This blog was co-written by John Jay senior John Cusick

During a public meeting sponsored by the New York City Bar Association in 2000, Ray Kelly, the current New York City Police Department Commissioner, delivered an idyllic speech in which he criticized the Giuliani administration’s decision to pursue more proactive policing strategies. In addition, Kelly spoke on non-policing trends which have led to the recent decline in crime, such as the drop in crack use. Kelly even warned, “Continued use of dubious stop-and-frisk tactics [would sow] the seeds of community mistrust.” Commissioner Kelly’s warning regarding the use of stop, question, and frisk tactics and their impact on community trust is as true today as it was back in 2000. But as it’s become the unfortunate norm, as Mr. Kelly was sworn into office (for the second time) he embraced and heavily expanded the stop, question, and frisk tactic, completely changing his previous position. Kelly ramped up the discriminately policy in selected precincts throughout NYC. The relationship between citizens and the NYPD has deteriorated, by in large to this aggressive policing strategy, as community trust has been crushed. This is another sad episode in government policy leading to an intrusive and discriminatory practice as a means for producing very low returns.

Since 2003, the number of recorded stops by the NYPD per year has tripled from 160,851 to 684,330. Although there has been an increased usage of stop-and-frisk tactics, the racial disparities of individuals stopped has remained constant. On average, blacks and Latino represent anywhere from 84% to 87% of the recorded stop during a given year. Moreover, blacks and Latinos are more likely to be frisked and have physical forced used during recorded stops. In stop and frisks, as recorded by race, gun recovery occurred for black and Latinos .17% of the time and for whites .07%. The difference between the recorded gun recoveries is .10%. This minute difference does not justify the disproportionality of targeting black and Latinos. If stop-and-frisk was designed to get guns off the street and contraband, then why are the tactics so disproportionally applied?

Although cases like the 16-year-old Harlem teenager named Alvin, who was stopped for being a “f***ing” mutt, may appear as outliers, his case, along with many similar, represent common experiences, such as humiliation, shame, and hatred, to name a few, for those who are stopped. New York City citizens believe that their communities are under siege by the NYPD, and many of these citizens are often times afraid to leave their apartments or walk on the street out of fear. The Center for Constitutional Right’s “Human Impact Report” effectively documents many experiences of individuals who have been stopped. Consequently, individuals within the community that are disproportionally stopped and frisked develop feelings of mistrust for the NYPD, which in turn leads to more self-help justice. Similarly, the humiliation and shame many individuals feel leaves influences negatively influence moods and behaviors. The vague terms, such as “responsible suspicion”, associated with stop-and-frisk policy provided NYPD officers with discretion to stop nearly anyone. Unfortunately, this discretion has contributed to the categorization of policing of difference. Minority and LGBTQ groups have been the target for these stops without a shred of evidence. In New York, the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” has been turned into upside.

Some critics would say that despite these issues, the policy should be enforced because it yields results in the fight against terrorism, drugs, and violence. In reality, stop-and-frisk policies in New York City yield less than 0.2 percent returns of its anticipated goal to recovery guns. Moreover, as the number of recorded stops has increased, the number of guns recovered has decreased. Stop-and-frisk researchers warn against jumping to conclusions regarding the correlation between stops and guns recovered. There is yet to be a study or research released that show the policies of stop-and-frisk as being effective in decreasing the amount of guns on the street. Bloomberg and Kelly have tried to explain the NYC reduction in crime and murder to their heroic stop-and-frisk policies. They peddle the benevolent government myth in which the state protects citizens from terror, drug abuse, gun and gang violence, even trans fats, cigarette smoke, and large evil sodas. But the Bloomberg/Kelly regime has seen similar reductions in murder rates and crime that have been seen in San Diego, a city that did not institute aggressive policing policies. Actually, many cities have seen these reductions without increasing aggressive policing policies. Moreover, Steven Pinker’s Better Angels of Our Nature provides an abundance of research that explains why increases in education and access to healthcare compounded with the increases in literacy and sympathy have steer individuals away from engaging in violent crime.

In short, stop-and-frisk policies in the New York City lead to large racial disparities that have contributed to large distrust within many communities. The effect of the policy—contrary to popular opinion—is not the sole reason for reducing murders or crime. Surely, certain short-term reductions in crime will occur anytime a significant number of cops are disproportionally place in selected communities in a city with a penal code that could leave almost anyone vulnerable to a summons or ticket. However, long-term trends will surely be negatively affected as more individuals lose faith in the system of law. The low yield in gun recover does not justify the discriminatory, humiliating practice that inhibits movements and creating a culture of fear in certain communities.

Fortunately, many individuals throughout the city share the idea that stop-and-frisk policies have contributed negatively to society. The Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit against the NYPD in federal court claiming the policy violates the Fourth and Fourteen Amendments. The Bronx District Attorney’s Office has pledged to only prosecute individuals who were stopped at public housing and arrested or given a summons for trespassing if the officers involved in the arrests or summons are interviewed. A large campaign, known as Communities United for Police Reform, is pushing for legislation that reduces interactions with citizens and polices that are based on discrimination or prejudice. These examples, along with the numerous protests, signify an important moment, especially given the time frame for next year’s mayoral election. At the SFL Regional Conference in NYC this year, an entire panel was devoted to the issue of stop-and-frisk.

The time is ripe to continue to highlight and resist the growing police state. To continue to resist the encroachments on freedom and discriminatory policing practices that plague the city, a city-wide stop-and-frisk student protest during the week of December 3rd is being organized. Students from campuses in Manhattan, Queens, the Bronx, Long Island, and New Jersey are planning to hold events on stop-and-frisk at their respective schools. These events will be part of a larger week of awareness in which student from all groups would participate in. Ideally, this week will, along with other goals, ignite activism on campus and develop student-driven coalition from non-traditional groups regarding these policies. With the recent victories for liberty in Colorado and Washington regarding cannabis use, and with Maryland, Maine, and Washington passing legislation regarding same-sex marriage, personal freedom is becoming more and more popular. People are standing up against ineffective and irresponsible government policy such as these. Stop-and-frisk policing policies are ineffective, predatory, and racially discriminative. It is the role of students to shed light on injustice in society and this December, activism around stop-and-frisk will spread the word on this important issue.

 

For more information on the stop-and-frisk activism this December in NYC area schools, please contact Matthew La Corte at mlacorte@studentsforliberty.