Saturday, October 1, 2016

Learn more about "stop-and-frisk," as mentioned in Monday's first presidential debate

During the first presidential debate Monday night, Donald Trump brought up the topic of stop-and-frisk in his response to the question of healing the divide between communities of color and the police. He claimed that it "worked very well" in New York, and that it "brought the crime rate way down." Hillary Clinton responded to the topic of stop-and-frisk by saying that it "was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ineffective." Neither candidates' claims are completely accurate. Stop-and-frisk was a police tactic used in the 1990s as part of a larger, successful strategy to reduce crime, but it did not become a prominent tactic until a decade later. As to Clinton's claim, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that stop-and-frisk violated minorities' rights, and its implementation was unconstitutional for singling out minorities.

Stop and Frisk: The Use and Abuse of a Controversial Policing Tactic by Michael D. White and Henry F. Fradella argues that not only does stop and frisk have a legal place in 21st-century policing, but also that it can be judiciously used to help deter crime in a way that respects the rights and needs of citizens. The book also offers insight into the history of racial injustice that has all too often been a feature of American policing’s history and proposes concrete strategies that every police department can follow to improve the way they police.

You can read this eBook and more through the UNT Dallas Library catalog.

No comments: