Frisking the Vulnerable, Disenfranchising the Public

 Frisking the Vulnerable, Disenfranchising the Public

-Christopher Carroll

Those people who need the police most are often the same who are disenfranchised by them. Stop and frisk practices and proposals to fingerprint people in public housing only further damage those whom society needs to protect.

It has been a busy month for law enforcement watchdogs.  Last week, United States Attorney General Eric Holder directed the DOJ to reform the use of mandatory minimum sentences in some drug charges, a directive that was given at nearly the same time that U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin found the NYC “stop and frisk” policy unconstitutional.  Just days later, in remarks that seemed to run steadfastly against the current political tide, Mayor Bloomberg made seemingly suggesting that residents of public housing be fingerprinted for their own safety.

These latest comments, coming just days after the NYPDs stop and frisk policies (which Bloomberg staunchly supports) were stopped on the grounds of unconstitutionality, come as New York City municipality elections draw closer. Democratic hopefuls wasted no time jumping on the Mayor’s remarks, with Bill Thompson calling the suggestion yet “another direct act of treating minorities like criminals” and Bill de Blasio accusing Bloomberg as being “out of touch.”

New York’s crime rates have dropped across the board and proponents of stop and frisk, Mayor Bloomberg included, believe that the policy is one of the chief reasons why. Though Mayor Bloomberg and NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly have banned racial profiling, the numbers suggest that targets of stop and frisk are based on racial grounds, with about 87% of people stopped and frisked being black or latino.

While it is undeniable that crime has gone down in NYC under Mayor Bloomberg’s tenure, the role stop and frisk policies have played in making the streets safer is much more contentious. Only 10% of those people stopped were arrested or required to appear in court. Does the trend of racial profiling make that 10% success rate worth it? No. Not only does the low success rate of stop and frisk suggest that police are wasting valuable resources and time detaining innocent people and that these police practices being executed at the expense of civil liberties, but they undermine the trust the people have in those who are entrusted to serve and protect.

English: New York Mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mayor Bloomberg’s fingerprinting proposal, while seemingly off the cuff and intended to make public housing safer, would have the same effect. Like the stop and frisk policies, it would undoubtedly be ruled unconstitutional. That reality aside, Bloomberg’s idea would follow the same mold of many of many other Bloomberg public safety proposals. Like stop and frisk, the soda ban and others before, it would undermine any trust and respect the public may have for the government and police. Without trust and respect, public officers and representatives have no true authority or legitimacy. Fingerprinting and stop and frisk policies would do the same damage to the NYC police and government that mandatory minimums did to the justice system nationally. By executing these policies in seemingly indiscriminate ways, the police and justice system do more to damage public safety than to bolster it.

****

New York City has become one of the safest big cities in America under Mayor Bloomberg’s terms in office. However, this has not been because of policies like stop and frisk or proposals like fingerprinting residents of public housing. Rather, these policies do more damage to the public well-being than promote it. These policies ultimately disenfranchise people who need police protection the most.