Conversation Of The Week LI: Is The New York Police Department Guilty Of Racial Profiling?

March 25, 2013
Written by Colleen Long - Associated Press in
National Collegiate Dialogue
Login to rate this article
Devin Almonor spoke to the media after testifying in a civil trial regarding police stop and frisk tactics in New York, March 18, 2013. The civil trial began Monday in federal court. It will examine the controversial tactic that has become a city flashpoint, with mass demonstrations, City Council hearings, and mayoral candidates calling for reform. The lawsuit, now a class-action, seeks a court-appointed monitor to oversee changes to how the police make stops. Photo Credit: AP/Seth Wenig

Editor’s Note: A federal district judge began hearing a class-action challenge to NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy which yielded more stops of young black males in 2011 than their total black population in the city. The lawyers are arguing that the policy unfairly targets minorities.

NEW YORK (AP) - Devin Almonor, the teenage son of a former police officer, said he was thrown against an unmarked car and temporarily handcuffed walking home from a bus stop. Medical student David Floyd was frisked by officers outside of his apartment as he helped a neighbor locked out of his home.

For both, the experience was humiliating and frightening - and they say - illegal because they believe they were stopped because of their race. Both are black.

"I am not a criminal. I did not commit any criminal acts," said Floyd, who testified along with Almonor at the opening of a federal trial Monday challenging the constitutionality of some encounters under the controversial law enforcement tactic of stopping, questioning, and frisking New Yorkers on the street.

Testimony continued Tuesday in the case that challenges the constitutionality of some encounters under the controversial law enforcement tactic of stopping, questioning and frisking New Yorkers on the street.

Police have made about 5 million stops during the past decade, mostly black and Hispanic men. Lawyer Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the suit in 2008 on behalf of Floyd and three others, called many of the stops a "frightening and degrading experience" that violates the civil rights of many New Yorkers. The class-action lawsuit seeks broad reforms to the practice, and asks for a court-appointed monitor to oversee the changes.

About half the people who are stopped are subject only to questioning. Others have their bag or backpack searched. And sometimes police conduct a full pat-down. Only about 10 percent of all stops result in arrest, and a weapon is recovered a small fraction of the time.

The mayor and police commissioner say stop-and-frisk is a life-saving, crime-stopping tool that has helped drive crime down to record lows. On Monday, city lawyers said officers have more than 23 million contacts with the public, make 4 million radio runs, and issue more than 500,000 summonses every year. Comparatively, 600,000 stops annually are not unreasonable, they said.

Police go where the crime is - and crime is overwhelmingly in minority neighborhoods, they said, and officers do not targeting people solely because of their race.

"The New York Police Department is fully committed to policing within the boundaries of the law," said Heidi Grossman, an attorney for the city. "Crime is not distributed evenly across the city."

The tactic is legal. Officers are allowed to make stops based on "reasonable suspicion," a less rigorous standard than "probable cause" needed to justify an arrest. Police are required to fill out a form where they check off the justification for stopping someone, which includes, "furtive movements," suspicious bulge and if someone fits the description of a crime suspect.

Almonor said that he was handcuffed by officers after they stopped him walking back to his apartment in 2010 when he was 13 years old. The teen, now 16, had been walking from a bus stop, and said the officers didn't explain why they had stopped him. In the back of the car, he started crying because he was afraid, and testified that one officer said: "Why are you crying like a little girl?"

"It made me feel scared," he said, recalling the incident. "I didn't know what was going on."

Floyd, 33, is a medical student studying in Cuba. He testified about two encounters, one in 2007 where he was frisked while walking home, and the second about a year later where he was frisked outside of his apartment. In the latter encounter, the officers told him that there had been a string of robberies in the area, but Floyd said that in both instances he believes he was wrongly searched without permission.

altCity lawyers sought to discredit the two witnesses by suggesting their stories had evolved over the years to become more dramatic, and their memories were faulty.

U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin, who has already said in earlier rulings that she is deeply concerned about stop and frisk, has the power to order reforms to how it is used, which could bring major changes to the largest U.S. police force and other departments.

City lawyers said the department already has many checks and balances, including an independent watchdog group that was recently given authority to prosecute some excessive force complaints against police.

Both Almonor and Floyd said they were speaking out because they didn't want the same injustice to happen to anyone else.

"Police officers are individuals carrying weapons, carrying guns," Floyd said. "And if they are not being responsible, it just makes for a difficult situation."

The trial is expected to last more than a month.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

National Collegiate Dialogue


It's a Two Way Argument

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-2 on

I don’t believe that we should ask if just the New York police department is guilty of racial profiling, but whether all police departments are guilty of racial profiling. There are two ways to approach this issue. We can choose to look at it from the perspective of the police officer, who, we hope, aims to protect the majority of people from crime. Perhaps the officer is just performing his or her job, and really does have reason to “frisk” the suspect. It is possible that minorities are stopped more frequently than non-minorities because minorities truly are committing crimes more often. However, if we look at it from the other side, we are able to look at the facts. The article states that the NYPD made more stops on persons of color in the year 2011 than there are people in the whole city. Several of the accounts from those people who have been stopped claim that the officers had no reason to stop them. The police department claims that the most crime occurs in minority neighborhoods, but I don’t think that this provides justification for stopping and frisking minority members so often. I believe that our country is still impacted by the age old psychological conceptions of race. It is easy for the average person to subconsciously equate a person of color with a criminal. Dr. Eddie Moore of the White Privilege Conference refers to this process as the “Inevitable Black Criminal.” This repetitive and harmful cycle has roots in the racism of the civil war era. At this time in our history, the elite race used terminology, caricatures, the media, and many others to depict minority races in a way that would ultimately benefit the elite race. More times than not, these depictions were harsh, harmful, and negative. Although many people alive today have never witnessed slavery first hand, the persistent racism seems to have been passed down through generations. I can understand the argument from the side of the police officers. It may be true that they are just trying to do their job and protect society from crime. However, I believe that racial profiling may be occurring subconsciously. I am not trying to argue that there are no cases in which police officers intentionally stop and frisk people of color just because they are able to do so. We live in a sad society and I am sure that intentional racial profiling by the police is very possible. Our psychological status as an entire society is plagued by negative depictions of minorities, and I see no reason why we wouldn’t all be guilty of racial profiling at one point or another. It is not fair for anyone to be stopped for absolutely no reason. However, here we are also arguing for the protection of society. If we do not allow for these stops via reasonable suspicion, we may allow criminals to get away. Is it fair that the majority of the people stopped are minorities? Of course not. Do you think that it would make a difference if we asked the police force to pay more attention to non-minorities when enacting this policy?

I agree with you that NYPD's

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-21 on

I agree with you that NYPD's stop and frisk is part of the larger idea of society that continually perpetuates the system of our old racial ideas. It seems unbelievable that they stopped more black males in 2011 than their total black population in the city. When the numbers reach to that level, it’s hard not to see it as a racial issue. I also believe that we cannot just blame the police officers entirely because they are doing their job. It is rather more of an issue of our society’s subconscious racial beliefs that date back to the beginning of our country that allows for the profiling to happen in the first place.

Age Old Issue with a New Face

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-21 on

The NYPD’s stop and frisk policy has led police to make 5 million stops in the past decade, mostly black and Hispanic men. To stop them they need a “reasonable suspicion,” as per the Fourth Amendment. I think what this means to some people, means something different to others. Being in a typically high crime neighborhood and being a colored male is suspicion enough in some of these stop and frisk cases. Race is an issue in our country and racism was built into our foundation. This policy allows law enforcement the possibility to continue to the old racial ideas of the colored man and in many cases it has.
It seems that the NYPD’s police officers are just following orders, and they go were crime is reported higher, which tends to be minority neighborhoods. I think it’s important to mention that the more time law enforcement spends in an area, the more crime they will uncover, minority neighborhood or not.
I think this issue is a good example of institutional racism. The entire police department is allowing and participating in systematic racism against mostly men of color. It’s an age old issue of racism against colored people with a new face.


Submitted by UCCS-S2013-19 on

I agree with you that a "reasonable suspicion" may mean different things to different people. I mean one can assume something a suspicion and turn it "reasonable." How does this suggest in preventing high crime? I believe it doesn't. Why does it seem OK for the law enforcement to stop and frisk the minorities and not white people who are "suspicious?" This is obviously racist and as you said it has been this way for ages since it is institutional racism. The way they describe high crime neighborhoods, where the majority of residents are people of color, is also completely absurd. They call it high crime neighborhoods because this is where they make most arrests. This is where they go to find any trouble in the first place. But do they think that neighborhoods with majority of white residents are not high crime? I don't know the statistics of this, but I am positive that there is just as much crime in white neighborhoods. The only difference is that they don't get inspected as much or suspected. This is an obvious and ongoing issue that we need to pay closer attention to.

Uncovering Crime

Submitted by UCCSWEST-S2013-6 on

I totally agree with your point regarding crime being positively correlated with the time spent searching for it within a given community. This corresponds with my post in that it's possible that the distribution of crime between majority and minority individuals could be closer than we're currently aware.

However, I disagree with your generalization that the "entire" police department is participating in systematic racism. I'm sure, like with life, there is a distrubition. However, it's impossible to determine how large the gap is.

Not Racist Logic

Submitted by UCCSWEST-S2013-5 on

I would say that yes this is racial profiling, but only because they commit the most crime. If a group of people are known to commit the most crime then it's only logical to search people who belong to that certain group. Yeah it sucks and it may not seem fair, but that's the way it is, it's pretty simple. On the other hand, I think that if the tables were turned, white people committed the most crime then they wouldn't be searched more than the usual, and in that way what's going on now in NY is wrong.


Submitted by UCCSWEST-S2013-30 on

That is untrue. People of color do not commit more crime than whites. They are certainly disproportionately caught and represented in the prison system, that is true. If white people in areas of high crime were profiled as much as people of color the arrest rates of whites would go up. Period. It is racial profiling and while the strategy may be legal that does not make it just or constitutional. And it is not simple. It is false and based on years and years of stereotypes that misrepresent people of color. Your post is proof of that. What IS simple is that there are huge systems of inequality that create problems such as this in the first place. Couple that with people that feel that "it's just the way it is" and you have a perfectly designed system to perpetuate the inequality.


Submitted by UCCS-S2013-5 on

I agree with what you are saying that if the tables were turned, would White people be searched as much? No, probably not. As said on another post I commented on, we do not really know who commits the most crime because 1. It is not stated in the article and 2. are minorities said to be committing the most crimes because they are the ones targeted? What I mean by that is, because the police are searching for minorities to get in trouble, what are White people getting away with?

Uneven Distribution of Crime

Submitted by UCCSWEST-S2013-6 on

I'm not sure what I believe. As someone else mentioned, there are two sides to the same story. I'm sure that there are some members of the police force that engage in discriminatory behavior, but I’m also sure that there are some individuals that don’t engage in the described behavior. There are good people and bad people in the world. It’s my assumption that negative stereotypes are somewhat to blame, but I’m not sure how to fix the problem (beyond increasing awareness).

I once had a conversation with someone in which they brought to light the possibility that there is a separation between crime distribution and the crime distribution we’re aware of. That is to say, majority individuals engage in an equal amount of crime as minority individuals, but minority individuals get caught more often. I don’t know how much truth is in this, but it’s an interesting idea.

Crime Distribution

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-17 on

There was a discussion in my corrections class about this idea. The reason minorities represent disproportionate amount of prison population is because, yes they do get caught more often. Once drug on war was launched, the prison population sky rocketed with many offenders with petty drug crimes being incarcerated. Of course, majority of the offenders were minorities. There are many reasons for why minorities tend to get caught more often than whites. First, it is not a secret that majority of the minority population is poor. So it can't be helped that they would use drugs that are more cheap, such as crack, versus cocaine, which is used a lot more by upper-class white people. Not like cocaine, which is bought in large quantity and used over long periods of times, crack is a one time use, and also used more frequently. So people are more prone to getting arrested from using crack rather than cocaine, because they are constantly out buying them. So it is easier for cops to find a crack user rather than a cocaine user because they are more exposed.
This is one of the many examples of why minorities tend to be associated more strongly to crimes than whites, and why they may represent majority of the prison population. If anyone is interested in learning more about it, I would suggest taking a CJ class with Dr. Kaukinen, poverty and crime.

Crime Distribution

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-17 on

There was a discussion in my corrections class about this idea. The reason minorities represent disproportionate amount of prison population is because, yes they do get caught more often. Once drug on war was launched, the prison population sky rocketed with many offenders with petty drug crimes being incarcerated. Of course, majority of the offenders were minorities. There are many reasons for why minorities tend to get caught more often than whites. First, it is not a secret that majority of the minority population is poor. So it can't be helped that they would use drugs that are more cheap, such as crack, versus cocaine, which is used a lot more by upper-class white people. Not like cocaine, which is bought in large quantity and used over long periods of times, crack is a one time use, and also used more frequently. So people are more prone to getting arrested from using crack rather than cocaine, because they are constantly out buying them. So it is easier for cops to find a crack user rather than a cocaine user because they are more exposed.
This is one of the many examples of why minorities tend to be associated more strongly to crimes than whites, and why they may represent majority of the prison population. If anyone is interested in learning more about it, I would suggest taking a CJ class with Dr. Kaukinen, poverty and crime.

NYPD is not discriminating.

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-17 on

I do not believe anyone's rights have been violated by the NYPD. They are simply doing their job. As the article has mentioned, the officers patrol around the hot spots in order to make an attempt in deterring possible crimes from happening. Coincidentally, the so called hot spots consist of more minorities than whites. There are numerous reasons for why this may be, but it is what it is, and the cops are just doing their job. They are not stopping and frisking someone solely based on their race, but because they are in an area that is known to have high crime rates. In addition, as the article has also mentioned, this practice is legal. It is the duty of the officers to stop and question those whom they believe are suspicious. So whether you are black or white or whatever, if you are stopped by a cop, you cannot claim that it is because of your race, but that the cops are simply doing their job.

Better safe than sorry

Submitted by UCCSWEST-S2013-19 on

Maybe these two people feel discriminated against, but what if they had had a weapon on them. The stop and frisk rule may have caught a criminal, or seized an illegal weapon. In a city filled with crime such as New York I believe a stop and frisk rule like this is almost necessary to keep order. In fact, it probably deters a lot of criminals because of the thought that they can be stopped and searched at any time. If that means that a few innocent bystandars get stopped and searched in the process, then I guess, in my opinion I would rather be safe than sorry. A police officers job is hard enough, they risk their lives for society everyday, I think that they should be allowed to take these extra precautions in a place so dangerous. I feel for them men who feel discriminated against, but maybe the cop truly thought he looked suspicious, not being a racist.

NYPD Racial Profiling

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-31 on

I agree with a lot of the other comments that there is two sides to the story, and I do not believe that the police were racial profiling. From the evidence shown it seems to be there was some kind of circumstance that they believe that they had some kind of weapon or committed some crime (like the robbery in the area). However I disagree with the harmful handling of the victims and the verbal abuse, saying; 'stop crying like a little girl.' That situation could have been prevented, if the police were not treating the victims like criminals. Again I said that the police were not being racists, they were taking percautions to what they believe might have been a threat. On a seperate note, it said in the article that only 10 percent of arrest have been made using this 'frisk and search'in NY, this does not seem like a high enough number to keep continuing this kind of process.

This is the main reason why

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-28 on

This is the main reason why the black population in prison is higher than the whites. For ordinary white people, if they had an experience to be stopped by a police officer, not including traffic ticket, it would be very rare. Since more black people get searched by police men there is more probability to capture black criminals than whites. Capturing black criminals is not the problem. The problem is that why other non-criminal black people have to undergo being treated like criminals. Suspecting criminals by the color of their skin is very unfair, and this story is a very typical example.

31st Precinct

Submitted by UCCSWEST-S2013-30 on

I took Dr. Portillos criminology class last semester and we listened to an interview with a former cop from NYC's 31st precinct. The interview surrounded this exact issue. The stop and frisk policy. They are told by their superiors to stop people of color and lie on the reports they write. Not only were they stopping people solely based on their race but they would lie about why they were stopping them in the first place. Sure if you look for people in areas of high crime you're bound to find a criminal but that does not mean anything. That is not sufficient reason to stop and search a person. The corruption in the 31st precinct was so bad that the cop involved was harassed by his own guys in the department and he was sent to a mental health facility at the wishes of his captain. He was not sent for his own good but as a tactic to discredit his claims against the precinct and as an effort to continue to hide their corruption. It was all started as a tactic to up their numbers and increase their appearances. It seemed as though they were improving crime however it was all a facade to promote the good deeds of the police.

The problem for people of color is far greater than it seems. This type of stereotyping leads to many other issues and it is far deeper than this article goes. No one has really spoken about the ramifications. Labeling theory first of all is clearly happening here or look at as stereotyping. "Oh people of color commit more crime so let's send more of our resources there" well no, it does not really work like that nor is it that simple. Whites are more likely to carry drugs and weapons based on self report survey however they are stopped far, far less by cops than people of color. So if whites were stopped and frisked as often these numbers would change. People of color and poor people are often used as scapegoats and yes, this is profiling.

31st Precinct

Submitted by UCCSWEST-S2013-41 on

I also took Dr. Portillo's class and listened to the same interview. It was astonishing the lengths the police went to in order to protect themselves and other officers that were knowingly abusing this policy. I wonder how many white people in comparison have been stopped over the past decade?? There is absolutely no doubt that this is racial profiling to the extreme.

Racial Profiling?

Submitted by UCCSWEST-S2013-41 on

My first thought just by reading the title of the article was, "The NYPD racial profiling??? NEVER!!!! ((Sarcasm)). As I began reading further the question arose, is this tactic utilized by the NYPD to stop, question and frisk people really legal? In my opinion this clearly falls under the reach of the Fourth Amendment's unreasonable search and seizure doctrine. 5 million stops in the past decade basically says it all. Granted most crime does happen in urban areas; however, in my opinion this policy infringes on individual civil rights. Not all people react to stressful situations in the same manner so the lasting affect on those subjected to this tactic can not be predicted or expected to be the same.

I agree with you

Submitted by NIAGARA-S2013-26 on

I believe the NYPD (or some people in it for that matter, not all) are racist from time to time. I feel as though they target minorities more than anyone else whether it be African Americans, Latino's, etc. My grandparents are both from India and almost everytime they try to travel, they get stopped at the airport through customs. They always "randomly" get chosen to be searched and patted down when everyone else just has to walk through the metal detectors. I understand it may not be personal and the police are just doing what they feel is right, but I still feel as though it comes off as racist and unfair.

Police, security, etc. can and are racist from time to time

Submitted by NIAGARA-S2013-26 on

Like I said in my previous reply to the comment, it seems as though police and security guards target the minorities. I understand they are just doing their job but it is unfair and racist. No one should be randomly stopped and pulled over because of the color of their skin. If they are speeding that is one thing, but if not, there is no need to just "assume" that sometihng bad is going on.

profiling and racism

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-13 on

I agree with you. The idea of profiling is supposed to be used as a tool to help root out crime, but too often it is used as an excuse for racism. It's one thing for someone to be doing something suspicious, it's another to just pull someone over because they are of a certain minority. Cops should have to be able to and required to tell you why you are being searched. Probable cause and all that.

This is such a difficult

Submitted by UCCSWEST-S2013-25 on

This is such a difficult topic to discuss for me, because I feel under-educated on the criminal justice system. I can completely understand a police officer using the stop and frisk policy; it seems like a good one to me and I'm sure in many instances it has yielded the desired results (that is, catching someone with a weapon or drugs and therefore preventing a crime of some sort). As I read the posts on this topic, I was compelled to take my time with each even more so than any other article I've been intrigued by. People are so split on the issue here and I was very surprised by how many students felt it was NOT racial profiling.

At first glance, I myself felt that it was racial profiling, and it reminded me of issues Middle Easterners have experienced when traveling post-9/11. Someone commented that it isn't racial profiling because these minority groups do in fact commit more crimes than White people, and that was immediately followed by a contradictory comment about how people of racial minorities do not in fact commit more crimes, they are simply targeted, accused, and convicted of more crimes. This is such a tragic circumstance because how can we really know the truth? Any time I watch a movie, TV show, or news report about a criminal trial and the verdict, I think to myself, "What if they're wrong?". Whether the verdict comes back guilty or not guilty, whether the defendant admits to the crime or not, there have been so many cases in history that have been over-turned or pardoned because later evidence proved otherwise.

I think that a good way of addressing this issue, as cliche and perhaps ineffective it might prove to be, is highly increased sensitivity training. I do not know what police academy training is like, and I'm sure at some point in time there are courses on racial awareness, seminars aimed at increasing racial equality and decreasing stereotyping and prejudice. Obviously, some people are staunch in their racial beliefs and no amount of sensitivity training will change that. But for others, this may make a huge impact on how they view minorities and criminal activity. I may be incorrect but I believe at some point I read an article discussing screening police officers for racist tendencies. I think something like this is an excellent idea. It is their job to protect and serve all citizens, and while this does involve making judgement calls there must be a way to decrease and eventually eliminate racial profiling from that process.

Unlawful Law

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-23 on

As a whole I think the policy in itself is unconstitutional. Though we would like to think that our society has grown where race is concerned, it is simply not as progressive as it should be. Before this law was even ratified some simple considerations should have been made. The majority of those that are incarcerated are minorities; and, the majority of traffic stops are against minorities. If people are allowed to stop whoever they please, it is not surprising that these people would be minorities. Also, simply having a "suspicion" that some people are a threat is much too ambiguous. Out of the millions of people that walk the streets of New York, how do you think that they determine who is more guilty or suspicious than any other person walking down the street? There are old stereotypes that float around and subtly sink into the mind and manifest into racist actions (subconsciously or not). This law was bound to result in racial profiling and merely gives law enforcement a foundation and backing for the perpetuation of the negative ideals of minorities. How do you think it makes people look at those that are being searched? Does not the presence of a minority who is being searched and detained, in public, not imply something to on-lookers? The law is unlawful. Whether this boy was a victim of racial profiling or not-- which it sounds as though he was-- this law will inevitably result in those who are.

oh yes!

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-9 on

This is definitely racial profiling - without a doubt. I think NYPD is as corrupt as any police department where their quotas influence their funding from the government.. The fact is, these men were stopped for no reason (in some cases, multiple times) and searched without reason for suspicion. In no way does walking on the street arouse or indicate that one has committed a crime.

I took a criminology class that looked at corruption within the NYPD. An officer secretly audio-recorded everything for 18 months and exposed the leadership telling the precinct to arrest anyone, bring them in, and find a charge for them, in order to get quotas up to make it look like the precinct was really putting out fires and stopping a lot of crime. The man lost his job after he was "psyched" which means they send you to the mental ward because they consider you unstable. Due to the stress of his own leadership investigating and continuously reprimanding him for not "doing his job" (i.e. arresting innocent people, especially minorities), he was let go and took his recordings to the media.

I think this happens a lot within precincts and money and funding are culprits. Minorities become easy targets because their voice is so small in the white-man's world.


Submitted by UCCSWEST-S2013-1 on

I agree, I have always had a problem with any police department being given a quota to fill like the job is that of something retail. This just gives officers pressure to "produce" and therefor they go looking for trouble rather than policing the actual crimes. Minorities are easy targets in a very white dominated and privileged society. The same goes for anyone who looks Mexican near the borders. People are pulled over and detained all the time solely based on their looks until they can prove their rights to be in the country.

Successful Tactic??

Submitted by UCCSWEST-S2013-1 on

I am curious as to how this can be considered a successful and legal tactic when they say only 10% lead to arrests. To me this "tactic" seems random and the result of racial profiling. How many white women out there carry large hand bags full of stuff and "bulges", and yet they are not pulled aside and searched and patted down? This is clearly an acceptable form of policing in New York City and is clearly a violation of civil rights. The police commissioner should be looking at other more successful tactics in finding a criminal.

Racial Profiling

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-5 on

This is definitely racial profiling without a doubt. I know someone who is a police up in North Jersey and so some of their work is done in New York City and even they admit to racial profiling. One reason they say they do it, not always on purpose, is because of the amount of crime that is done by the certain races that it becomes an automatic assumption. It is really sad because many many White people are getting away with crimes because the police direct their attention elsewhere.

Racial Profiling

Submitted by UCCS-S2013-26 on

The stop and frisk policy is racial profiling. The police are deeming people suspicious based on their race. Blacks and Hispanics have been stereotyped, in our society, as being deviant and more likely to commit crime. The stop and frisk policy is causing high arrest rates of minority groups, when whites are just as likely to commit the same crimes. It seems a new policy needs to be put in place in order to stop this racial profiling.

Racism Through Racial Profiling

Submitted by CSULBF2013-04 on

Racial profiling does not only exist in the New York Police Department (NYPD), but in every police department in the nation. The amounts of people who are stopped and frisked by NYPD are way more in minorities than Whites. Legally, people cannot stop someone based on their race; however, in New York police officers stop more Black people than White people because they expect blacks to be criminals. This showed that some police officers obviously abuse the “stop and frisk” power and target minorities in order to lock them away. The mass incarceration of blacks nowadays can illustrate how racism is still around in our legal system.

i agree that it is not only

Submitted by PARKS2014-25 on

i agree that it is not only happening in the new york police department, but many other places too. i hear stories about that all the time in many other states and it is not fair at all.