While I strongly disagree with Eterno and Silverman on their assessment of NYPD’s stop-and-frisks, out of respect for my friend Eli, I am posting their op-ed from The Guardian, a British daily newspaper. I personally detest NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his anti-gun campaign and I had a good laugh when he blew $350,000 on the Colorado recall election, but in the case of stop-and-frisks I believe the mayor is spot on.
I wonder if it occurred to U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in her ruling on NYPD’s stop-and-frisks that when cops working in a crime infested ghetto stop a person he is most likely to be an African-American? These stops are designed to protect the innocent law abiding residents of predominant black and Latino neighborhoods. Of course and unfortunately, innocent law abiding citizens are going to be stopped and momentarily deprived of their liberty, but the police are not deliberately being ‘racially discriminatory’ or violating the Fourth Amendment as Judge Scheindlin known for her anti-police decisions ruled.
MIKE BLOOMBERG’S FACT-FREE DEFENSE OF STOP-AND-FRISK
The mayor and NYPD chief Ray Kelly claim that without the discredited tactic, New York will be overrun by crime. Baloney
By John Eterno and Eli Silverman
The Guardian
September 11, 2013
Stop-and-frisk has already been a topic of considerable significance in the New York mayoral primary. Democrat Bill de Blasio's particularly critical stance helped propel him to the front of the pack, and the positions of the contenders in both the Democratic and Republican fields have dominated recent debates. Despite the chorus of critical views, the current administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and his Police Commissioner Ray Kelly – a possible candidate for Secretary of Homeland Security – are fixated on a false narrative about the merit of stop-and-frisk.
The mayor and his police chief stubbornly maintain that changes to their current stop-and-frisk program will mean more guns on the streets and increased crime in New York City. On this, their complete disregard of the facts makes federal district court judge Shira Scheindlin's ruling against the NYPD's stop-and-frisk practices in Floyd v City of New York essential to democratic policing in New York and the US. Her reasoned and comprehensive decision on unconstitutional stops is unabashedly supported by the evidence.
After changes in the law and various lawsuits eventually forced the city to release the data, the now publicly available statistics on stop-and-frisk simply do not support any of the city's assertions. The dramatic crime decline in New York City began in 1994 with the advent of the management system called Compstat (short for, "compare statistics"). In 1990, there were 718,453 index crimes; by 2002, there were only 260,629. This represents a whopping 64% decrease in crime. This was achieved without the abuse of stop, question and frisk practices.
2002 was the first year Bloomberg was in office. That year, there were only 97,296 forcible stops. Comparing 2002 to 2011, we see an astounding 600% increase in forcible stops – with 685,724 reported in 2011. These stops were overwhelmingly of minority youth.
In 2011, there were 191,666 recorded index crimes. So, while the overall drop in crime from 1990 is 73%, the 600% increase in stops after 2002 translates into a relatively small 9% net decrease in crime. In short, almost all the crime drop that NYPD brags about occurred before the ramping-up of the stop-and-frisk tactic.
The issue becomes murkier when we examine statistics on murder – and Mayor Bloomberg has claimed that stop-and-frisk is essential to keeping guns off the street. In 1990, there were 2,245 murders in New York City. By 2002, again before the stop-and-frisk increase, the number of murders drastically decreased to 586. This is a whopping 74% decrease in murders. After the 600% increase in stop-and-frisks, New York City recorded 515 murders in 2011 – a fairly small drop.
Making matters more complicated is that the number of murders went down in 2012, to 419, but stops during the corresponding period also dramatically decreased to 533,042 (as the NYPD began to scale back the tactic in the face of criticism). This means there were 152,682 fewer forcible stops, yet the murder rate still went down: fewer stops coincided with fewer murders. In other words, the relationship between forcible stops, index crime and, crucially, murder, is far more complicated and far different than the mayor and the police commissioner would like us to think.
So, what about the claim that forcible stops will get guns off the streets? The fact is that only 0.2% of stops yield guns. Further, guns are more likely to be found on white suspects who are stopped, yet about 90% of the stops are of minorities. The NYPD has done much better with other operations, such as gun buy-back programs and focusing on illegal gun trafficking. Stop-and-frisk is fundamentally ineffective when it comes to getting guns off the streets.
Nearly 700,000 forcible stops of mostly minority youth – many without reasonable suspicion (the legal standard necessary for police to conduct such stops) – damage the NYPD's ability to fight crime and violence. Rather than reducing crime and violence, the practice likely alienates minority youth and prevents the people we want to communicate with police from even approaching them.
What person will trust the police officer who just forcibly stopped them? If they "see something" they are now less likely to "say something", to borrow the NYPD's public appeal.
Importantly, forcible stops may lead to minor violations such as summonses for possession of open containers of alcohol, or marijuana possession. These types of violations occur more regularly in white neighborhoods. Yet, black New Yorkers are more likely to get summonses because police are stopping them more often, resulting in criminal records which make it more difficult for them to get jobs. In this information age, such a record can be devastating to career opportunities.
Our research, which was cited in the Floyd case, clearly indicates that the NYPD has placed marked pressure on officers to write stop-and-frisk reports. Our survey of 1,962 retired NYPD officers indicates that of those who retired before 1995, only 9.1% felt high pressure to write stop-and-frisk reports. Since 2002 (the Kelly/Bloomberg years), over 35% of officers feel high pressure to write stop-and-frisk reports. Additionally, the same survey indicates that officers in the Kelly/Bloomberg era felt less pressure to obey constitutional constraints – 47% directly before, compared to 36% during, Kelly/Bloomberg. (The NYPD was required by law to record all forcible stops from 1 January 2001 onward, and the training was quite extensive on this – we know because one of us helped conduct that training. So, we know that recording practices have essentially not changed since that time.)
More recently the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (the officer's union) has taken a stand against various laws passed by the City Council requiring oversight of the police department, as well as making it easier to sue officers. With the union now fighting the City Council, it is not likely that officers will be conducting as many forcible stops. Yet, the number of murders continues to decline – once again, revealing the complete fantasy of the position that New York City will be filled with criminals if the stop-and-frisk policy is restrained.
The current leaders of New York City clearly need to be "forcibly stopped" by the courts from continuing their unconstitutional behaviors. Unfortunately, the NYPD, Mike Bloomberg and Ray Kelly persist in their false narrative that without such policies, crime will drastically increase and guns will flow onto the streets. It's hard to understand why a mayor who prides himself on pragmatic, evidence-based policy would prefer continued denial to reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment