The Instigator
Mathhelper
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Stop and Frisk should be allowed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,057 times Debate No: 35415
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Mathhelper

Con

Stop and Frisk should be allowed when officer is suspicious of an individual. Lightly frisking the person for weapons, preferably out of sight. Feel Free to challenge def.
Stop and Frisk defined as - Stopping a person to check for weapons, lightly frisking person, in a realistic situation.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Debate Round No. 1
Mathhelper

Con

So the topic is saying that stop and frisk should be allowed as a anti crime measure, and since I am going first, you should have time to refute my arguments. So I am arguing it should not be used as a n anti crime measure. So my arguments will be placed as 3 major points, first

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.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

I'm not arguing in favour of this policy. You made an argument in favour of it and now you want to argue against it? You are a worse flip flopper than John Kerry.
Debate Round No. 2
Mathhelper

Con

My first "argument" was the topic, genius. I understand that there was a misunderstanding in the topic, but I addressed that in the comments, and I also went first even though I am con, to give you time to prepare. If you are a debater in any sense, you would accept this and try to debate against me anyway. I will go on to my next two points-

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!
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

i didn't choose "con" i chose to enter the debate, mistakingly believing that when you argued in favour of this policy you were actually in favour of it and not pulling a bait and switch. a foolish mistake, clearly.
Debate Round No. 3
Mathhelper

Con

Mathhelper forfeited this round.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

ZakYoungTheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Mathhelper 1 year ago
Mathhelper
And my r1 argument was the topic
Posted by Mathhelper 1 year ago
Mathhelper
first off, I am against it on purpose. Second, the stop and frisk def I mean was stop and frisk on the street, with police doing it on people they suspect, because this should drop crime. The city in which this is enforced is mainly in NYC. This is a main security vs privacy debate, in which I chose it should not be allowed. Clear yet?
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 1 year ago
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
you made an argument for pro but selected con
Posted by cadorette 1 year ago
cadorette
Why is it that I cannot accept the challenge. I would like to argue Con based on the definition of stop and frisk provided by the challenger.
Posted by drafterman 1 year ago
drafterman
Also, Stop and Frisk has been pretty rigorously defined in a legal context, which is different than what you've provided in a number of ways (e.g. requirement of reasonable suspicion) Any reason for your provided definition?
Posted by drafterman 1 year ago
drafterman
You're missing the point. The resolution is: "Stop and Frisk should be allowed." You listed yourself as Con, meaning you should be arguing that Stop and Frisk shouldN'T be allowed, but your R1 argument is *for* it. You are making a Pro argument as Con. You need to change your argument or your stance.
Posted by Mathhelper 1 year ago
Mathhelper
I can choose either side, but I liked con more
Posted by bladerunner060 1 year ago
bladerunner060
Why are you Con if you're for it?
No votes have been placed for this debate.