Research on Stop and Frisk Policies BY duke31186 13Dec13 Research done on NYC’s Stop and Frisk Policies Since its implementation in the policing practices of the NYPD, Stop and Frisk policies have been tracked and studied by many third party intellectuals that specialize in criminal Justice systems. Among them are John Jay college of Criminal Justice, VERA institute for Justice, New York Law School, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center on Race Crime and Justice, and the New York State Attorney General’s Office. Each of hese intellectual entities conducted research on different aspects or dilemmas brought about by Stop and Frisk policing.
The Center for Constitutional Rights conducted research on the “Human Impact” of the Stop and Frisk policies, by interviewing individuals who had undergone this practice. They interviewed samples of varying age, sex, race and ethnicity. The center’s claim is that these interviews provide evidence of how deeply this practice impacts individuals, as well as documenting the widespread civil and human rights buses, including illegal profiling, improper arrests, inappropriate touching, sexual harassment, humiliation and violence at the hands of police officers. CCR] The Center’s study found that Race is the primary factor involved in the selection of individuals for stopping as well as the major common factor for the level of brutality or degradation inflicted upon the suspect; interestingly, these findings were reported to occur regardless of the race of the officer in question. The obvious limitations of a report conducted by interviewing prospective unaccountable victims, is the tendency or embellishment that occurs between an accuser and a violator.
The VERA Institute’s study, Coming of Age with Stop and Frisk: Experiences, Self- Perceptions, and Public Safety Implications, intends to explain the negative implications of policing policies on New York Citys youth. It focused exclusively on young people in highly patrolled, high-crime areas who have been stopped by police at least once, the study surveyed roughly 500 people between the ages of 18 and 25 and conducted in-depth interviews with a smaller sample of 13- to 21 -year-olds. VERA] These surveys and interviews were then compiled to assess the impact of Stop and Frisk on New York Citys youth.
One of the key findings is that this experience is a frequent occurrence that seems unjustified or unfair. Another reported injustice is the commonality with which use of force, threats, and searches occur. These reports lead to the studys main finding, which reveals the alarming number of youths that report a distrust of police and an unwillingness to cooperate with them. This study has many clear limitations to draw from it. The initial claims to explain the effects on NYC’s youth cannot be accomplished with a sample size as small as it was; neither can it explain discrimination when targeting as specific demographic or neighborhood.
Perhaps the most complete and well-rounded research study, from which the New York State Attorney General’s study and the New York Law School Law Review article were based, can be attributed to John Jay College of Criminal Justice. The data used in NYPD’s compiled data that is public record. The researchers of John Jays Center on Race, Crime and Justice compiled, graphed and analyzed the data received, which howed some astounding results. Over the nine-year period 2003 to 2011, the annual number of stops documented by police officers in New York City more than quadrupled, from 160,851 to 685,724, before declining by 22% in 2012. CRCJ] This number includes individuals that were stopped more than once, but brings us to a greater question. NYPD’s Field Training Unit Program Guide p. 3 reads,” A police officer is required to prepare a UF-250 for each person stopped if one or more of the following conditions are met: the stop involves the use of force; a frisk or more xtensive search of the person occurs; the stop results in an arrest; or the person refuses to identify him or herself. ” Conversely, p. 9 reads,” ” .. n ALL cases in which an officer detains someone based on reasonable suspicion of a felony or misdemeanor as defined by the Penal Law, a Stop, Question and Frisk Report Worksheet must be prepared. ” The clear incongruity exampled hear shows the probability that officers might not only be choosing to underreport, but may actually be doing so legally based off of p. 3 of their own field guide. Some disturbing data is hat of the comparison of stops to actual violent or gun-related crimes.
The data shows that the number of stops reported in 2012, 532,911, was far exceeding the numbers of other serious crimes. The numbers of criminal acts such as: felonious assault, robbery, firearm possession, shooting incident, rape, and murder totaled up to only 48,403. What happened during stops was most alarming however. Guns were found only . 14% of the time, Knives and such only 1 . 13%, contraband only 1 . 7%; while suspects were frisked 55. 8%, and physical use of force by an officer was used at 7. 3% of the time.
While there is the glaring possibility of underreporting by officers, this data taking from NYPD’s Uniform Crime Reports is enough to highlight the ethical dilemmas that exist within Stop and Frisk policing. References Stop and Frisk: The Human Impact July 2012 Center for Constitutional Rights [CCR] Nahal Zaman’, et. al Coming of age with Stop and Frisk September 2013 VERA institute [VERA] Jennifer Fratello, Andres f. Rengifo, Jennifer Trone 2013 Center on Race, Crime and Justice; John Jay College of Criminal Justice [CRCJ] Dr. Delores Jones-Brown, et. al