The Pros And Cons Of Policing

Similarly to the Oakland boys, finally, I too have suffered from over/under policing. Certain negative behaviors in my elementary were overlooked, such as bullying, despite the zero-tolerance policy. Most teachers would ignore the zero-tolerance policy and choose not to police my bully's bad behavior. When it came to pushing me down stairs, calling me fat and ugly, or rubbing my possessions into the dirt to ruin them, my teachers were lackluster in their policing. However when it came to minor, easily punishable 'crimes' that I committed, like wiggling in my chair, they were over-policing machines. This led me to the same distrust in authority as it did for the Oakland boys, I despised my teachers and thought of them as incompetent, unfair, and part of the problem- not to be trusted.

The advancement in aircraft, radio technology, body cameras, GPS, surveillance, and many other technologies can enhance the ways in which law enforcement can deliver police services in a more proactive manner throughout the community. Many problems could be solved by law enforcement employing new technology. Of course, therein lies the problem of money. Newer technology requires a larger budget to be provided to law enforcement agencies. I believe that spending money on new tech is a wise investment because there would be a rise in the effectiveness of law enforcement against crime. As overcrowding of prisons is alleviated through reclassification of some felonies to misdemeanors, violent, non-violent, repeat and first-time offenders will be released back into the public. We are seeing a rise in crime. As these offenders continue to be released, crime is and will continue to rise. Money saved by releasing these offenders can be used to reinforce law enforcement through further application of new

The first era of law enforcement was the political era, which started in 1840 and ended in 1930. Evolution of Policing in the US-Influence of the Political Era reports that, “During this era, police performed much more comprehensive services, such as running soup kitchens, finding shelter for the homeless and helping immigrants find jobs, in addition to dealing with criminal activity. They were closely integrated within their communities and for those within the political sphere of the elected leaders within the community; the friendly image of the Irish beat cop emerges”(2013). Since it was the first era of policing there was a lot of pros and cons, compare to the era we are in now. Scott from Police

Having had the opportunity to see both sides of the argument play out in the City of Memphis and as a member of the Memphis Police Department. I have become an advocate for requiring entry-level police officers to have at the very minimum an associate degree or the equivalent college credits. The college requirement can only be avoided with military experience. However, my position is not that more education makes you a better police officer or less education makes you a lousy officer. I believe that there should be a “happy medium” when it comes to police work. A good officer will be empathic, fair and in tune with the needs of the community and its members. Requiring a level of education for your entry-level officers speaks volumes about your agency and their dedication to professionalism. The benefits of having a college educated officer have shown to make a difference in the way they do their jobs. An educated police officer is less likely to utilize force when interacting with his co-workers or civilians. A department with educated officers also has shown to see a reduction in misconduct and disciplinary issues(Gómez-Mejía et al., 2016). Some years back the Memphis Police Department had relaxed their

New York’s Stop and Frisk laws started in 2004, heightening racial profiling in the criminal justice system. Law enforcement supports these discriminatory acts by stating the population will benefit from New York’s Stop and Frisk, because the government will stop the crimes before they are committed. These stops are still denoted unconstitutional by the people. The government supports stop and frisk built on the fact that the new law stops crime however, it does not. Today, people are afraid of strolling along in their city due to the potential of unlawfully being searched based on the opinion of an officer assuming they look “suspicious”. Therefore, by comparing data presented by the NYPD with the notion of utter discrimination and

Stop and Frisk has been a very controversial topic for quite some time, especially throughout the last election cycle. It is defined as the circumstance where a police officer will temporarily detain an individual, who they have reasonable suspicion that the individual could be armed and/or dangerous, and pat down their clothing. This issue has been of grand concern for a multitude of individuals due to the increased fear in the minority communities, who have been declared more likely to be stopped and frisked, or ‘suspect worthy,’ which points in the direction of the unconstitutional use of racial profiling. In addition, the data — as explained in class — implies that the increase in stops and frisks during the time stop and frisks were

Ever since 1968 and the Supreme Court case of “Terry vs Ohio” was settled, stop and frisking policies have been used by police everywhere in the United States. However, lately the use of this tactic, especially in New York, has raised the questions of whether or not these stop and frisks are actually helping as well as the question of whether or not these supposed random stops are unbiased. There have been a great number of arguments for the continuation of stop and frisk policies as well as the cease of such tactics to lower the crime rate in cities. In New York, these concerns were first brought to light in the late 1990’s. Throughout this decade, the huge decrease in crime rates had been credited to the fact that NYPD had taken the stop and frisk policies very seriously. However, “near the end of the decade there were repeated complaints of harassment of minority communities” (Gelman). The people of New York were complaining that the NYPD were stopping people and treating people differently based on their ethnic background, which brings up the bigger and more disturbing question; Were the police stopping minorities based on racial bias?

