Author Archives: Fatema Arafa

Reading Response 5/12/15

Posted on by
Reply

In Reel Time/ Real Justice, the article discusses the brutal beating of Rodney King, an African American, by Los Angeles police officers. Subsequently, the police officers were acquitted from criminal charges leading to outcry by Los Angeles inhabitants. These outcries for justice were dismissed as “riots by mobs” in the media and even by the United States president. The Rodney King case showed how deeply interconnected power and race were. When the video of the brutal beating of Rodney King was first released, very few could argue that they did not find the video abhorrent and clearly demonstrates discriminatory attitudes of police officers toward African Americans. However, in the courtroom, the clearly excessive force used by police officers on Rodney King became “ reasonable exercise of force necessary to restrain a prisoner”. Rodney King became the offender and the police were simply doing their jobs. The solution to such cases may seem like formal equality through affirmative action and other legislation that addresses race as a cause of police brutality and other injustices.

Question: What legislation has been proposed to address the issue of race in many forms of social injustices?

Reading for May 5th

Posted on by
Reply

In Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of Urban Space, the author discusses how in Los Angeles it has become clear that the gap between rich and poor has been reinforced through security. The author states, “ The defense of luxury has given birth to an arsenal of security systems and an obsession with the policing of social boundaries.” No longer are the wealthy distinguished from the poor based on their riches. The poor neighborhoods are secluded from urban society through police enforced barricades. The disparity between rich and poor is now physically in place through military enforcement as well as construction of luxury buildings that clearly exclude those below a certain stature. The new use of public space as areas to divide the classes opposes the Olmstedian vision, which saw public spaces like parks as areas for the mixing of the rich and poor.

 

Question: How can public officials fulfill the Olmstedian vision through public policies?

Redressing Stop-and-Frisk Policy

Posted on by
Reply

By East Harlem Group-Fatema Arafa, Sara Brown, Julia Buczynski, & Christian Budhi

Currently in New York City, the types of policing being enforced are stop-and-frisk as well as “broken windows.” In the past, there were two other forms of policing called “zero tolerance” and “quality of life.” During the 1990s, “zero tolerance” and “quality of life” were adopted by New York City.  “Zero tolerance” involves police officers focusing on areas with high crime rates, and arresting those committing any minor crimes.  These arrests can also be made when the officer is suspicious of any criminal activity occurring, and there are no warnings given to those committing the crime.  The problem with this form of policing is that many people who have been arrested were falsely accused of the crimes.  Also, the city does state that the cases are usually dropped but there have been many instances where the minor crime is still on a person’s record and can adversely affect their careers.  The Legal Action Center revealed that of the 2500 cases of criminal records, half have been incorrectly filed in the computer, meaning that half of those cases do not show that they were dismissed (Staples, 2012).

“Quality of life” policing is closely related to “zero tolerance” and it involves arresting those who have committed both non-criminal and minor offenses (INCITE, n.d.).  “Quality of life” is also a form of community policing.  Police officers focus on the crimes that show “social disorder” (What-When-How, n.d.). Some of these include loitering, sleeping in public areas, and littering.

“Broken windows” policing was adopted by Mayor Bill De Blasio, and it also stems from “quality of life” policing.  This form of policing focuses on arresting for misdemeanors in order to prevent larger crimes from occurring.  The problem with this form of policing is that it targets minority communities.  It also led to the death of Eric Garner, a man who was selling untaxed cigarettes on the street, and who was arrested and put into a chokehold by a police officer.  He was unable to breathe from the chokehold, and this resulted in his death (Sneed, 2014).

Currently, stop-and-frisk is a major form of policing in New York City.  Stop-and-frisk policing allows an officer to stop anyone on the street if they are showing any suspicious activity.  The officer is then allowed to search the person in order to see if they are in possession of anything illegal and arrest them if they are.  Stop-and-frisk targets minority neighborhoods in NYC.  Racial profiling is also occurring when the officers are out on the streets looking for any suspicious activity.  According to the New York State Attorney General, only three percent of the stop-and-frisks carried out end with the person being convicted of the crime.

The policy of stop-and-frisk has been a controversial form of policing in recent years in New York City.  It has also led to the distrust between the communities and the police.  This form of policing was constituted in 1968, during which the Supreme Court case Terry vs. Ohio introduced the idea of justifiable pedestrian searches.  This case involved a NYC police officer who observed two men by a convenience store because he believed that they were going to perform a robbery based on their suspicious activity.  When the officer approached the men and searched them, he found a weapon that was concealed by one of the men, John W. Terry.  After this occurred, the Supreme Court agreed to allow police officers to perform a search when there is a justifiable reason for the officer to stop and frisk that individual.

