Does ‘Stop and Frisk’ Reduce Crime?
The New York City Police Department’s policy of stopping and frisking thousands of people, mainly young black and Hispanic men, has come under increased attack. A federal judge in Manhattan granted class action status to a lawsuit over the practice and said she had troubling questions about its constitutionality, especially because in many cases there is no evidence of crime or cause for suspicion. Other judges have raised questions of its fairness. And Philadelphia has reduced its use of the tactic under a consent decree. The tactic is definitely controversial. But does it work? Do stop-and-frisk policies lower crime, or are they counterproductive?
* stop and frisk = (경찰의) 정지(停止) 신체 검사권, 검문 검색권/ come under attack = 비난을 받다/ class action = 집단 소송/ constitutionality = 합헌성/ consent decree = (두 적대 당사자들 사이에 합의된) 화해가 이서된 법원 명령[판결]
(경찰관의) 정지 신체 검사권(검문 검색권) 정책들은 범죄를 줄이나요 아니면 역효과를 낳나요?
1) To See Its Value, See How Crime Rose Elsewhere
Being stopped when you are innocent is humiliating. But New York’s most vulnerable residents enjoy a freedom from assault unknown in any other big city.
2) Community Involvement Stops Crime
Stop and frisk casts too wide and clumsy a net to effectively prevent highly organized violent crime.
3) Stop and Frisk Has Lowered Crime in Other Cities
New York, though, was the leader in showing that police officers could do more than solve crimes; they could reduce them with more active techniques.
4) Don’t Antagonize Those Who Could Help
As a victim of racial profiling, I understand the anger it breeds. As a former prosecutor, I understand the need for effective policing. Stop and frisk is not effective.
5) Look to Past to See Folly of Aggressive Relations
Interactions like stop and frisk bring serious problems, weakening trust and cooperation with the police.
