Stop And Frisk Research Paper

Imagine being stopped when you are walking normally just because your are a different color, even though, you are completely innocent. “Stop and frisk” is a law that has caused a lot of troubles in united states and outside. It allows blameless people to be stopped in the streets, by policemen, and frisked for criminal accessories. This might seem like a productive and helpful law, however, it only frisks people of color, not everyone else. “Stop and frisk” is not a useful law because there is no evidence worldwide or even countrywide to show that it decreased the violence rate. Additionally, “stop and frisk” should not be a legal law because it stops certain people to frisk them which shows discrimination to using the law fully. “Stop and …show more content…
According to the article, “Stop-and-Frisk Myth Busters,” “Further, Stop-and-frisk has not reduced the number of people who fall victim to shootings. In 2002, there were 1,892 victims of gunfire and 97,296 stops. In 2011, there were still 1,821 victims of gunfire but a record 685,724 stops” (NYCLU 1). In general, the facts presented were to show that the law cuts the number of murder in half is definitely a wrong claim. In particular, the text mentions, “record,” in order to show the extreme amount of stops caused. This law is as unproductive as retaking a test over and over again without preparing or studying for it, because the law stopped so many people with the “hope” of stopping crimes, however, there are no clear planned strategies to achieve that goal. On the contrary, a text written by Michael Barone, goes against the claim by saying, “The most accurately measured crime - in New York fell from a peak of 2,605 in 1990 to 952 in 2001, Giuliani’s last year in office, to just 414 in 2012” (Barone 1). Some people get fascinated and encouraged by the fact at how the crime rate decreased significantly in New York. They think this because all of the laws have a job to do which to protect citizens by any shape or way. However, looking at violence rate as an overall, whole, would suggest otherwise. Most of the other states don't experience this exact benefit of the law as …show more content…
Based on the NYCLU article, “On the other hand, from 2002 to 2011, black and Latino residents made up to close to 90 percent of people stopped” (NYCLU 1). Generally, the information conveyed backs up the claim of the discriminatory aspect of this law. The author emphasizes the use of the phrase, “more than 3.8 million,” to confirm the stereotypical action of “stop and frisk.” Stopping a certain race, even though, there is no certain reason for stopping these people is like guessing on the test without having any reason of the decision of picking this specific answer. Oppositely the article, “‘Stop and frisk’ does not target minorities, it protects them,” states, “Young black and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic males are far, far more likely than others to commit violent crimes, as Bloomberg points out” (Barone 2). Some people believe this is an explanatory reason to think that blacks and Latinos are the people who are committing crimes. They think that because there are a few examples of people who happened to be in these specific races. However, there are always few dreadful people in every race, nevertheless, there are more delightful people in these exact same ethnicities. Thus, it is unacceptable to accumulate all personalities and put them under an unpleasant stereotype. Therefore, “stop and frisk” should be an illegal law because it causes

Show More