The issue with these policies is the heavy reliance on racial profiling as well as targeting of minorities like LGBT, immigrants…etc. In fact, In 2011, an estimated 686,000 people were stopped, the majority of them being African American and Latino.  The New York Civil Liberties Union compiled a stop and frisk data based on the NYPD’s periodic public report of its stop and frisk activity. From the 685,724 people stopped, 53 % were African American, 32% were Latinos, 9% were white, and 51% were aged from 14 years old to 24 years old. Out of the 686,000 people halted, 89% were free from crime, and, according to NYPD’s reports, 9 out of the 10 who were stopped and frisked were innocent. In other words, this shows the stop and frisk programs are based on racial profiling, and how the stop and frisk program may not be as fruitful as many seem to think (Sneed, 2014).

Stop and Frisk is not an issue that is confined to New York City, or to New York State, it is a national problem. In order to redress the issues of Stop and Frisk on the state, city and locally in East Harlem, we must address it nationally. What is the national solution to Stop and Frisk? A solution that requires “anti-racial profiling and police accountability measures (NAACP, 2014)”

In a study conducted by the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), they found that only 30 states out of 50 clearly outlaw racial profiling, 30 states have laws that condone racial profiling, and only 17 states prohibit traffic stops that are unfounded. They also found that only 17 states prohibit breaking their anti-racial profiling laws, only 3 states “allow individuals to seek injunctive relief to stop officers or police departments from racial profiling”, 17 states mandate the gathering of information on all stops and searches and only 15 require the study and disclosure of such data and finally only 17 states investigate racial profiling complaints by mandating the formation of commissions for such a task. These findings show that many states in the United States have inadequate laws against racial profiling and some even condone racial profiling in their laws.

Why do so many states condone the use of racial profiling? Mayor Bloomberg justified Stop and Frisk’s reliance on racial profiling by claiming that, of those stopped by police, 90 percent of crimes documented were committed by black and Hispanic men. Yet, racial profiling does not lead to a deterrence in crime. For instance, a 1998 lawsuit against Maryland police showed that 73% of those stopped and frisked on the highway were African American even though they only made up 20% of the population. In addition, they found that of the African Americans stopped, none were more likely to be carrying drugs or weapons than other races.  This case like many others shows that racial profiling is an ineffective tool against crime and a national solution is needed.

“Despite the gravity of abuses and the sad history of racial profiling in America, the country has yet to pass meaningful federal legislation to deal with the problem effectively[ii].” The fourth and fourteenth amendments of the constitution protect against racial profiling. The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, while the fourteenth amendment prohibits denial of rights to any individual or group. Unfortunately, many cases have resulted in the weakening of these amendments. The solution is to pass a federal law that ends racially-based profiling in Stop and Frisk as well as other law enforcement policies. This was the goal of the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA), which was brought up in both houses of Congress. Despite numerous attempts, this bill still has not been passed. In order for police policies like Stop and Frisk to be effective, they cannot be biased against any one race, gender, or other minority. Such racially profiled policies have resulted in a disconnect between police and communities around the nation. Through the passage of ERPA, racial profiling would have been prohibited at all levels of government, a plan for the gathering and monitoring of racial profiling data as well as sanctions against transgression of the law would have been put into place.

Undoubtedly, a federal solution to racial profiling is only one step in addressing the issue in NYC, and specifically in East Harlem. In order for Stop and Frisk to be an effective tool against crime, there also need to be state, city and local solutions to the issues underlying stop and frisk. These solutions coupled with a federal law like ERPA, which will ensure police accountability and criminalize racial profiling will have a profound impact on police and citizens alike, reducing crime as police and citizens begin to trust one another.

In fact, since the mayoral election in 2013, we’ve watched a significant decrease in the rate of Stop-and-Frisks in New York City from 191,558 reported stops to only 46,235 in the entire city; that is just over a 75% drop. Considering that the crime rate didn’t see such a significant change as that, it’s easy to say that the Stop-and-Frisk policy was considerably ineffective. Even looking at past data, throughout the years we’ve seen the rate of Stop-and-Frisks change drastically —  from year to year from over 600,000 in 2011 to the 46,000 we saw in 2014 — while the crime rate has remained the same throughout those years. The Bloomberg Administration has also claimed that there has been a decrease in crime rate since the introduction of Stop-and-Frisk, but that ignores the fact that there was already a significant steady decline in the crime rate since the 1980s in New York.

