Chicago: 12 hours, 1 neighborhood, 7 murders

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2017, 05:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

This is exactly what I said when addressing these percentages earlier

Quote: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.

You're smart enough to know that the effectiveness can be manipulated to support the view of those posting them.

For example how many people would be surprised to find that a study by the ACLU found the practice to be ineffective?

Conversely look what Heather MacDonald has to say about the exact same data:

Quote:2. Stop-and-frisk is one of the reason's for New York City's sharp decline in crime. 

According to Heather Mac Donald, murders declined almost 80 percent and major felonies by almost 75 percent from the early 1990's to 2013 thanks to "proactive policing," which includes the practice of stop-and-frisk.

In 2011, "stops yielded nearly 800 guns and over 5,000 other weapons, mostly knives," according to Mac Donald. Critics of the practice argue that this isn't enough to justify its use, and they also claim there aren't enough arrests from the practice to justify it. However, Mac Donald points out that "the possibility of getting stopped has clearly deterred many gangbangers from packing heat — which is precisely the point" as well as deterred other crimes from being committed.
3. Stop-and-frisk is not racist. This is the common refrain from stop-and-frisk critics, and Mac Donald proves how ludicrous it is using 2011 data:

Quote:Blacks are 53 percent of stop subjects, though they are 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites are 9 percent of stop subjects, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population. Therefore, conclude Stringer and others, the NYPD targets individuals for stops based on their race rather than on crime patterns and suspicious behavior.
Here is what the anti-cop critics never divulge: Blacks are 66 percent of all violent-crime suspects, according to the victims of and witnesses to those crimes. Blacks commit around 70 percent of all robberies and about 80 percent of all shootings in the city. Add Hispanic shooters, and you account for 98 percent of all shootings in the city.
Whites, by contrast, were only 5 percent of all violent crime suspects in 2011. According to victim and witness reports, they commit barely over 1 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies.
Such disparities mean that the police can’t deploy their resources where people most need protection from violence — in minority neighborhoods — without producing racially disproportionate stops.

 What percentage of success rate do we place on whether it is effective? 10/20/30/40.......

As I've said: If no one's rights are violated and (conceding the ineffective point) the procedure results in only a handful of ciminals being arrested for their crimes.  What isthere to complain about?