Stop and Frisk, a policing method implemented in New York City at the turn of the century has become one of the most controversial policing policies in modern times. While the ethics of stop and frisk have been the subject of many heated debates, what is hard to deny is the success of the program. New York City has transformed from being one of the most dangerous cities in the United States to being one of the safest cities in the world. Areas of the city that only a few decades ago may have been considered hazardous are now becoming gentrified and safer while wealthier neighborhoods experience virtually no crime at all. As Daniel Bergner addresses in his piece “Is Stop and Frisk Worth It?”, the many socio-economic changes that New York City has undergone in the last two decades cannot account for the startling drop in crime, and the evidence points to Stop and Frisk as the crucial variable. Despite the success, the program was heavily criticized for targeting young black and hispanic men and the NYPD was repeatedly accused of racial profiling. In 2015, with Mayor Bill Deblasio, a staunch opponent to the policy, now in office, the era of stop and frisk seems to have come to an end. While it may feel like a giant leap forward for social justice, it is unclear what affect the termination of this policy will have on future crime.
Towards the end of his piece, Bergner puts forward the question of whether or not stop and frisk can be improved, rather than ended.
What if cops were heavily trained to be careful in their judgments, and to do their field inquiries with respect and even a measure of deference? My nights with Big Cat and Gesuelli—who rarely raised their voices—suggest that such a change might be feasible. The idea may sound a little naive, but it comes up often in discussions about stop-and-frisk. Zimring brought it up during our conversations. “Why couldn’t it work?” he asked. “Why not remove the testosterone? Why not Stop-and-Frisk Polite? Why not a different kind of policeman?”
In my opinion, this seems like the best option going forward. I can’t get over the feeling that anybody who rejects the success of stop and frisk is cherry picking their data. At the same time, institutionalized racism is one of the greatest struggles that everybody in the world today has to work together to overcome. Is the big issue with stop and frisk really the actually process of the searches, or the manner in which they’re carried out? What if police at the very least attempted to by business like and polite before resorting to intimidation?
It is unreasonable to say that you can control the actions of thousands of police officers, but at the same time there could be stricter punishment for cops who treat pedestrians inhumanely. If the shame were placed on cops for failing to be civil in their line of work rather than on the pedestrian until proven innocent, the entire system would function differently.
In her New York Times article “Rude or Polite, City Officers Leave Raw Feelings in Stops”, Wendy Ruderman explains how most New Yorkers are unhappy about being stopped, but are most upset about the way in which they are treated during frisks. She explains how the police are often overly aggressive and vulgar during these encounters, citing this example
One of the officers, Mr. Morales said, warned: “Say one word and I’m going to make your parents pick you up at the jail. You guys are a bunch of immigrants.”
“Yep, that’s what they said, ‘You guys are immigrants,’ ” Mr. Mejia interjected. “We can’t say anything to them. They curse at us. They treat us like we killed somebody.”
Overall, it would be completely ignorant to ignore the issues with stop and frisk, but it would be equally ignorant to deny the program its success. Modifying the system – insisting on proper police conduct – would be the best and most logical approach to keeping New York City safe for years to come.
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/is-stop-and-frisk-worth-it/358644/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-morrison-kelling-20150107-column.html#page=1
The problem with stricter oversight and insisting on proper police conduct is that even with videos filmed of “improper police conduct,” it’s still ambiguous what went on and who’s in the wrong. I mean, think of the plethora of videos of policemen supposedly violating their rights that have been posted on social media. Also, with stricter laws or oversight, policemen might begin to feel like they can’t properly do their job or diffuse a dangerous situation for fear of it appearing “racist.” That would defeat the whole purpose of Stop and Frisk.
I’m not suggesting that you’re wrong…I’m just suggesting that it’s not that simple to simply “insist on proper police conduct.” I agree with your conclusion, though, that we can’t abolish the program but we also can’t keep it running the way it is, where it promotes institutionalized racism. I’m honestly not sure what exactly the solution would be in terms of amending it (without also detracting from the program’s purpose) but I do realize the conundrum we face with it as it stands.
Also, just to add on to that – 2 possible implementable policies that have been proposed in order to simultaneously eliminate racial profiling and promote police action to create a safe environment were:
1) More detailed reports filled out by policemen regarding Stop and Frisk
2) On-body cameras that are monitored by some sort of non-police department body
These methods are obviously not fool-proof. And I’m even saying that they’re close to perfect, but I think something along these lines is the best methodology to work towards a solution to this problem.