The main issue surrounding Stop-and-Frisk is the idea of racial profiling and police aggression through a policy that has proven to be ineffective. One proposed plan involves retraining officers to prevent the targeting of young black and latino men. Along with that, there should also be an increase in accountability for the officers in cases that are conducive of  profiling. This would allow for officers to be more aware of how they are evaluating people and might possibly decrease the cases of racial profiling.

One disadvantage of the Stop-and-Frisk policy is the police quota that officers have to abide by. By presenting officers with a quota it forces them to look for trouble and sometimes not necessarily in the right places. Abolishing this quota, or at least reforming it would do a great deal of positive change in the eyes of racially profiled individuals. There wouldn’t be a need to find people to stop and there would be more focus on other things for officers. Reforming the quota to not only looking at the number of stops but also the constitutionality of the stops would also provide a positive change; giving specific reasons to the stops along with the number of stops would be really helpful. We already have a system for recording the reasons for Stop-and-Frisks, but the system is very generalized and needs to be more specific.  

Stop-and-Frisk particularly affects East Harlem, where the majority of residents are black and Hispanic. Out of every neighborhood throughout the city, East Harlem has the greatest number of stops, with over 17,000 stops total in 2011. Almost half of those stops were cited as suspicion of illegal weapon possession, though many of them found no evidence of such firearms.

The NYPD’s focus on East Harlem is no surprise. East Harlem has higher proportions of black and Hispanic residents than in NYC overall, with 55% of the population being Hispanic, and 33% black. Furthermore, East Harlem residents are younger than the New York City population overall, with over 30% of the citizens of ages between 25 and 44. For a policy that historically targets young males of color, East Harlem presents ample opportunity for racially charged policing.

It’s clear that stop-and-frisk policy is based upon racial profiling. The result in East Harlem is a population of local residents who feel attacked by the very people charged with protecting them. Salaam Ellis, an East Harlem local and protestor in the “Stand Up, East Harlem” protest summed up the feeling of many residents, “I feel like the police are not here to protect me, if anything they are here to harass me, humiliate me, and make my life more difficult.”

Stop-and-frisk has become such a problem in the community in part because of a lack of accountability of the NYPD, who often abuse their power to search any “suspicious” characters. To prevent this major problem from continuing in East Harlem, the requirement of body camera on all NYPD officers should be instilled across the department. When police officer abuse of power holds consequences and can be seen by the public, cases of unlawful stop and frisk and police brutality will occur in far fewer numbers. This is an ideal solution because the cameras will not prevent the officers from responding quickly in emergency situations, unlike many proposed solutions, which require officers to check with a superior before taking any extreme actions. With a body-camera, officers are free to respond in any way they deem appropriate while being held accountable for the actions they take. However, this cannot be the only solution as proven by the Eric Garner case where an explicit video had been presented but was overlooked during the hearing. Other cases show the benefit of using body cameras. In South Carolina, a white police officer is being charged with murder for shooting a fleeing and unarmed 50 year old male named Walter Scott 8 times in the back, which was caught on camera.

In addition to ensuring that the police do not abuse their power through racial profiling, we need to ensure that the distribution of police throughout the neighborhoods of New York City do not place disproportionate amount of cops in East Harlem. East Harlem has historically had a bad reputation for a high rate of crime, but the reputation unfounded. In fact, the crime rate in East Harlem is 31 percent lower than the national average. There is no justifiable reason for the rate of stop-and-frisk to be so prevalent in the area, especially compared to other Manhattan boroughs. Decreasing the amount of police patrol in the area will drastically decrease tensions between the NYPD and East Harlem residents.

Not only will these new procedures prevent the unnecessary frisking of hundreds of innocent East Harlem residents, but will dramatically decrease tensions between the police force and the residents who feel under siege as well.

[i] Ana, Joanes, “Does the New York City Police Department Deserve Credit for the Decline in New Yorks City’s Homicide Rates-A Cross-City Comparison of Policing Strategies and Homicide Rates.” Colum. JL & Soc. Probs. 33 (1999): 265.

[ii]Staples, Brent. “The Human Cost of ‘Zero Tolerance.’” 28 April. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

[iii]INCITE! “”Quality of Life” Policing.” (n.d.) Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

[iv]What-When-How. “Quality-of-Life Policing.” (n.d.) Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

[v]New York State Office of the Attorney General. “A Report on Arrests Arising From the New York City Police Department’s Stop-And-Frisk Practices.” Web. November 2013. http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/OAG_REPORT_ON_SQF_PRACTICES_NOV_2013.pdf

[vi]Sneed, Tierney. “From Ferguson to Staten Island, Questions About Broken Window Policing.” Web. August 14, 2014.

