The so called "Stop and Frisk" policy of the New York City police department was held unconstitutional today by a federal judge. To be clear, the concept of stop and frisk is not unconstitutional, but the way that the NYC police carry it out does supposedly violate the rights of those who are searched. Basically, the court found that higher numbers of minorities are searched than others. The court said that the police were engaged in racial profiling. Two factors were critical in the courts decision: 1. searches of blacks turned up contraband less often than searches of whites, and 2. blacks were searched at a much greater rate than their share of the population.
This decision will most likely be appealed, but the result is a poor one nevertheless. I read the main statistical report upon which the court relied for its decision. It really does not deal with the relationship between where the stop and frisk took place and the population in those areas. The police argue that since they focus the policy in high crime areas and since the high crime areas tend to be minority neighborhoods, the end result shows higher rates for searches of minorities. Indeed, the statistics show that the stop and frisk policy is found to a much great extent in minority areas. Is this racial profiling or is it an attempt at prevention in higher crime areas?
Twenty years ago, during the administration of David Dinkins, New York City was the crime capital of America. There were something on the order of six times as many murders each year back then even though the population was lower. The police were stymied at every attempt at enforcement of the law based upon never ending claims of racial bias. Do we really want to bring back those days?
Or maybe we will instead adopt the aiport plan of action. Will we soon see the police in New York frisking old ladies and two year olds so that there is no profiling? Really?
Today's decision is a travesty.
This decision will most likely be appealed, but the result is a poor one nevertheless. I read the main statistical report upon which the court relied for its decision. It really does not deal with the relationship between where the stop and frisk took place and the population in those areas. The police argue that since they focus the policy in high crime areas and since the high crime areas tend to be minority neighborhoods, the end result shows higher rates for searches of minorities. Indeed, the statistics show that the stop and frisk policy is found to a much great extent in minority areas. Is this racial profiling or is it an attempt at prevention in higher crime areas?
Twenty years ago, during the administration of David Dinkins, New York City was the crime capital of America. There were something on the order of six times as many murders each year back then even though the population was lower. The police were stymied at every attempt at enforcement of the law based upon never ending claims of racial bias. Do we really want to bring back those days?
Or maybe we will instead adopt the aiport plan of action. Will we soon see the police in New York frisking old ladies and two year olds so that there is no profiling? Really?
Today's decision is a travesty.
No comments:
Post a Comment