The stop and frisk policy has evolved from the Terry v. Ohio court decision which permits an officer to detain a suspect under reasonable suspicion for a serious crime; however, it does not “allow such intrusion based on a police officer’s inarticulate hunch that a crime is about to occur or is in progress” (American Civil Liberties Union, 2015). In cities with high ratios of minorities and immigrants, the stop and frisk policy creates an air of distrust and can actually cause more harm than good. Statistics from Boers-Goi (2015) revealed that the NYPD stopped “2.4 million people between 2009 and 2014, of which 150,000 people 6% were arrested. 16% of these arrests were never prosecuted, and another 10% were dismissed. Only 0.1% of all stops led to a conviction for a crime of violence” (p. 1). Based on the aforementioned

The New York City Police Department stop-and-frisk impacts thousands of peoples lives everyday, and unfortunately most of the cases involve African American and Hispanic Males, which shows racism is still present in the world we live in today. Prior to speaking about a stop and frisk, one must have general knowledge about what it is and all of its supporting parts. A “Stop and frisk” occurs when an officer of the law temporarily detains an individual or group of people on the street to question them about the reason or reasons in which they were stopped, and possibly also frisking or searching them for the safety of the officers and the detainees as well. A stop may end with someone being arrested or given a ticket if evidence of a crime being committed comes to light. “A stop and frisk is a concise, non-invasive, police stop of a “suspect(Cornell University Law School, 2014).”

(Rudy Giuliani, 2007) Quality of life and zero-tolerance policing took effect and with these new standards came a drastic drop in crime. One of the main policy changes was stop and frisk. The stop and frisk policy was adopted from English law in a number of American courts. In accordance with English common law, without statutory provisions, a police officer has the power to stop, question, and frisk suspects given reasonable circumstances. Based on a standard which holds less than probable cause, this power is granted upon the standard of reasonable suspicion. It is a question of circumstances of each individual case that determines whether reasonable detention and investigation is validated The NYPD's stop-and-search has raise genuine worries over racial profiling, unlawful stops and constitutional rights. The Department keeps records and reports on its stop-and-search actions, and it affirm what numerous individuals in groups of color over the city have long known: The police are searching a huge number of well-behaved New Yorkers consistently and most by far are dark and

The police procedure stop and frisk is a highly controversial topic in society. In order for the officer to initiate the procedure, he or she needs reasonable suspicion or probable cause that meet minimal legal requirements. People that have been stop and frisked may wonder if the procedure is discriminatory towards race, since a majority of people stopped are minorities, or if the procedure is against ones constitutional rights that are protected by the amendments, or if the procedure is effective in reducing crime rates. Citizens may feel that being stopped and frisked by an officer is against the constitutional rights they have as people. The reason an officer initiates this procedure is to hopefully reduce crime rates in the long term. Officer’s need probable cause in order to initiate the procedure. The top five reasons for the stop and frisk practice to occur include “high crime areas, time of day fits the crime incident, fugitive movements by the suspect, casing victim or location, and proximity to the crime scene” (Avdija 27). Under those circumstances a person is more likely to be stopped by an officer. One may ask; What is the stop and frisk procedure? What are the minimum legal requirements needed to initiate a stop and frisk? Is the stop and frisk procedure discriminatory towards race? Is the stop and frisk procedure unconstitutional? Does the procedure actually reduce crime rates? Suspects involved in a stop and frisk procedure do have constitutional rights, but

The chief of the Abington Police, Chief William (Bill) Kelly came to the campus on Thursday to talk with the criminal justice class about policing. Chief Kelly has been serving for forty-three years between police forces in the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania - and has been a police chief for thirty-three years. With his years of experience, Chief Kelly talked about primarily three main ideas: Problem-Solving, Community- Oriented Policing and Abington’s Approach to Policing.

Is there a distinction between a stop and a formal arrest? If so, what is it? There is a distinction between a stop and a formal arrest. According to the law office of Douglas Riddle, a police officer can walk up to an individual and begin asking questions as long as it does not implicate a person’s fourth amendment right. This is considered a consensual “voluntary” encounter. Because of the consensual encounter, a police officer can lawfully stop someone, ask them for identification, and even search their belongings. This is a very fine line to walk, however, because it is a random, “voluntary” stop, an individual can deny the officer’s search and simply walk away. Aside from randomly questioning someone, a police officer can stop a person if they committed a minor crime or violation without arresting them. For example; a police officer can stop someone for committing a traffic violation, give them a citation and not arrest them if that individual is not wanted for anything. When stopping someone, an officer must not be bias towards an individual who

Within the article, Police Stop and Frisk-Encounters Plunged in Second Quarter of 2013, Joseph Goldstein indicates how random stop searches by police officials have declined severely over the last few years. The purpose of stop and frisks are to determine if suspicious individuals are carrying any weapons, drugs or any other illegal objects. This topic is a very sensitive subject due to the nature of discrimination that many police offers are found to be in trouble with. Numerous individuals are against stop and frisks because they feel that this is a way that allows racists police officers to employ their racial ideologies towards the community, and enforce discrimination amongst minorities.

In my humble opinion, I believe police power has to adapt to the never-ending changes that society undergoes rapidly. "Police power is the government's right and power to set up and enforce laws to provide for the safety, health, and general welfare of the people", (Hall, 2015, p. 7). Contrary to today's society, police power was established to provide safety and security to people at all costs and has played a vital role in our criminal justice system, with pros and cons adding to its meaning. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11 (1905), strong support of civil liberties was demonstrated as well as a strong demand for police protection, somewhat similar to a double edge sword (Gostin, 2005).