[vii]“Born Suspect.”NAACP. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. http://naacp.3cdn.net/9312d4a4f8ed7681ff_fnm6b22xw.pdf

[viii]“Soapbox Derby, Stick Ball and Double-Dutch Coming to Thomas Jefferson Park.” DNAinfo New York. Web. 26 Apr. 2015. <http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150424/east-harlem/soapbox-derby-stick-ball-double-dutch-coming-thomas-jefferson-park>.

[ix]“Residents of East Harlem – Manhattan’s Most Stopped-and-Frisked Neighborhood.” The Bronx Defenders. Web. 26 Apr. 2015. <http://www.bronxdefenders.org/residents-of-east-harlem-manhattans-most-stopped-and-frisked-neighborhood/>.

[x]Harris, David. “Ten Steps Bill de Blasio and Bill Bratton Should Take to Fix Stop-and-Frisk”. The Nation. 20 Dec. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://www.thenation.com/article/177683/ten-steps-bill-de-blasio-and-bill-bratton-should-take-fix-stop-and-frisk>.

[xi]Bostock, Mike. Fessenden, Ford. “‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Is All but Gone From New York”. The New York Times. 19 Sep. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/19/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-is-all-but-gone-from-new-york.html?_r=0>.

[xii]“Stop-and-Frisk Data”. New York Civil Liberties Union. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data>.

[xiii]Bump, Philip. “New York Has Essentially Eliminated Stop-and-Frisk — and Crime Is Still Down”. 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/03/new-york-has-essentially-eliminated-stop-and-frisk-and-crime-is-still-down/>.

Reading for 4/28

Posted on by
Reply

“Canaries of the Creative Age” discusses how certain aspects in Greenwich village-acceptance and diversity- “have become its greatest liabilities” in the eyes of the Christopher Street Patrol & Bock and Merchant Associations. This statement was targeted at the gay and lesbian nonresidents of the area. In fact, a “Take Back Our Streets” rally was held against LGBT Youth and complaints against them are often brought up in monthly community board meetings. Despite the seemingly oppositionary stance to social tolerance that these associations had taken, they were still supported even by some LGBT. Social tolerance in a region was measured by the Gay Index. As the number of gay, and to a lesser degree lesbians, in a community increased, social tolerance also increased, which in turn also means that creativity increased . A different view held by those advocating the Gay Index is that LGBT live in communities with high rates of illegal activity and run-down homes.

Question: Why is diversity seen as a liability in the Greenwich village?

Reading Response 4/21/15

Posted on by
Reply

“Quality of Life” policing, derived from the broken window theory that Mayor De Blasio supports, is a tactic in which minor wrongdoings like public urination and loitering are more policed. “Quality of Life” policing is supposed to improve the quality of life of New Yorkers, but whose life does it really improve? This policy, along with the “zero tolerance” policy, which advocates zero tolerance with minor crimes that are seen as being an epidemic, are often applied unequally and discriminatorily. Police often apply these policies to immigrants, women, African Americans, the homeless and others at a disadvantage. The end result often times is arrest or even death, as was the case for Margaret Mitchell, for the suspect, who is often a minority. This was the case for Eric Gardener, an African American father, who died of a chokehold at the hands of broken window theory. Clearly, these policies improve the quality of life for certain not all, people

 

Question: Why is “Quality of Life” policing still being used despite its use of racial profiling?

Stop & Frisk in NYC, in East Harlem & in History

Posted on by
Reply

-Submitted by Christian, Fatema, Julia & Sara

The stop and frisk policy has been a controversial issue throughout years in New York City.  It was established in 1968, when the Supreme Court case Terry vs. Ohio set the Legal Basis for justifiable pedestrian searches.  In this case, a New York City police officer approached two men who he believed to be casing a convenience store for a potential robbery. After observing them for a considerable period of time, the officer approached the pedestrians for questioning, after which he frisked them. The frisk of one of the men, John W. Terry, produced a concealed weapon. This provoked the question of whether a search without probable cause for arrest is in violation to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that a search is legal if there is reasonable belief that there is probable cause for arrest.

