Is 'stop and frisk' worth it?

[warpus]

If you put private industry in charge of your jails and bow down to their demands to make more crimes punishable by jail time.. of course you are going to have a problem like the one illustrated above on your hands

 

[kochman]

No you don't - there just has to be reasonable suspician - something that falls short of the probable cause requirement in the text of the Constitution.

I agree that "suspicion" is too vague, and I thought that was a "terry stop", which was ruled illegal by the SC a long time ago?

I don't support that.

There should be a primary illegal activity first, which initiates the "siege" as it were... So, if you litter, you can be searched... if you just look shady? No.

 

[illram]

One, violent crime is a bit worse...
Two, if you are caught using your computer to commit crime, guess what, they do seize it and search it...

So, it's a pretty bad analogy really.

You guys keep skipping the fact here, to get S&Fed, you must be violating the law FIRST.

As JR pointed out, an officer only needs "reasonable suspicion" that you may have or are about to commit a crime. "Terry stops" were ruled legal by the court years ago... not illegal. In practice in NY (and almost every other big metro police force) this means being black or latino and in the wrong neighborhood, basically. The vast majority (9 out of 10) of people stopped by this practice in NY were completely innocent according to the NYPD. If you were a cop, and you stopped and frisked 10 people and 9 of them were completely innocent and doing nothing wrong, I think questioning your perception would be warranted.

 

[kochman]

As JR pointed out, an officer only needs "reasonable suspicion" that you may have or are about to commit a crime. "Terry stops" were ruled legal by the court years ago... not illegal. In practice in NY (and almost every other big metro police force) this means being black or latino and in the wrong neighborhood, basically. The vast majority (9 out of 10) of people stopped by this practice in NY were completely innocent according to the NYPD. If you were a cop, and you stopped and frisked 10 people and 9 of them were completely innocent and doing nothing wrong, I think questioning your perception would be warranted.

Ok, I was missing some key ingredients here...
No, I don't support this program. I support stopping people for breaking minor laws, but not just for looking shady, however that is decided.

Reasonable suspicion... how vague...

I can look at someone and have an idea if they are packing heat or not based on several signs, but that shouldn't give me the ability, if I were a cop, to stop them.

 

[Mise]

I support more policing resources -- and more resources in general, for that matter -- being dedicated to poor and minority districts. It's been said already that more policing resources dedicated to these areas is, far from being racist, actually much better for the vast majority of people who live there. However, the way that this "Stop and Frisk" has been implemented is clearly far too heavy handed, and treats everybody in poor & minority districts as criminals in the eyes of the law. It is clearly an affront not just to standards of American liberty, but also to basic human dignity.

As for the effectiveness? Obviously, if you massively increase police numbers and instruct police to make far more arrests, then crime will go down... Duh. It would be completely absurd if it didn't. If you locked up 50% of the population in London, crime would go down. Duh. The bare effectiveness of the policy in terms of raw crime reduction, which Bloomberg and his supporters clearly want to focus on, doesn't make a compelling argument by itself.

What would be better is simply if there were more police in the area. Do they really need to S&F everbody for every little thing? To issue fines and court summons for merely going about your daily business? It's turning those neighbourhoods into one giant prison, where the police are the prison guards and innocent citizens are locked up along with the real criminals. More policing resources is one thing, but to deliberately instruct policemen to search, frisk, fine, arrest, and punish people who are just putting their rubbish out in their PJs is quite another.

I think you can give more resources to police without giving them explicit instructions to turn the building or neighbourhood into a prison.

 

[Yeekim]

Do they really need to S&F everbody for every little thing? To issue fines and court summons for merely going about your daily business? It's turning those neighbourhoods into one giant prison, where the police are the prison guards and innocent citizens are locked up along with the real criminals. More policing resources is one thing, but to deliberately instruct policemen to search, frisk, fine, arrest, and punish people who are just putting their rubbish out in their PJs is quite another.

Surely you would then agree that it not S&F in itself that is the problem, but the fact that even a slight misdemeanor may bring about unreasonably harsh punishment?

 

[Mise]

Well, yeah, that's what I thought I was saying! S&F seems to mean "even a slight misdemeanor may bring about unreasonably harsh punishment". And it's not even "misdemeanors" -- as illram said, a big part of the problem is the ridiculously wide requirement of "reasonable suspicion".

 

[Yeekim]

Well, yeah, that's what I thought I was saying! S&F seems to mean "even a slight misdemeanor may bring about unreasonably harsh punishment".

