Stop and Frisk should be allowed
Debate Rounds (4)
Stop and Frisk defined as - Stopping a person to check for weapons, lightly frisking person, in a realistic situation.
1. It is invasive to privacy.
If a police officer becomes suspicious of you, yes the should have a precaution for fellow citizens and search you. But with stop and frisk, this method is just being abused. No one likes to be out in public with a crowd having a police officer search you. But no one especially likes it if that police officer can't be decent enough to respect you in the procedures of the search. Stop and frisk definitely does more harm than good. The fourth amendment right warrens against unreasonable searches and seizures, not to mention the 14th amendment equal protection clause. For those who say under reasonable evidence, many cases," the South African Police department said that most tips are unreliable, and that witnesses cannot really help without supporting and helping the officers. If someone called as a prank, that the person that was frisked would be publicly humiliated. Source- South African Police website on anonymous callers and witnesses.
2.has not lived up to its promise
Stop and frisk was meant to stop crime or at least lower crime rates. However, it is not doing so. Crime rates may have dropped 20%in NYC,but that is nothing compared to the alternate measures taken by other cities that have crime rates drop 50%, such as LA and Chicago. Stop and frisk has increased 600% in the last 10 years and in New York City. Crime is down 20%. Guns are taken off the street. Stop and Frisks make you safer, and is a clear way to spend tax dollars. These are all myths that the proposition is trying to sell you today, First off, even though we are invading the privacy of thousands and spending millions, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, nothing has really changed. Sure, crime dropped 20%, but in other cities, Chicago and L.A., crime dropped more than 50% using alternate measures, and they didn't invade privacy. Guns were only found in 2% of all searches, and gun related crimes didn't actually drop at all.
3.It lets criminals off.
Stop-and-frisk is a horrible policy; it installs fear and distrust in innocent bystanders, while the criminals run free. stop and frisk is a notorious policy, a policy that allows and even encourages unconstitutionality, threats, and violence against law-abiding citizens, while at the same time providing real criminals with so-called legal technicalities that run the risk of causing the suppression of gun and dangerous drug evidence that ultimately results in the dismissal of serious cases, thereby putting the bad guys right back on the street. Lawful and courteous, as well as non-racist, police work is not only the right thing to do; it"s also the permanently effective crime-fighting thing to do.
4.Other alternatives that are better
Instead of harming youth and violating the Constitution, there are many other ways police could catch people involved in crime. For example, get to know the neighborhood and what happens in the area. This has been tried and worked effectively, better than stop and frisk. The officers could also have better relationships with the other people in the area. Rather than sweep through and stop large numbers of young black men, the police built strong relationships with residents, promising greater responsiveness if they took back the reins of their community and told their sons, nephews and grandsons that the violence and the overt dealing must end. Meanwhile, the police identified the 17 men driving the drug market and built solid cases against each. In one fell swoop, they arrested three with violent records. The other 14 men were then summoned to a community meeting. Neighborhood residents demanded that they put an end to the violence. Law enforcement officials made credible threats of prosecution, but also told the men they had one last chance to turn their lives around. Meanwhile, social service providers offered them job training, drug treatment and mentoring. Most of the men listened. The city"s most significant drug market vanished overnight, and it has not come back. Violent crime has fallen by half. Why did the strategy succeed? The Rev. Sherman Mason, a local minister, told us that a key factor was the decision to involve neighborhood residents in the process. As a result, the police gained legitimacy, and their relationship with the community was transformed.
5. Wastes time
Stop-and-Frisk only wastes time for the police and suspect, even though it doesn't even work. Guns may be removed in searches, but only 1% of the time. 88% of all stops in searches did not result in arrests, and 99% of all searches did not come up with a weapon. Even contraband in general, including guns, was only found in 2% in searches of 2011.The percentage of a legitimate reason to imprison or stop is very small, so why should we keep wasting people's time? These searches are not stopping shooting. In the city of New York, Mayor Bloomberg reports that Stop-and-Frisk searches have reduced the amount of shootings. However, the rats of decline have remained the same after 2005. According to LA Times Articles, stop and frisk method successfully catches criminals about 6-7 percent of the time. So if this is the rate, then why in the first place should we use this method!
Mathhelper forfeited this round.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.