New York’S Stop And Frisk Laws Started In 2004, Heightening

New York’s Stop and Frisk laws started in 2004, heightening racial profiling in the criminal justice system. Law enforcement supports these discriminatory acts by stating the population will benefit from New York’s Stop and Frisk, because the government will stop the crimes before they are committed. These stops are still denoted unconstitutional by the people. The government supports stop and frisk built on the fact that the new law stops crime however, it does not. Today, people are afraid of strolling along in their city due to the potential of unlawfully being searched based on the opinion of an officer assuming they look â€Å"suspicious†. Therefore, by comparing data presented by the NYPD with the notion of utter discrimination and†¦show more content†¦Based on the statistics of NYPD’s 2016 second quarterly reports, 1,862 people in the African American community are stopped versus 342 Caucasians (NYPD second quarter reports, 2016). Consequen tly, this implies policemen classify â€Å"blacks† as delinquent even though they are uninvolved in any unlawful acts the majority of the time. The product of racial discrimination furthers the understanding that the country still does not hold minorities equal next to the other ethnicities. This demonstrates just one example on how the Stop and Frisk law variously inflates negative predigest to further the understanding that â€Å"blacks† are synonymous with barbarous criminals. The law can halt people if they show signs of acting suspicious which is both subjective and illegitimate. When conducting a pursuit into searching someone, they must have probable cause; the government defends their search based on furtive movement. According an article in the Huffington Post written by Mathias, â€Å"In 2011, officers marked furtive movement as the justification for nearly 352,000 stops, over 50 percent of the total number of stops that year† (Mathias, 2015). The Stop and Frisk law has no definite description on what a â€Å"furtive movement† would be. This leads to an extremely malleable definition resulting in subjectivity by the officer. Furthermore, being stopped because of a loose interruption of one single word, furtive, should not be a reason to frisk someone. A