The stop- and- frisk is a brief interception and search of a suspect by police. The law stipulates that the police should have a reason for frisking like when they suspect that someone has been or is about to be involved in crime. This policy has been a controversial issue and has resulted in many lawsuits against the police. Stop and frisk has been seen to be abusive to people's right to privacy, contributive to racial profiling and sometimes illegal stops have been made by police. The stop and frisk method is ineffective in protecting people since it has contributed to hostility between law enforcement and communities, has not reduced the rate of shootings, interferes with the normal life of communities through wrongful stops and is sometimes disregards privacy.
There have been many reports of stop-and-frisks taking a racial angle and fueling hostility between communities and law enforcement (Peart n.p, Badger, para. 2). According to data provided by Barger, incidents of stop and frisk are more common with African Americans more than other races (Barger, para. 4). The perception of unfairness is divisive. Peart notes that in his neighborhood, stop-and-frisk incidents are part of life and are a norm that they have come to anticipate (Para. 6). Since stop-and-frisk has proven to cause more damage than good through victimization and breeding of hostility, it clouds its effectiveness and makes it a contributor to community dissent.
Peart narrates a good illustration of the effects that stop-and-frisk system has had on communities. He describes several occasions when police have stopped him, searched and checked ID the let him go (Peart). According to Peart, 84% of incidents of stop-and-frisk involved Latinos and African Americans. The events have changed people's views about the police and made them more fearful of doing normal things around the areas they live (Pert). The random searches done by police without any reason interfere with people’s lives and cause them undue embarrassment and trauma
Since the inception of the stop-and-frisk system, which was anticipated to be a deterrent to crime and especially shootings, data available indicates that there has not been a significant reduction in shooting incidents (Barger). The stop-and-frisk policy was established on the basis that it would help make neighborhoods safer, recover guns, and stop shootings. However, according to Peart, the communities do not feel any safer than they were, if fact, they feel more threatened by the police (Para. 11). Barger also asserts that out of five million cases of frisking; only 0.02 percent has led to the recovery of guns (para. 6). On the other hand, crime rates are informed by many different factors (para. 7). Therefore, stop-and-frisk cannot be singly credited with the decline in crime rates. Based on these facts, stop-and-frisk has not proven to be an effective way of making neighborhoods safer.
Furthermore, these searches sometimes infringe on the individual right to privacy. Even though the police are required to have a valid reason for frisking people, as illustrated by Peart in his encounters with the police, the searches seem to be randomly conducted with no basis. An example is given by Peart where police even searched his apartment without a warranty, having confiscated his phone and keys (para. 10). When innocent people are frequently subjected to stop-and-frisks, they are left feeling violated; instead of making people feel safer in their communities, the stop-and-search policy manages to make them feel insecure in their neighborhoods. The feeling of insecurity beats the very purpose for which it was designed.
On the flip side, law enforcement supports the use of stop-and-frisk, seeing it as a major contributor to the reduction of crime and many arrests and recovery of illegal weapons ('Stop-and-Frisk does work'). They argue that many of the people arrested through stop-and-frisks have been convicted ('Stop-and-Frisk Does work,' para.1). The crime rate in New York is also said to have gone down by 30 percent ever since the outgoing mayor took office and instituted the stop-and-frisk system. The incarceration rate is also reported to have increased to 24 percent (para. 7); however, it is worth noting that the report on the success of searches issued by the police did not compare it to overall rates of arrests in the city resulting from other cases. This does not offer conclusive evidence that the method is a major contributor to arrests and convictions.
In conclusion, the stop-and-frisk policy has shown more problems than significant contribution to public safety. It has proven to breed resentment against law enforcement, cultivates hostility in communities which feel target by this law, invades individual’s privacy and has not reported sufficient evidence to support its roles in crime prevention. This policy is, therefore, not effective in making people feel safe in their neighborhoods, neither can it be said to help fight crime. The system needs to be reexamined, and its use assessed to ensure that it does not harm the peaceful existence of individuals in their communities.
Works Cited
Badger, Emily. "12 Years Of Data From New York City Suggest Stop-And-Frisk Wasn’t That Effective". The Washington Post 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.
Peart, Nicholas. "Why Is The N.Y.P.D After Me". New York Times 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.
"'Stop-and-Frisk does work': Over half of the 150,000 arrests that came from searches ended in conviction or guilty plea, say NY police". Daily Mail. N.p., 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.
