Is 'stop and frisk' worth it?

[downtown]

Read a good article on the subject on my morning commute today. It's a little long, so I'll summarize the juicy bits in a second.
http://news.yahoo.com/insight-under-siege-stop-frisk-polarizes-york-050442831.html

For nearly two months the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy has drawn New York City into an emotional debate about race, policing and Fourth Amendment rights. Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have fiercely defended the program against an onslaught of criticism from judges, civil rights leaders and a vocal block of Democratic politicians. It has become a defining issue for next year's mayoral election.

For Bloomberg, an independent who will be stepping down next year after three terms, the question is central to his legacy. Having presided over an historic reduction in violent crime, he boasts that New York is "America's safest city by far," a place where tourists and residents can safely roam any neighborhood, even those traditionally considered dangerous, by day and most by night.

WHAT PRICE SAFETY?

Critics, though, charge that this has come at a precious cost - the civil liberties of hundreds of thousands who are stopped and searched each year. Police stops in New York City have climbed steadily to more than 685,000 last year from nearly 161,000 in 2003. Only 12 percent of those stopped were arrested or ticketed. More than 85 percent were black or Hispanic, while they make up 51 percent of the city's population.

For those unfamiliar, here is the basic gist. Stop and Frisk deploys overwhelming police force to targeted, high crime risk areas, usually in poor neighborhoods, or around public housing. They might pick up "suspicious" individuals for a frisk, and will enforce very light crimes (like littering) very strictly. The idea is to pick up gang members before they do something bigger, and to present a show of force to deter other crime.

The problem is, this policy is pretty blatantly racially profiling. Over 600,000 black and hispanic dudes, many of whom have done absolutely nothing, have been frisked by police. Well to do neighborhoods may get a dozen or so friskings a year...poor (or black) areas might get over 1,000. This bothers the ACLU and other neighborhood groups.

The policy unquestionably working though. Violent crime has gone down in the areas most impacted by Stop and Frisk, and other cities, such as Chicago and San Francisco, are looking at it.

What do you think? Is this worth the civil liberty cost? Could be implemented better? The article mentions that these neighborhoods typically are full of nearly rookie cops. If it isn't worth it, what can be done to fight urban crime?

Poll coming

 

[Save_Ferris]

I was against it until I found out that crime had decreased. As long as we don't do any racial profiling and it doesn't cost a quadrillion dollars, I don't think it can be that bad.

Also, at Bloomberg saying New York is "America's safest city".

 

[downtown]

I think it would be VERY VERY hard to carry out this policy without really racially profiling. Very few white people live in these neighborhoods.

 

[kramerfan86]

I really dont see how it doesnt qualify as unreasonable search.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I think it would be VERY VERY hard to carry out this policy without really racially profiling. Very few white people live in thee neighborhoods.

In which case it isn't racial profiling, but income profiling. Given that low-income neighborhoods generally have more crime, I don't see what's so bad about fighting it in these communities.

 

[Cutlass]

Get a warranty, you lazy ass coppers.

 

[kramerfan86]

Maybe we should just ban all guns while we are violating constitutional rights for the sake of reducing crime.

 

[Zelig]

I think it would be VERY VERY hard to carry out this policy without really racially profiling. Very few white people live in these neighborhoods.

In which case it isn't racial profiling, but income profiling. Given that low-income neighborhoods generally have more crime, I don't see what's so bad about fighting it in these communities.

Yeah, pretty much this. If any disparity in races profiled are statistically explained by profiles other than race which are used to make the actual decisions, then it is by definition, not racial profiling.

 

[squadbroken]

Racial profiling: perfectly acceptable if done to poor people

 

[Save_Ferris]

Maybe we should just ban all guns while we are violating constitutional rights for the sake of reducing crime.

Most guns are bought for defense. If guns are banned, then criminals will buy them illegally.

 

[kramerfan86]

Most guns are bought for defense. If guns are banned, then criminals will buy them illegally.

Be much harder to get them with a total national ban which would reduce crime at least a little, which i dont support, just like I dont support unreasonable search just because people live in a bad neighborhood.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

How is the search "unreasonable"? The reason is quit evident: to reduce crimes. And it apparently works. So it seems to be easy to reason for it.
Also, since when is it a civil liberty to not be searched? Where is the exact harm in being searched once in a while or in the police having a keen eye on neighborhoods known for crime? Is any individual actually subdued to an unbearable burden?
I think people are thinking in too abstract dimensions about this.

 

[Cutlass]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[squadbroken]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Nah screw that let's just harass people.

Also police cameras should be installed in all their homes because hey, privacy is just a needless impediment to crimefighting.

 

[JohnRM]

On the surface, I don't see that there is any official racial profiling going on here. However, I think that it would be naive or obtuse to claim that it doesn't/won't happen. It seems that the policy is to frisk individuals who've already committed a crime. I get it, they're using some pretty frivolous criminal activity to justify a search, but according to the law, they are legally justified to do so. In the end, the crime rate has fallen dramatically. It is an extremely low cost to individual liberty--technically none at all--for the benefit. These people should be grateful that it works so well and that crime has declined so much. It benefits them, first and foremost. But, what else would you expect? The government actually does something right for a change and people (blank) and moan.

 

[innonimatu]

What's a frisk? And where would cities get enough cops to keep doing this anyway? And, if it is some kind of "zero-tolerance" thing, how is it new - hasn't it been tried many times before?

 

[FriendlyFire]

12% is pretty high actually. If it was under 1% then it would need looking at

 

[JollyRoger]

How much stop and frisk has been done in the high crime area known as Wall Street?

 

[luiz]

Stopping and searching people for no good reason always seemed wrong to me - though it's perfectly legal in Brazil.

I'm entirely fine with harsh punishments for petty crimes, though. And I also don't think that sending more cops to violent areas, where most of the people are black or latin, is racism. It makes perfect sense to me that the police should be where it's needed the most.

Finally: if this is indeed reducing violence - and apparently it is - who are the people who had their lives saved? Mostly poor, black and latin youth. They are the primary victims of violence and thus also the primary benefited by a reduction in it.

 

[JollyRoger]

Hopefully they are detaining people with rolls of tape on their person.