Yeah, but most of the outrage seems to be directed against the fact that police is actually given authority to stop people at their own discretion, rather than against what happens to these people next. For, as far as I've gathered, "unreasonably harsh punishments" aren't anything special to S&F, but rather to entire penal system of US.

 

[wolfigor]

I didn't post so far because I am not living in USA so it's difficoult for me to appreciate in full how "stop and frisk" really effects the life on people in those neighborhoods.

However what really hit me in this thread is the very different "tolerance" for crime I have compared to some of the posters.
I get the impression from some of the posts that people tends to consider violence (e.g. gang shooting) as something that shouldn't be consider anything special or particularly worrisome.
I've been growing in a place where people were used to keep the home doors open and shooting was something you only see in american movies.
I feel that such condition should be the normality not the crime-ridden neighborhoods described in some of the posts!

I am looking at the "stop and frisk" from outside (geographically and culturally), but if my neighbor would have start being the target for gang wars or regular shooting, I would welcome some extra police check to keep crime under control.

<...>

It's interesting to see these two graphs together, even if they were posted separately.
One could argue, looking at the curves, that there is a correlation between increasing levels of incarceration and reduction of violent crimes (with reduction of violent crimes obviously lagging behind the other curve).
Correlation doesn't mean causation... but it doesn't exclude it either

 

[Cutlass]

Why do so many "law and order" fanatics hate the Constitution so much? How many blacks and other minorities need to be sent to prison before they are finally satisfied?

Because the "law and order" types typically only care about order, and not law.

 

[Hygro]

Because the "law and order" types typically only care about order, and not law.

Quoted for damn that sums it the fup.

 

[Formaldehyde]

However what really hit me in this thread is the very different "tolerance" for crime I have compared to some of the posters.
I get the impression from some of the posts that people tends to consider violence (e.g. gang shooting) as something that shouldn't be consider anything special or particularly worrisome.

I think that nonsense has been debunked quite well already.

It's interesting to see these two graphs together, even if they were posted separately.
One could argue, looking at the curves, that there is a correlation between increasing levels of incarceration and reduction of violent crimes (with reduction of violent crimes obviously lagging behind the other curve).
Correlation doesn't mean causation... but it doesn't exclude it either

Only essentially the same thing happened in all other modern countries without such draconian "law and order" measures, which blatantly discriminate against blacks and other minorities. A far simpler explanation for this phenomenon can be found here:


Link to video.

One would also expect the violent crime to immediately start getting smaller and continue to do so instead of spiking in 1990 after a minor dip in the statistics when the epitome of a "law and order" president came into power, and incarceration in the US starting going through the roof. Much of that peak in violent crime in the US occurred long after these measure were implemented, and it is directly due to the way that crack cocaine was dealt with in this country. The so-called "war on drugs" continues to generate much of that violent crime even today.

Because the "law and order" types typically only care about order, and not law.

Law just gets in the way of staunch authoritarianism far too much in a free and open society. This thread is yet another excellent example.

 

[wolfigor]

Only essentially the same thing happened in all other modern countries without such draconian "law and order" measures, which blatantly discriminate against blacks and other minorities.

I have to admit I posted the two graphs together just to tease you (I hope you noticed the smiley)

I think that nonsense has been debunked quite well already.

which of the various possible nonsense in my post?
The fact that people are too tolerant of high crime levels, or that citizens should not tolerate it, or what else?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I have to admit I posted the two graphs together just to tease you (I hope you noticed the smiley)

It would likely even be funny if it wasn't so frequently used as a rationalization for our incarceration rate being a laughingstock in every other modern country.

which of the various possible nonsense in my post?
The fact that people are too tolerant of high crime levels, or that citizens should not tolerate it, or what else?

AFAIK nobody is tolerant of high crime levels, much less me. But it is clearly mostly a myth given the statistics that show that the violent crime rates continue to decrease without using these sorts of tactics.

While the homicide rate and gang shootings are still a major problem in some small areas of the typically larger cities, they are usually the result of the police themselves not properly performing their jobs in these areas. As Illram pointed out, the problem is compounded by the distrust the local population has with the police after being the victims of their harassment and intimidation for their entire lives in most cases. Harassing and intimidating them even more is likely going to be completely counterproductive.

Most of the violence would disappear overnight if we legalized or decriminalized most recreational drugs. But most of those who advocate such draconian measures as these would never agree to that.