Race-Based Policing: A Descriptive Analysis

The judicial system in America has always endured much skepticism as to whether or not there is racial profiling amongst arrests. The stop and frisk policy of the NYPD has caused much controversy and publicity since being applied because of the clear racial disparity in stops. Now the question remains; Are cops being racially biased when choosing whom to stop or are they just targeting “high crime” neighborhoods, thus choosing minorities by default? This paper will examine the history behind stop and frisk policies. Along with referenced facts about the Stop and Frisk Policy, this paper will include and discuss methods and findings of my own personal field research.

Law enforcement officials often confront situations where it’s an almost certainty that illegal activities are taking place despite not having sufficient resources to investigate every possible perpetrator. Research on race and vehicle stops by police show that African American drivers are disproportionately stopped in traffic by police for driving violations (Kowalski & Lundman, 2007). The reason is because law enforcement officials use characterizations or

The stop, question, and frisk policy qualifies as a criminal justice issue that has captured the attention of public nationwide. Empirical research has presented evidence that the stop and frisk police is disproportionately used against minorities, which indicates the prevalence of racial profiling. Firstly, statistical databases have shown that the New York Police Departments have stopped and frisked approximately 685,000 persons since 2011, with 85 percent of those individuals representing African Americans and Latino Americans (Zamani, 2012). Many of the individuals are male. The statistical representation, unaccompanied, speaks volumes that the racial profiling is prevalent in the practice. The racial profiling of minorities violates the constitutional rights of the individuals that are stop and frisked based on their skin color.

Supreme Court's verdict on pretext traffic stops in Whren v. United States, racial hostility between white law enforcement and African American citizens is as insidious as ever. Statistics of unarmed African American men killed by police officers are seemingly alarmingly universally. In spite of the national quarrel against discrimination by police officers, the U.S. Supreme Court has lately made a choice that will expand police judgment. The fickle political background that sets the matter of “racial profiling” has directed local and state police agencies across the nation to start collecting information about traffic and pedestrian stops (Engel et al., Vol. 19, 2002). The disagreement over this topic is plagued by the uncorroborated notion that all race-based judgment by law enforcement is motivated by the type of person the police officers' are. Potential profiling would further show the role of how the agency has an influence on how the police officers distribute traffic violations as pretext. To further show the connection among civilians and police

Racial profiling is an example of police brutality, which is defined by Gross and Livingston (2002) as “the practice of some officers of stopping motorists of certain racial or ethnic groups because the officer believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crimes” (p.1413). Therefore, individuals are treated unfairly by law enforcement solely based on their race. This type of mistreatment is unmerited and ultimately a violation of an individual’s rights. However, in many instances the courts do not find it a violation of their civil rights based on the fact that racial profiling is difficult to prove. Often, prosecutors are disinclined in bringing forth a case against officers on this particular matter. Officers are permitted to stop and search individuals and their vehicles whenever there is reasonable suspicion, however, there has been studies that prove that some law enforcement officers restrict these rights primarily to minority groups. Bowling and Phillips found that although there was no formal monitoring of use of these powers, it was concluded that it was particularly heavy use of these powers against ethnic minorities, largely of young black people (as cited in Sharp & Atherton, 2007, p. 747) . In several cases, officers argue that they reasonably pulled an individual over for other probable grounds such as: traffic violations, suspicious behavior, etc., with race never being an

Based on the statistics I identified in questions # 3 and 4 of my blog, I believed many law enforcement have a legitimate reason in its use of aggressive, racial profiling of minority populations. There are cruel consequences of race-based policing. For example, racial profiling does not reduce crime. It causes tremendous harm to individuals, the criminal justice system and to the social fabric of the society. Many law enforcement officers trust the idea that statistical data are exceptional guide in guessing who might be a criminal. Since statistics demonstrates that African-Americans and Latinos set up the majority of gang members, law enforcement officers will have the intensity to investigate and arrest these individuals. Moreover, it leads

Apart from periodically publishing stop and search records, supervisors and managers of police force are now required to closely monitor such statistics and take timely actions if something wrong is being observed. Also stricter rules on stop and search have since been imposed, along with the requirement of police officers writing a detailed report on spot about every single incident which subjects to review seems helpful in improving police conduct (Fyfe 1979; Skogan and Frydl 2004 in Miller 2010). While stop and search practice has been somehow improved, racial discrimination can still be seen in stop and search statistics. The notion of “Black and minority ethnic groups, particularly black people, have for many years been disproportionately at the receiving end of police stop and search—a fact associated with profound community resentment towards the police” (Bowling and Phillips 2002 in Miller 2010) still largely applies today. Miller’s (2010) analysis indicate that black people are about 6 times more likely to be stopped and searched, while it is about 2 times more likely for Asians. Similar idea is seen in Bennetto’s (2009) report, which draws on police statistics that shows in 2009 “black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white”, worse than Miller’s analysis with the most recent figures in 2008. No official explaination is provided by Police, but Bennetto (2009) assumes this may be caused by simply discrimination of

On July 7th, 2014, Eric Garner, a grandfather of six children, was stopped by New York City police for selling untaxed loose cigarettes. As police officers attempted to arrest him, a cell phone video at the scene shows Garner denying the offense and accusing the police officers of harassing him. Pleading with officers to leave him alone, Garner states, “Every time you see me, you want to mess with me….It stops today” (New York Daily News, 2015). As Garner attempts to wave them off, police officers tackle him to the ground with one of the officers placing Garner in a chokehold as he repeatedly cries out, “I can’t breathe!” (New York Daily News, 2015) Garner loses consciousness and lays unresponsive at the scene for approximately ten minutes where he receives neither police nor medical personnel intervention. Garner, who was eventually loaded into an ambulance, went into cardiac arrest and died as he was being transported to Richmond University Medical Center. Eric Garner’s death captured enormous media attention and ignited a growing debate between civil rights activists and police defenders about racism in the United States.

