One rationale for continuing stop and frisk practices is that it is a viable, proactive and productive way for law enforcement to combat crime. Personally, I beg to differ; in my opinion it’s like using a sledgehammer on a nail. You may get the desired result but what else are you smashing?
That’s how I feel about “Stop and Frisk.” We are well aware of the controversy surrounding the stop and frisk practices in New York City. There have been studies done, articles written, lawsuits filed, and issues debated yet this practice still continues. Other cities, Chicago for example, are now looking to use similar tactics as a means to reduce crime. In a Chicago Tribune article, City Treasurer Stephanie D. Neely wrote:
“We have a choice between living with the uncertainty of random gun violence and an occasional random stop that helps the entire community reduce the threat of guns. Would we prefer to continue being held hostage by thugs? Or deal with the inconvenience of stop and frisk?”
Occasional random stops; held hostage by thugs; they have to do better than that. This is the same messaging used in New York City.
We also have New York City Commissioner Ray Kelly asking “Why leaders upset with ‘Stop And Frisk’ aren’t protesting violence instead.”
Read the rest of this post, and see the infographic at: The Marketplace for Social Awareness and Social Responsibility. And, while you’re there, contribute to worthy educational causes.
Ernest R. Heyward is the Founder and President of the Marketplace for Social Awareness and Social Responsibility.
The Marketplace is an educational and charitable organization formed for the purpose of promoting and supporting programs, initiatives, and events that address the needs of culturally diverse and economically challenged youth.