The 1976 case of People vs. de Bour further upheld this ruling, by stating that if  “an intrusion on the security and privacy of the individual is undertaken with intent to harass… the spirit of the Constitution has been violated” but, “we cannot say that the defendant’s right to be free from an official interference by way of inquiry is absolute.” This case, in essence, established rules for the stop-and-frisk policy.

Despite these precedent-setting cases, controversy regarding the policy did not begin until the 1990’s, when an unarmed African immigrant, Amadou Diallo was shot by an NYPD officer. For the first time, a class action lawsuit was filed about New York City for unlawful stop-and-frisk practices and racial profiling. Only days later, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced an inquiry into the policy, which concluded that stop-and-frisk disproportionately targeted black and Latino men.

This, of course, has been the primary issue with stop-and-frisk ever since. Despite Spitzer’s study, NYPD and the city of New York has worked hard to show evidence that the policy is effective and does not target any particular demographic. Primarily, the NYPD has come under attack for withholding stop-and-frisk data, which provides evidence of racial profiling and searching without justifiable belief of arrest. Steps have been taken, as recently as 2010, to force the NYPD to publicly release all stop-and-frisk data.

Many of these steps have been ineffective due in large part to Mayor Bloomberg’s adamant support of the policy. Bloomberg cites a drop in the crime rate and decrease in the amount of guns on the street as evidence of the effectiveness of stop-and-frisk. Bloomberg went further to justify the racial profiling of those who were stopped by police officers, claiming that 90 percent of crimes committed were committed by black and Hispanic men. Therefore, in order to truly protect the city, that demographic must be under the most suspicion.

Stop-and-frisk is an improperly implemented policy that has created a division between the communities and the law enforcement. Stop-and-frisk does not work well in  New York City where there is a large population of people of color. Racial profiling has continuously been a substantial matter, but it gained more attention ever since the case of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17 year old African American who was fatally shot by a police officer. Racial profiling is entwined with the NYPD’s policy of stop-and-frisk; data gathered from the NYPD’s annual report, which was compiled by the New York Civil Liberties Union showed how the percentage of people stopped were mostly Blacks and Latino. This policy is unjust and is being ruled by racial profiling, which needs to be stopped. New Yorkers should address the stop-and-frisk policy in order for everyone within the community to have equal footing. New York City has an approximate population of 8.3 million, predominantly filled with ethnic minorities. A multitude of individuals have been affected by the stop-and-frisk policy implemented by the NYC law enforcement.

In 2011, an estimated 686,000 people were stopped, the majority of them being African American or Latino.  The New York Civil Liberties Union compiled stop-and-frisk data based on the NYPD’s periodic public report of its stop-and-frisk activity. From the 685,724 people stopped, 53 percent were African American, 32 percent were Latino, 9 percent were white, and 51 percent were between the ages of 14 and 24. Out of the 686,000 people halted, 89 percent were not convicted of any crimes and according to NYPD’s reports, 9 out of the 10 who were stopped and frisked were innocent. This demonstrates that the stop-and-frisk policy is based on racial profiling and how the stop-and-frisk policy may not be as beneficial as most people presume it to be. [6]

Proponents of the  policy argue that stop-and-frisk reduces crime rates and protects individuals. However, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union this is a myth. “No research has ever proven the effectiveness of New York City’s stop-and-frisk regime, and the small number of arrests, summonses, and gun recovered demonstrates that the practice is ineffective,” it says. Although crime rates fell 29 percent in New York City from 2001 to 2012, other large cities experienced larger crime drops: 59 percent in Los Angeles, 56 percent in New Orleans, and 49 percent in Dallas without having to rely on the stop-and-frisk method. Another justification for the stop-and-frisk policy is that it helped the law enforcement get guns off the streets. That is also a misconception; The New York Times reported in August 2012 that 1 out of every 879 police stops found guns, and the NYCLU accounted that guns are found in less than 0.2 percent of stops. From the data shown, stop-and-frisk policy is not as effective as the population of New Yorkers seem to believe. [7]

There was also a case that declared the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy violated two clauses of the United States Constitution. In Floyd vs. City of New York, the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment were infringed by the NYPD. The Fourth Amendment prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures; the Fourteenth Amendment banned race based laws and policies. Even Mayor Bloomberg made remarks that the police should rely more on the racial background of murder suspects, not the city’s overall demographic makeup. The New York Times quoted the Mayor during his weekly radio program on WOR-radio, “I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little.”[8]

“Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal,” wrote the Kerner Commission, which was written in order to explain the riots that plagued cities in 1964 and to provide recommendations for the future. The commission concluded in 1968 that the nation was facing a system of apartheid in major cities across The United States. The report blamed “white society” for isolating and neglecting African American communities, along with urging the legislation to promote racial integration and to enrich slums, through the creation of jobs, job training programs, and decent housing. If the fear of crime rising prevents people from demanding reform of stop-and-frisk, then a look at the Kerner Commission will show another way to prevent crime.

