Security is Not Worth Racism
“We’re going to go out there and violate some rights”[1]
If this sounds like a twisted version of a football team’s pre-game cheer to you, you’re not far off the mark. These were exact words commonly spoken to the police force from an NYPD sergeant. To think that a “trusted” authority figure would say this is not only flabbergasting but is a disgrace to the face of the police force. Being a minority is not a crime; therefore it should not be punished nor looked at as one. Living as a minority is not something you choose but is rather something you are born into.
While supporters to Stop and Frisk believe it to heighten security, the racial profiling and dehumanizing nature of the Stop-and-Frisk procedures outweigh any potential positive effects and directly violates both individual liberty and the feeling of equality.
Many believe that the Stop-and-Frisk policy has minimized crime and murder rates. In a recent New York Times article, police commissioner Raymond Kelly stated, “I believe this tactic is a lifesaver…It is also lawful and constitutional” (Paddock). Kelly is not the only one posing the argument that the Stop-and-Frisk policy has not only contributed to a historical lowering in crime rate, but has taken hundreds of guns off the streets. New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg’s opinion compliments that of Raymond Kelly: “If you end street stops looking for guns, there will be more guns on the streets, and more people will be killed. It’s that simple”(RT Network). However, critics arguing against these kinds of statements have found that the murder rate was dropping even before the escalation of stop-and frisks and more importantly, what these two major influences do not seem to be acknowledging is the way in which police officers are conducting these inquiries.
A decent amount of stops are made for idiotic reasons and usually result in verbal and sometimes physical abuse from our so-called “trusted” police officers. Alvin, a 17-year old Latino boy, recently recorded a stop and frisk incident when he was on his way home from his girlfriend’s house. Alvin was stopped for “suspiciously looking back at the police car”. After the police stopped and questioned Alvin, they proceeded to pat him down. Alvin was growing impatient as he was being stopped regularly. Alvin asked questions about why he kept being stopped and when he refused to stop asking, the police officers not only began verbally abusing him, saying things such as “if you don’t shut your mouth I’ll break your arm”, but also threatened to arrest him (Harris). Sadly, this incident is the only known recording of the NYPD’s controversial stop-and-frisk program in action.
In addition to understanding the manner in which these stops are being conducted, it is critical to understand just who exactly are the targeted victims to this unjust policy. Between the times of 2004-2012, there were 4.43 million stops. 52% were black suspects, 31% Hispanic suspects, and about 17% were white suspects. Out of the 4.43 million stops, only 6% lead to an actual arrest (Frisky). These statistics strictly show that the vast majority of stops are made against African Americans and Hispanics. As these statistics sink in, let’s look at this policy through moral viewpoints.
Looking through the mental lens of Utilitarianism, the process being used to complete the stop-and-frisk policy goes against everything in which a Utilitarian believes. Utilitarian’s believe in maximizing happiness and minimizing pain. Studies show that regular stopping and frisking of innocent people is damaging trust between citizens and police. People are beginning to feel as if they cannot turn to the police when/if they witness a crime. Based off these facts, it can be concluded that society is becoming declined of safety. As safety within society begins to diminish, are we contributing to maximizing happiness? These are not the only downfalls that the stop-and-frisk policy has bestowed upon our society.
The most important downfall the policy has bestowed, is that the methods used to carry out these stop-and-frisks directly violate the constitution. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Would you not agree that being stopped for “suspiciously looking back at a police car” is an unreasonable motive to violate one’s personal space? As if violating one Amendment isn’t enough, this policy also violates the 14th Amendment.
The way in which police target minorities is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, which states,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states, “the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances”. Based on the statistics and evidence of the policy shown earlier, it is clear that the state of New York is violating the equal protection clause. Not only does it violate the equal protection law but it also violates Rawls’ theory of The Veil of Ignorance. John Rawls is a well-known philosopher who deeply believed in equality within society. Rawls’ theory of The Veil of Ignorance is summarized as the following: If you were utterly ignorant to your place it in society, not knowing whether you were rich, poor, black or white, laws would be made based on the fact that every individual is equal within society. As this theory is applied to the Stop and Frisk policy, it becomes clear that it strongly violates this way of thinking. If our society truly lived by the Veil of Ignorance theory, the Stop and Frisk policy would not be in existence.
