Literature
The Stop and Frisk policy did not emerge in the present century, rather, it can be traced back to 1964, when state legislators vetoed an amendment that empowered the police to stop and questions residents when they had reasonable suspicion that such an individual is involved in crime. In the present, the police are allowed to stop an individual to a myriad of reasons that include the following: riding a bicycle in the sidewalk, a suspicious protrusion on a jacket or pant pocket, carrying a suspicious object, and amongst others. Recent reports by the police department lists furtive movement as the leading reason for application of the stop and frisk policy (Evans, Maragh and Porter 2014).
Evans, Maragh and Porter (2014) employ data from two key organizations; from a regional established NGO working on liberties and the America’s Census Bureau on the stops and frisks policy application by the relevant authority in the year 2011 and attempt to link community characteristics with the stop and frisks practices. According to Evans, Maragh, and Porter (2014), there is a significant evidence of high rates of ethno-specific stops and a pattern of statistically positive relationship of the variations mentioned above, and which are quite similar to those in explanatory variables. Tonry (2011) insists that the Stop and Frisk policy has proven a worthy tool in the reduction of in the state’s prison population. The advantage that results from the implementation of the policy can be traced to the early 1990s when the police department transformed its law enforcement philosophies to emphasize on two issues, quality of life and low–level offenses. This began with the broken windows theory, and this later evolved to the present Stop and Frisk policy.
Policy Analysis Specifics
The stop and frisk policy by officers of the state must follow a certain rubric, First provide an explanation for the stop and fill in a form that validates the stop. The form, christened form 12 is where the officers record the circumstances that prompted the stop. The officer can either enter fits description, suspicious bulge and object, furtive movement, and a few others. All the information are then collected from individual police officers and then fed into the police database. The Police Department makes a report on the stop and frisk policies in two ways. First, the police department provides hard data and hen through the annual release of the electronic database every year. According to Evans, Maragh, and Porter (2014), the 2002 reported stop and frisk interventions by the department have been given as 97296, and only a quarter led to convictions and fines. Evans, Maragh and Porter (2014) insist that the frequency of stops rose in dramatic fashion between 2008 to 2011, and that was from more than half a million to 685724 stops, and a good number, about 88 percent did not lead to any conviction. Stops and Risks have an immense impact on the individuals that have received the treatment. Center for Constitutional Rights (2012) relied on certain testimonies if those who have experienced a broad range of unfortunate and offensive moves by the police. The police have been accused on forcibly stripping the individual including such individual’s underclothes in the full glare of the public. Others complain that the police touch them inappropriately while another claim that the police use physical violence and coercion to carry out their duties. Moreover, others insist that the police officers extort them of sex while others are sexually harassed while being subjected to a degrading and humiliating process.
While the vast majority of stops do not bring about any capture or summons, everybody subjected to a stop and search must have a lasting to the passionate, mental, social, and economic impact on his or her lives. Stops in light of unlawful profiling can prompt lopsided rates of captures and feelings, which, like this, convey an extensive variety of harming security results. Unseemly Touching and Sexual Harassment might be the contrast between searching some person and going in clothing or using a privileged position to satisfy sexual pleasures on the body of unwilling and unsuspecting pedestrians and using the excuse in the name of searching for drugs on the body of the other fellow. Any capture, like this, can trigger a course of guarantee outcomes regardless of the fact that it does not prompt a conviction. Criminal feelings can bring about getting to be ineligible for open lodging or understudy advances and losing open benefits; potential movement related results can incorporate the loss of legitimate habitation status, expelling. The ineligibility to end up a U.S. native or to get to be prohibited to America and other results of captures are difficult to gauge. For example, the effect of being absent from work stretching to days.
Discussions and Conclusion
The Stop and Frisk Policy is New York Police Department arrangement that enables the approach with the ability to confine and afterward address walkers, and maybe even search them. The law announces that if the police have what is known as sensible suspicion that the individual has submitted, could confer is presently conferring a crime or a Penal Law offense. The reason for this approach was to diminish the rate of wrongdoing with the New York Police Department controlled ward. Nevertheless, the strategy has been exceptionally disputable, with numerous activists indicating the glaring racial inclination when the approach is being executed by cops. The commentators attest that those accused of its usage have damaged the social equality, and utilized racial profiling. Interestingly, advocates on the strategy demand that the approach has accomplished excellent additions since it was actualized, as it helps in the insurance of the police and regular folks while additionally helping cops in keeping individuals the police accept could be in control of disguised weapons without approval. These two ideologically competing groups on the approach led a lot of strain between wrongdoing control and the due procedure, and the weight applies a critical measure of the city’s criminal control strategies and practices. Today, local courts have led a survey of the approach, and despite the reactions that the strategy is pegged on racial profiling, and it abuses the social liberties of others that have ceased the act of stop and searching is still unreasonable in the city.
References
Center for Constitutional Rights. (2012). STOP AND FRISK THE HUMAN IMPACT. centerforconstitutionalrights. Retrieved 22 November 2015 from https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/08/the-human-impact-report.pdf
Evans, D., Maragh, C. L., & Porter, J. (2014). What Do We Know About NYC’s Stop and Frisk Program?: A Spatial and Statistical Analysis. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 1(2), 130-144.
Goldstein, J. (2013). Judge rejects New York’s stop-and-frisk policy. The New York Times.
Tonry, M. (2011). Less imprisonment is no doubt a good thing. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(1), 137-152.