During Bill de Blasio’s campaign, he stated that he hopes to reform the stop-and-frisk policy in New York City.  Since he became mayor, the number of stop and frisks carried out by police officers in New York City has dropped.  Mayor de Blasio has not done anything to stop the unequal numbers of stop and frisks in neighborhoods with high populations of minority groups as compared to other neighborhoods. Based on the percentages of people who were stopped in 2014, 55.4 percent were black, while 30.2 percent were Latino (Wofford, 2014).  Compared to 2013, there was a less than one percent difference in 2014.

Mayor de Blasio supports another policy of policing called “broken windows,” which focuses on making arrests for misdemeanors in order to prevent more serious crimes from occurring.  This policy has problems because it is also targeting those living in minority neighborhoods.  It also contributed to the death of Eric Garner, who was harassed by police for selling untaxed cigarettes on the street.  A police officer used an illegal chokehold, even while Garner protested that he could not breathe (Sneed, 2014).  This has caused a major division between communities and the police officers.  Policing in New York City needs to be greatly improved.  Of all the stop-and-frisks carried out, only three percent actually ended with conviction, according to the New York State Attorney General.

There have been many proposals to improve the ways that the police handle stop-and-frisk.  De Blasio and the NYPD have shot down many of these proposals.  One bill proposed by 22 city council members is the Right to Know Act, which would only apply to those who are stopped by an officer without any suspicions or reasons for being frisked.  The person would have to give his or her consent to being searched.  De Blasio did not approve of this bill, believing that it would hinder the way police do their jobs and put a greater risk on their lives (Mathias, 2014).   Others have also proposed body cameras for police officers to wear while they are stopping people on the street in order to determine how they interact.  This proposal stems from the complaints of the brutal force that officers have used on people.  One councilman who was frisked by police stated that the officer did not say who he was and only gave him orders to turn around and put his hands on the wall.  Another councilman said the officer grabbed his arm and did not give his name either (Mathias, 2014).  Bill de Blasio has only been mayor since November of 2013, so he still has time to focus on the issue of stop-and-frisk and the racial profiling that is still occurring.

East Harlem has a problematic past with the stop-and-frisk policy. Words such as abuse, harassment, and discrimination are often associated with it. In 2011, the year stop-and-frisk occasions peaked at 685,724 New Yorkers, the neighborhood was reported to have the most stop-and-frisks conducted in Manhattan. Not only has East Harlem showed a high incident report of over 17,000 stops for their 23rd precinct in 2011, this number rivals Harlem’s 32nd precinct by over 4,600. About half, 47.6 percent, of the stops in East Harlem that year were under suspicions of weapon possession.

The problem that arises from the Stop-and-Frisk policy is that there is a heavy root in racial profiling that occurs in neighborhoods like East Harlem. In 2011, when stops were at their highest, 350,743 of the 685,724 New Yorkers stopped were black; that’s 54 percent of stops in all of New York City. Even in 2014, where the number of stop-and-frisks have dropped to 46,235, just about half of those stopped were black as well. East Harlem itself reported a stronger concentration of stops with black residents as 61 percent of stopped people. Considering that black residents count as 25.5 percent of the population, this is where the problem of racial profiling comes out.

A movement called “East Harlem Stand Up!” started in response to these statistics. On January 17, 2013 at the Taino Towers on 123rd street, a meeting was called to address Stop-and-Frisk and discriminatory policing. The program in this meeting included: an address by council member Melissa Mark-Viverito, the Community Safety act, and “cop watch”. The Community Safety Act is a collection of four bills that aimed to improve the relationship between the community and police by helping to end discriminatory policing and increase trust in officers. The bills themselves focused on protecting the citizens from discrimination and unlawful searches, requiring officers to identify themselves, and establishing an NYPD inspector general office. The discussion of this bill eventually led to its passing on January of 2014, leading to the significant drop from over 600,000 to under 50,000 cases of stop-and-frisk in New York City. The meeting also held a discussion on “Know Your Rights” and “Cop Watch” which were essentially ways for the public to stand up for themselves by knowing the information they need to respond to police officers.

