President Donald Trump's Support for 'Stop and Frisk'
President Donald Trump supported the implementation of a ‘Stop and Frisk’ policy in order to fulfill some of his campaign promises. Under this initiative, police officers are authorized to stop and search anyone on the streets of America for weapons or contraband products. The goal of implementing this effort is to ensure that the American government combats criminal acts. However, most lobbying groups have come out against this measure, claiming that it will be abused by security personnel. The organizations opposing this effort also claim that ‘Stop and Frisk’ looks to violate civil liberties of certain ethnic communities in America. Considerably, the security of the American community is supreme; however, the security department should embrace ways that respect the rights of members of the American people.
Is the Policy Constitutional?
The issue on the constitutionalism of this provision is one of the tricky aspects that has elicited debate among various legal circles. The privacy of an American citizen is one of the considerations that is highly protected by the constitution. The element of stopping a person without prior information and searching her or him, therefore, contravenes legal recommendations. Further, when carrying a search in a person’s property or on his or her body, it is advisable for the police to have a search warrant (Matthews n.p). However, in the case of this policy, security representatives possess the power to stop anyone and carry out a search randomly. Additionally, for law enforcers to develop a desire to carry out security check one’s body, such an individual should be suspected of committing a crime. However, in this policy, there is no recommendation concerning what type of person should be stopped and frisked.
Has it Made the Communities Safer?
Crime rates is an aspect that has disturbed the department of security for an extended period. Although there is some measurable evidence for the ability of this policy to solve criminal events, it is not certain that this is an ideal way of reducing crime levels in America. Consider a situation where a resident of Oakland who has grown up in this area since he or she was ten years being subjected to a ‘Stop and Frisk’ activity. In such case, such a resident is known by other residents, and in the event of any misdemeanor records, that community has them. Therefore, the level of accuracy, in this instance, is minimal because in most cases these security activities will happen on innocent persons. Further, this policy has been publicized, and therefore in case, there are criminals in the targeted areas they are likely to conceal their weapons or contraband products. Considerably, this is a populist approach towards solving the debacle of crime in the American society (Bergner n.p). The interested persons failed to describe the target population and the time that will necessitate a ‘Stop and Frisk’ initiative.
Will the Police Misuse the Initiative?
Reports have shown that the American police has been in some events been involved in the abuse of human rights. It is important to understand that one of the issues that perturb the security department is the fact that arrests in America are racially oriented. According to Goldman, the American law enforcers are biased when handling cases such as theft and drug abuse (n.p). In most cases, police officers have prejudice to the African Americans as compared to the white community.
Evidently, if the police have been accused of bias to other communities perceived as being prone to committing a crime, then it is apparent that the police can decide to apply the same when carrying out the ‘Stop and Frisk’ affair. Additionally, it should be understood that there have been cases of terrorism and the police force in America is apparently under desperate measures to prove to the society their effectiveness. As such, the police department has already profiled specific communities and religious affiliations as the possible perpetrators of terrorist activities (Goldman n.p). Therefore, with the kind of pressure that security persons have regarding the need to end this menace, it is likely that law enforcers can decide to fabricate evidence as a way of duping the public about their capacity. The ‘Stop and Frisk’ initiative gives police maximum rights to violate the freedom of normal American populations. Considering that the rate of ethnic and religious profiling, then the police can decide to focus on areas that they feel they have a targeted population. Substantially, this is selective application of the law because areas that will be targeted include those perceived as being crime prone.
Another concern with this law is that it is being enforced when there seems to be alacrity by President Trump’s deportation of illegal immigrants. In some contexts, a person could walk without his documents, but because of this strict law he or she may end up being labeled as an illegal immigrant. The law is appropriate but what the government needs to outline is the method that the police should use when carrying out this exercise.
Works Cited
Bergner, Daniel. “Is Stop-And-Frisk Worth It?”. The Atlantic, 2014, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/is-stop-and-frisk-worth-it/358644/.
Goldman, Matt. “After Spying On Muslims, New York Police Agree To Greater Oversight”. Nytimes.Com, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/nyregion/nypd-spying-muslims-surveillance-lawsuit.html?_r=0.
Matthews, Dylan. “Here’S What You Need To Know About Stop And Frisk – And Why The Courts Shut It Down”. Washington Post, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com