Racial profiling is a major issue in today’s law enforcement. Cases of police officers committing racially motivated acts are consistently the leading stories for television reporters and articles. Procedures such as the stop and frisk or a typical traffic stop are often said to factor in race when deciding whom to stop. Racial profiling is defined as “the consideration of race, ethnicity, or national origin by an officer of the law in deciding when and how to intervene in an enforcement capacity”(“Racial Profiling”, n.d.). Society’s racial profiling accusations are putting police officers everywhere in a danger every time they make a stop. There are riots and police officers being shot all across America. Any information collected on racial profiling in cities always leads to the same conclusion: “police disproportionately stop people of color for traffic violations relative to population composition and treat minorities different than Whites during the encounters (e.g. citations, arrests, length of time persons are stopped, and searches of persons and their possessions)” (Novak, 2004, p. 66). The methods police officers are taking are not enough to completely prevent racial

Implicit biases can lead to race-based policing even without making a conscious decision to do so. Evidence proves that African Americans and Latinos are stopped for traffic offenses more frequently than Whites even though they do not commit more traffic offenses than Whites. (Richardson, 2015) One study revealed that police “officers were more likely to see weapons in the hands of unarmed Black individuals than in the hands of unarmed White individuals as a result of implicit bias” (Richardson). These discoveries mirror studies indicating that racial biases lead people to interpret the actions of Black individuals more suspiciously than they would interpret the same actions if they were performed by White individuals. (Richardson)

The Editorial Board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports issues of racial profiling regarding police statistics tracking the race of people they stop. This policy set in February 2000, was meant to “combat the scourge of racial profiling” (16). According to James Buford, chief executive officer of the Urban League in 2000, suggested that police officers deny that racial profiling is an issue. Through the new analysis made fifteen years later, the editorial board believes that the “denial is still rampant” (16). Attorney General Chris Koster released the annual statistics of traffic stops in Missouri displaying that racial disparity was still prevalent. According to the editorial board, Blacks and Hispanics were more likely to be searched

The protocol stop, question and frisk, has been used for over 50 years, in the protocol police will detain and question pedestrians, if the police have “reasonable suspicion”, or if the pedestrian is “committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor” then the police can search them as well (Matthews, D.). However, throughout this time society, and law enforcement has question if the protocol is unconstitutional and supports racial profiling. Data collected between January 2004 and June 2012 supports racial profiling in police stops. During this time the city of New York conducted 4.4 million stops (Makarechi, K.). When taking a closer look at the data, 83% of the population stopped were black or Hispanic, however those minority groups only make up only half of the city’s overall population (Racial Discrimination in Stop-and-Frisk.). In fact, 83%

What is racism? Racism is defined as discrimination toward someone’s race or religion etc. As we know today, this is a big issue especially in United State. This is important to me because it does not matter what skin color you have or what religion you believe in. All that counts is the good thing you do and if you do something bad that's when you are suppose to be punished/arrested. Police officers for example are suppose to use the power that they have for the bad people, people that do crimes and our threat to our society. Not use violence to people that hasn’t shown any threat. They should follow the law, not pull up their gun and start shooting people just because they are black or that they think that they are a threat. we have to feel safe not unsafe. In Sweden there is some racism but not to the extent that people won't say what religion or because they are black they will get accused or always being stopped by cops, when no crime was committed. In Sweden the law is for everyone and who ever breaks it gets his punishment.

The source I used for the popular news piece is a newspaper article from the Wall Street Journal and the author of this piece is Joseph De Avila. This article talks about a Connecticut study that finds racial disparity within traffic stops. The report was investigated by the Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy at Central Connecticut State University. This particular study was done using 620,000 traffic stops that were done by the local police departments and state police in Connecticut, which was done over a 12 month period. The three research questions that were answered in this research were when the traffic stops took place as well as specific time periods they occured, who was pulled over and if they were searched, as well as if

What is racism? Racism is defined as discrimination toward someone’s race or religion etc. As we know today, this is a big issue especially in United State. This is important to me because it does not matter what skin color you have or what religion you believe in. All that matters are that a person follows the law. Police officers for example are supposed to use the power that they have for the bad people, people that do crimes and our threat to our society. Using violence to people that hasn’t done any threat to our society is wrong. In Sweden there is some racism, but not to the extent that black people will get harassed because of their skin color. In Sweden, the law is for everyone and who ever breaks the law will gets the punishment they deserve. We all know that it is always two side of a story for example what happened to Michael Brown on August 9, 2014. Michael Brown was robbing a grocery store. The police officer stated that “He shot Brown after the teen attacked him”, While brown’s family said, “Brown was surrendering when he was shot dead.” You are always going to hear two different side but the justice will find out who is the guilty one and who is the victim.