I was searching through the Times and came across an article titled, "6-Month Study to Review 'Stop and Frisks' by New York Police." The word frisks was what caught my eye.
When I was 15, my birthday to be exact, I went with my family to pick up my uncle in the O'Hare Airport in Chicago, Illinois. It was Christmas day and there was hardly anyone in the airport. Because this was pre 9-11, we were allowed to meet him as soon as he stepped off the plane. Anyway, on our way to meet him I set the metal detectors off several times. I had emptied out my pockets and there was still nothing on my that would have prevented me from going through. As my family watched me get frisked up and down, airport officials finally realized I had metal shanks in the boots I was wearing. Relieved to be done with the ordeal, I was forever scared of being frisked again. Seeing this article, I thought, "I can relate to whatever this discusses." Well, not quite.
Maybe I'm behind the times, but I didn't know that police could stop random people on the streets of New York City and frisk them! At least I had a reason to be frisked in my story, I can't imagine just walking along and then BAM! Some police officer is telling me to spread 'um. No way!
That is exactly what happened to 508,540 people in the five boroughs of New York City last year. Because of this a private nonprofit organization called the RAND Corportation will conduct a 6-month study to review the way police stop people and if minority groups are treated worse than others.
The issue of stopping people on the streets is known as 'stop and frisks' and has caused tension between police officers and residents. RAND will analyze all of the stops that occured last year and will also ride along with police officers on duty. RAND will then interview these officers asking them what provoked the stops they made.
Which side is more on the right side of an ethics spectrum? Is it unethical for police to stop random people and search them for illegal weaponry or substances? Maybe not. However, what happens when police stopped the right individual and eliminate a possible crime? Does stopping necessary people make the whole ordeal ethical? I don't know that, that question has a right or wrong answer.
What about the RAND Corportation's ethics? Should these private officials be allowed to ride along on police duty and take note and see identities of people that are stopped? Should these people be a part of this study regardless if they are aware they are apart of it or not? Again, what is the right answer?
RAND will have insight to forms known as UF-250s, which are the forms officers fill out after all stops. The form includes circumstances that led to the stop, whether force was used, and whether the stop included a frisk, and also the race and ethnicity of the person stopped.
According to the Times, officials have said that the steep increase is partly due to greater adheerence to departmental rules for filling out the stop and frisk formsa dn more aggressive crime fighting activities in high-crime neighborhoods.
The study that is costing the New York City Police Foundation $120,000 stated that 55.2 percent of those stopped were black and 68.5 percent of reported crims involved suspects described as black.
Maybe RAND has the upper hand when it comes to ethics. It appears that these frisks are conflicting with a constitutional question of unreasonable searches. If police are disfavoring the black community, maybe this should be stopped. Perhaps a study would display green light ethics and help improve overall lifestyles of those walking the streets of NYC.
Article by: AL BAKER
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment