In your text, Fulero and Wrightsman (2009) indicate that the general public wants two things from law enforcement officers: a sense of respect and a lack of prejudice. New York City’s stop-and-frisk procedures would seem to violate both of these desires. Stop-and-frisk policies allow officers to stop citizens in high-crime areas to search for weapons and other contraband with the overall goal of reducing major crimes in the City. The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU; http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices) reports data on these stops dating back to 2002, which indicate that members of the African American and Latino communities are substantially overrepresented as targets of these stops. Furthermore, nearly 9 out of 10 citizens stopped are determined to be innocent of any criminal activity. And yet, these policies persist.

 

Please review the link provided above to obtain a better understanding of the implications of NYC’s stop-and-frisk policies. In your post, please respond to the following questions: Why do you think the stop-and-frisk policies persist, despite statistical evidence suggesting that the implementation of such policies is racially biased? Are there any other factors besides racial prejudice that could explain the stop-and-frisk statistics? If you were acting as a consultant to the New York City Police Department, what, if any, reforms would you suggest to the department to improve the effectiveness of the policy? If you would not offer reforms, why not? I encourage you to use additional, credible outside sources to support your response.