“NYPD’s controversial Stop and Frisk policy ruled unconstitutional” by Kerry Wills, Robert Gearty, and Stephen Rex Brown; which was polished January 8th, 12013. A major part of “Stop and Frisk’ in New York City is, NYPD is that it’s unconstitutional. The community feels that people feel that there is racial issue towards stopping and frisking. Manhattan Federal Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered police to reduce the amounts of trespass and abusing their power to frisk everyone. Juan Gonzalez feels that, “Too many innocents harassed by NYPD’s “Stop and Frisk” policy.
” The police department were practicing, Stop and Frisking in front of a private residential building. The police Commissioner Raymond Kelly totally agreed with the police officers practicing to stop and frisk. Raymond Kelly states, “Some take for granted the safety provided by doormen…. ” Part of the community disagrees and agrees with them practicing stop and frisk and most people feel like it seem to be racial profiling. The stop-and-frisk is a program in New York City which is a practice for the NYPD.
A police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony, stops and questions that person. If the officer feels the suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury. I personally disagree with “Stop and Frisk” because of the way how the cops approach a person and assume who is a danger to others and to themselves. Stop and Frisk is one of the biggest issue for New Yorkers because it has increased so much, which was also bringing up a lot of controversial issue.
The Term Paper on Ideology, Policy, and Practice
Through the prism of juvenile justice, Feld (2003) discusses the historical and contemporary roots of liberalism and conservatism as they affect criminal justice in the United States. Summarize these historical roots and comment on their impact on contemporary criminal justice. Does Feld’s article reflect an ideological bias? If so, what is it and why do you think so? Feld`s article about ...
For example, racial issues, cops abusing their authority, and unconstitutional. Every citizen has the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, but a cop must feel that they abuse their authority on how to approach someone to stop and frisk them. In 2011, 88 percent of all stops and frisks did not result in an arrest or a summons being given. Also “Stop and Frisk” target, African Americans and Latinos because, “84 percent of all those stopped, although they make up respectively 23 and 29 percent of New York City’s total population.
” The reasoning for this is because another major reason why I disagree with Stop and Frisk because, “NYPD officers are more likely to use physical force against Blacks and Latinos during stops; the NYPD used force against Blacks 76,483 times, and only 9,765 times against Whites. ” As a New York, I have seen a officer use force on a citizen to stop and frisk them; if they don’t listen to and officer then once it get rough then they say an officer likes to abuse their authority.
The numbers shown proves why I totally disagree with “Stop and Frisk”; this seems like racial profiling against blacks. It seem that most blacks are a danger to other people and the police department makes it seems that they are only approaching a certain race. In closing the article makes major points that make a lot of sense, but I strongly disagree with the points that he makes. Most of the time it seems like they are targeting African americans and Latinos which seemed like they were racial profiling. Work Cited:
