The debate of “Stop and Frisk” has been going on for as long as I can remember (which isn’t that long considering the time of my initial interest or observation of what’s being written in the Newspapers.) The road to protecting the public always seems to be in question. Nothing could ever please everyone. Either the method in question is allegedly unconstitutional or it’s doing what needs to be done. Stop and Frisk has come under the microscope and been accused of not actually being effective as well as stripping the freedom and rights of the individuals in the heavily policed neighborhoods.
Reading through the discussion article clarified some thoughts I had about stop and frisk. Several of the authors brought in statistics showing a decrease in “hits” and other crimes with an increase in aggressive stop and frisk actions. Others argued that this does not mean people can pass through the streets with their guns hiding in their girlfriend’s purse or by some common meeting place for a gang. The aggressive tactic has come under scrutiny for stripping the freedoms of the people. Yet, my problem with that argument is, what have you got to be afraid of? I understand that I may not fully understand what really goes on versus me reading it on paper, though what should a person be hiding if they are following in the law. Is it not the safety of the public that matters most? If the government isn’t meant to protect their innocents by standers, then whom are they meant to protect? With that said, I do agree that there has to be some sort of practice and regulation instilled to make sure there is a valid thought of an expected crime, rather than just racial profiling. One person argued that there still can be guns in the persons house, to that I say “So what?” That is a whole other issue pertaining to a citizen’s rights to “bear arms” (legally, of course).
A proposed plan, or idea, was that to work with people. Get them involved and not destroy their trust with authority. It then brings up the issue of good cop vs. bad cop. Should the cop be nice and cheery, or should he/she instill a sense of fear to try to hinder crime. Although I agree that working with the people is the best way to understand the community and in the end limit crime, but why should someone be afraid of the police in the first place? Because the cop is stopping someone suspected of possessing an illegal weapon?
This is a very complicated issue, hence the long, seemingly never-ending, debate. Although stop and frisk has its pros, it definitely has lots of flaws. These flaws though can be removed in a perfect world. But sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world that we don’t know who is carrying a gun and what the person who’s next to me, next move is going to be.
Good Luck to all politicians having to clean up another mess.