The problem of racial profiling is still an issue, but at least with the rates of stops decreasing, there are less people being affected. Of course with the percentage of black residents being stopped at about 50 percent, there’s still work to be done to counter racial profiling. East Harlem council member Melissa Mark-Viverito mentions that Stop-and-Frisk makes the neighborhood less safe, especially for the youth, but considering there was a drop in crime rate accredited to the Stop-and-Frisk policy, it’s hard for the neighborhood to fight back against it.

  1. “Timeline | The City’s Use of Stop-and-Frisk.” WNYC News. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. <http://www.wnyc.org/story/212932-timeline-citys-use-stop-and-frisk/>.
  2. “Terry v. Ohio | Casebriefs.” Casebriefs. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. <http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-weinreb/the-fourth-amendment-arrest-and-search-and-seizure/terry-v-ohio-4/2/>.
  3. “People v Ddebour.” People v Ddebour. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. <http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/p_debour.htm>.
  4. Leber, Rebecca. “NYC Police Said Stop-and-Frisks Reduce Violent Crime. This Chart Says Otherwise.” Web. 27 Mar. 2015. <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120461/nypd-stop-and-frisk-drops-79-percent-and-crime-drops-too>.
  5. “Stop and Frisk Practices | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) – American Civil Liberties Union of New York State.” Stop and Frisk Practices | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) – American Civil Liberties Union of New York State. http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices (accessed May 15, 2014).
  6. Ana, Joanes, “Does the New York City Police Department Deserve Credit for the Decline in New Yorks City’s Homicide Rates-A Cross-City Comparison of Policing Strategies and Homicide Rates.” Colum. JL & Soc. Probs. 33 (1999): 265.
  7. “NYC ‘Stop and Frisk’ Found Unconstitutional.” American City & County [Online Exclusive] Aug. 2013. Business Insights: Essentials. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
  8. “Residents of East Harlem – Manhattan’s Most Stopped-and-Frisked Neighborhood.” The Bronx Defenders. Web. 28 March. 2015.
    <http://www.bronxdefenders.org/residents-of-east-harlem-manhattans-most-stopped-and-frisked-neighborhood/>.
  9. Mays, Jeff. “East Harlem’s 23rd Precinct Leads Manhattan in Stop-and-Frisks.” DNAinfo | New York. Web. 28 March.2015.
    <http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130206/east-harlem/east-harlems-23rd-precinct-leads-manhattan-stop-and-frisks>.
  10. “Stop-and-Frisk Data.” New York Civil Liberties Union. Web. 28 March. 2015.
    <http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data>.
  11. “The Community Safety Act.” Communities United for Police Reform. Web. 28 March. 2015.
    <http://changethenypd.org/community-safety-act>.
  12. Wofford, Taylor. “Did Bill de Blasio Keep His Promise to Reform Stop-And-Frisk?” Web. August 25, 2014.  http://www.newsweek.com/did-bill-de-blasio-keep-his-promise-reform-stop-and-frisk-266310
  13. Mathias, Christopher. “Mayor Bill De Blasio Breaks With Progressives Over Stop-And-Frisk Legislation.” Web. November 13, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/13/right-to-know-act_n_6154856.html
  14. New York State Office of the Attorney General. “A Report on Arrests Arising From the New York City Police Department’s Stop-And-Frisk Practices.” Web. November 2013. http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/OAG_REPORT_ON_SQF_PRACTICES_NOV_2013.pdf
  15. Sneed, Tierney. “From Ferguson to Staten Island, Questions About Broken Window Policing.” Web. August 14, 2014.

Reading Response 7

Posted on by
Reply

Natural disasters, like Hurricane Sandy, although cause the destruction of homes, material possessions and lives of countless people, often expose underlying problems in a community and help bring together the community on a common goal. In the case of Hurricane Sandy, that goal was to help those who lost everything rebuild their homes and their lives. In “Occupy Sandy: A movement moves to Relief”, Occupy Sandy has been able to do what many government agencies and larger charities haven’t, provide aid to those in need. As Ms. Gallista, field coordinator, put it, “For a long time, we were the only people out here doing relief work.” By providing flashlights, hot meals, warm blankets…etc, this organization has been able to bring together the community. Despite place a large shadow on the lives of many, Hurricane Sandy has illuminated a movement, the Occupy movement. It has encouraged many residents to join the movement and help aid others

Question: What other movements have been fueled by the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in NYC?