It is time to repair this unconstitutional and morally unjust practice. We should begin by making sure police confrontation is respectful and reasonable. If these standards are not met, police officers should face appropriate consequences. Without these refinements, the Stop and Frisk procedure will demolish individual liberty and equality. Even though this policy is thought to heighten security, destroying individual liberty is not the just way to accomplish a safe society. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
[1] (Teen Called “F---ing Mutt” in Stop and Frisk)
“We’re going to go out there and violate some rights”[1]
If this sounds like a twisted version of a football team’s pre-game cheer to you, you’re not far off the mark. These were exact words commonly spoken to the police force from an NYPD sergeant. To think that a “trusted” authority figure would say this is not only flabbergasting but is a disgrace to the face of the police force. Being a minority is not a crime; therefore it should not be punished nor looked at as one. Living as a minority is not something you choose but is rather something you are born into.
While supporters to Stop and Frisk believe it to heighten security, the racial profiling and dehumanizing nature of the Stop-and-Frisk procedures outweigh any potential positive effects and directly violates both individual liberty and the feeling of equality.
Many believe that the Stop-and-Frisk policy has minimized crime and murder rates. In a recent New York Times article, police commissioner Raymond Kelly stated, “I believe this tactic is a lifesaver…It is also lawful and constitutional” (Paddock). Kelly is not the only one posing the argument that the Stop-and-Frisk policy has not only contributed to a historical lowering in crime rate, but has taken hundreds of guns off the streets. New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg’s opinion compliments that of Raymond Kelly: “If you end street stops looking for guns, there will be more guns on the streets, and more people will be killed. It’s that simple”(RT Network). However, critics arguing against these kinds of statements have found that the murder rate was dropping even before the escalation of stop-and frisks and more importantly, what these two major influences do not seem to be acknowledging is the way in which police officers are conducting these inquiries.
A decent amount of stops are made for idiotic reasons and usually result in verbal and sometimes physical abuse from our so-called “trusted” police officers. Alvin, a 17-year old Latino boy, recently recorded a stop and frisk incident when he was on his way home from his girlfriend’s house. Alvin was stopped for “suspiciously looking back at the police car”. After the police stopped and questioned Alvin, they proceeded to pat him down. Alvin was growing impatient as he was being stopped regularly. Alvin asked questions about why he kept being stopped and when he refused to stop asking, the police officers not only began verbally abusing him, saying things such as “if you don’t shut your mouth I’ll break your arm”, but also threatened to arrest him (Harris). Sadly, this incident is the only known recording of the NYPD’s controversial stop-and-frisk program in action.
In addition to understanding the manner in which these stops are being conducted, it is critical to understand just who exactly are the targeted victims to this unjust policy. Between the times of 2004-2012, there were 4.43 million stops. 52% were black suspects, 31% Hispanic suspects, and about 17% were white suspects. Out of the 4.43 million stops, only 6% lead to an actual arrest (Frisky). These statistics strictly show that the vast majority of stops are made against African Americans and Hispanics. As these statistics sink in, let’s look at this policy through moral viewpoints.
Looking through the mental lens of Utilitarianism, the process being used to complete the stop-and-frisk policy goes against everything in which a Utilitarian believes. Utilitarian’s believe in maximizing happiness and minimizing pain. Studies show that regular stopping and frisking of innocent people is damaging trust between citizens and police. People are beginning to feel as if they cannot turn to the police when/if they witness a crime. Based off these facts, it can be concluded that society is becoming declined of safety. As safety within society begins to diminish, are we contributing to maximizing happiness? These are not the only downfalls that the stop-and-frisk policy has bestowed upon our society.
The most important downfall the policy has bestowed, is that the methods used to carry out these stop-and-frisks directly violate the constitution. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Would you not agree that being stopped for “suspiciously looking back at a police car” is an unreasonable motive to violate one’s personal space? As if violating one Amendment isn’t enough, this policy also violates the 14th Amendment.
The way in which police target minorities is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, which states,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states, “the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances”. Based on the statistics and evidence of the policy shown earlier, it is clear that the state of New York is violating the equal protection clause. Not only does it violate the equal protection law but it also violates Rawls’ theory of The Veil of Ignorance. John Rawls is a well-known philosopher who deeply believed in equality within society. Rawls’ theory of The Veil of Ignorance is summarized as the following: If you were utterly ignorant to your place it in society, not knowing whether you were rich, poor, black or white, laws would be made based on the fact that every individual is equal within society. As this theory is applied to the Stop and Frisk policy, it becomes clear that it strongly violates this way of thinking. If our society truly lived by the Veil of Ignorance theory, the Stop and Frisk policy would not be in existence.
It is time to repair this unconstitutional and morally unjust practice. We should begin by making sure police confrontation is respectful and reasonable. If these standards are not met, police officers should face appropriate consequences. Without these refinements, the Stop and Frisk procedure will demolish individual liberty and equality. Even though this policy is thought to heighten security, destroying individual liberty is not the just way to accomplish a safe society. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
[1] (Teen Called “F---ing Mutt” in Stop and Frisk)