As we have noted on this blog, Heather MacDonald has dared to tell the truth about the real-world effect the attacks on policing are having. Naturally, the forces of Political Correctness have criticized her. In this op-ed in the WSJ, MacDonald responds to the critics. Here is the concluding paragraph:
Activists and many criminologists may continue to deny the importance of proactive policing, even as shootings increase, but its effectiveness was central to America's remarkable crime reduction of the past two decades. Police departments must constantly reinforce the message of courtesy and respect, and train officers to minimize the use of force. But when the police back off, crime eventually goes up. If anti-cop vituperation tapers off in the coming months and police start to feel supported in their work, the recent crime increases may also taper off. If the media-saturated agitation continues, however, the new normal may be less policing and more crime.
Good grief. What is it about liberals and Democrats that makes them want to help criminals commit violence. To deny that aggressive policing reduces crime is ideologically driven and not fact-based.
I get the frustration of many in the minority community. New York's stop and frisk did affect law-abiding minority citizens disproportionately, and that disproportionality could not be explained by the fact that the rate of criminal behavior is higher among minorities. (Likely it is explained by the fact that stop and frisk is going to happen more in certain neighborhoods than others.) But stop and frisk worked to reduce crime, and denying that is plain stupid.
One wishes the conversation could be more mature. We have a tradition of freedom in this country, and it's important that cops do not abuse their authority, and we see far too much of it in America. (I can name tons of examples off the top of my head.) There has to be a way of maintaining aggressive policing with a concern for innocent citizens. But the answer is surely not to be found by painting cops with a broad brush.
And by the way, the Attorney General should simply shut up when it comes to incidents---first of all, DOJ is hopelessly politicized and second of all, when things like the over-the-top Gibson Guitar raid are all good because the feds did it, it doesn't lie in DOJ's mouth to criticize anyone.
To say stop and frisk is unconstitutional and just another form of racial profiling is not an ideological statement, it is a fact. The evidence that stop and frisk was a main cause for the dramatic reduction in the crime rate is just not born out in the numbers. I agree with federalist statement, " There has to be a way of maintaining aggressive policing with a concern for innocent citizens." Stop and frisk is just not consistent with this notion.
I don't see how you can say that "stop and frisk" is unconstitutional since the Court has blessed it. See Terry v. Ohio.
Stop and frisk as implemented is much different than a Terry stop which is why this practice was found to be unconstitutional in Floyd v. New York, 959 F. Supp 2d 540. The statistics and facts cited in the case are quite shocking.
Two paragraphs in the opinion are especially illuminating with regard to the court's view of this particular brand of aggressive policing:
"This Court's mandate is solely to judge the constitutionality of police behavior, not its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool. Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example — but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective. "The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."
"I conclude with a particularly apt quote: "The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight. It is pervasive in policing policies — like stop-and-frisk, and ... neighborhood watch — regardless of the collateral damage done to the majority of innocents. It's like burning down a house to rid it of mice."
I don't have the time to get into a detailed discussion. The basic problem with Scheidlin's decision is that you can't really hold that a policy that allows cops to "stop and frisk" when they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot is that the law authorizes such stops.
The ruling didn't say reasonable articulable suspicion isn't enough for a stop. The court found that, in too many cases, the police acted without legal justification and thus the policy is unconstitutional.
I understand what the court did. Do you fail to see the logical problem with the court's decision? If the policy articulates the constitutional standard, it cannot be unconstitutional. Other than in the mind of a dippy federal judge.
You quote the judge as saying: "This Court's mandate is solely to judge the constitutionality of police behavior, not its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool. Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example — but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective."
This shows astounding ignorance of the Fourth Amendment, which forbids UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. In deciding what is reasonable, OF COURSE the court must take account of the effectiveness of the practice under review. Indeed, the core of Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis is balancing the intrusiveness of the search against its effectiveness in uncovering crime.