Reading Response 6

Posted on by
Reply

Natural disasters not only have immediate destructive effects, but also long-term effects. Hurricane Katrina was not only disastrous by destroying hundreds of homes in New Orleans as well as taking the lives of many, but by exposing, as the article on Hurricane Katrina states, the underlying policies that have fueled it to become more “disastrous”. Natural Disasters are not only natural; they are intertwined with the man-made policies created and as such can be more or less “disastrous” depending on those policies. One of Bush’s policies that has been exposed by Hurricane Katrina is his focus away from public policies that aim to improve services like welfare and education. Instead, he aims to privatize many of resources. In addition, he has cut funding for most public sectors of the government. It’s no surprise then that Hurricane Katrina would be so catastrophic on New Orleans. While those with access to transportation outside the city evacuated (mainly the wealthy), avoiding much of Hurricane Katrina, those who were unable to find a way out were stuck to face it.

East Harlem Proposal on Stop & Frisk

Posted on by
Reply
                 We believe that a major issue facing East Harlem is racially profiled ‘stop and frisk’. 17,000 cases of stop and frisk were reported in East Harlem’s 23rd precinct in 2011 (Mays, 2013). That is the highest number of cases in Manhattan in that year. Of those who were frisked, 61 percent were black while 36 percent were Hispanic. Many believe that racial profiling influences these cases. Many who have been frisked also complain of the humiliation and harassment they received.  One audio recording that a 15 year old took while being frisked shows evidence of officers calling him inappropriate names as well as threatening to break his arm (Ross, 2013).  He was stopped twice for walking down the street suspiciously while wearing a hoodie. Although stop and frisk can be implemented to decrease the crime rate; it should not be racially profiled, as statistics today seem to suggest. We will be looking at how ‘stop and frisk’ has impacted the East Harlem community by looking at the crime rates vs. the number of stop and frisk conducted as well as the racial profiles of those who have been stopped and frisked. In addition, we will look at the racial profile of unnecessary stop and frisk cases like the one mentioned above.
Here are the two sources:
Submitted by Julia, Fatema, Sara & Christian

Public Meeting on East Harlem

Posted on by
Reply

Meeting time & location: 6:00pm to 7:30pm on February 12th, 2015 at Board office, 1664 Park Avenue in East Harlem

This meeting was conducted by the environment, open space & parks committee. “The Parks committee is charged with the responsibility of working closely with the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, its affiliate organizations, Elected Officials and other state and federal environmental agencies, to ensure the preservation, conservation, maintenance, renovation and enjoyment of East Harlem Parks, playgrounds, ball fields, recreational facilities, community gardens, riverbanks, open public land and green spaces for East Harlem citizens.”

During the meeting, the committee addressed the James Weldon Johnson Playground, located on 103rd Street between Lexington and Third Avenues. In the previous meeting, the residents had asked for a variety of improvements to the playground, including better lighting, new swings and other equipment, training equipment, sprinklers for children, a leisure area for the elderly and last but not least open the P.S 57 school playground to the general. In this meeting, they discussed how they planned to resolve these issues. They put into place a plan that defined regions of open public space and other regions designated for children, adults or elderly leisurely activities. They included a drainage system for rainwater. They even planned to create a gate in order to allow access to the P.S 57 playground. They also increased lighting and placed in walkways for easier access. The two questions raised by the guests in the meeting were will there be a dedicated children’s playground area for children and parents? and Dedicated areas for senior exercise and seating? In the meeting, they had stated that there will in fact be a children’s playground and seating for the elderly. They also agreed that the meager wall, with a mural on it, will not be removed. They will also place two water fountains. Unfortunately, they will not be able to add a full court basketball court due to insufficient space. The James Weldon Johnson Playground was one of 35 parks targeted by Mayor Bill De Blasio in the community Parks Initiative. $130 million dollars were provided to help restructure 35 under-maintained parks.

The meeting also had guest speaker Rasheed Hoslop, Deputy Director of GreenThumb Community Gardening Program. The program provides material support, property management, educational planning and citywide events. I thought this was an excellent program since it provided a means for the community to gather together to improve their community. I was disappointed since the meeting only seemed to focus on two parks, whereas many parks in East Harlem are under-maintained and under-funded. I was made aware that there were a few requests that they had not addressed this meeting including the addition of more park patrol personnel in a few parks as well as improve a playground and a few Esplanades (open public areas). I had also read before attending the meeting that they had planned to add a skate park to Thomas Jefferson Park but they did not address it. From what I’ve read it seems they will be starting soon since the skate park designed was approved.