04-01-2017, 05:58 PM
Okay, I'm seeing percentages being thrown around about the stop-and-frisk thing. Let's get it straight, it wasn't that the courts found 85-90% of the stops were in the wrong, what has been found is that 85-90% of the stops resulted in no charges being filed, and even fewer convictions of any crime. This speaks to the effectiveness of the program, not the constitutionality. Those are two different topics to discuss. The court said this when ruling against NYPD's implementation of the program, and it is absolutely true. So let's not conflate effectiveness and constitutionality, please.
Now, the courts don't look at effectiveness, but policy analysts do. Considering the 10-15% charge rate (I forget what the conviction rate was) and the lack of any correlation between the implementation of the program and a drop in violent crime, a surface level analysis would tell me that the policy is ineffective. If it is ineffective and subject to abuses that could result in constitutionally questionable application, I'd consider the policy to be more of a liability than a benefit.
Now, the courts don't look at effectiveness, but policy analysts do. Considering the 10-15% charge rate (I forget what the conviction rate was) and the lack of any correlation between the implementation of the program and a drop in violent crime, a surface level analysis would tell me that the policy is ineffective. If it is ineffective and subject to abuses that could result in constitutionally questionable application, I'd consider the policy to be more of a liability than a benefit.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
