Does Reducing Crime Justify Random Stop and Frisk Policies?

[JimBowie1958]

Does Reducing Crime Justify Random Stop and Frisk Policies?

A purely hypothetical question, don't want to get into local politics.

If a specific policy involving stopping people of all ages at random and searching them lowers crime and saves lives, does that justify violating the Constitution that prohibits warrantless searches?

 

[LoneLaugher]

No.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hey, if they don't like seeing more of their children coming home. Well, maybe not.

How much do they value the lives of their young men? This question tells me a lot about them as a people.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I have no problem with Stop and Frisk nor with Profiling.

However, I will make an exception for New York's policy. They should stop their Stop and Frisk policies. Why? Because they're effective.

NY is filled with sanctimonious liberals always complaining about the uncouth people in fly-over country, all the while practicing gentrification.

One would think that small-town America and the Red States would be the pathbreakers on Stop and Frisk, but no, it's the holier-than-thou liberals in NYC who are the principal advocates of this policy.

Let crime rise, let's make these liberals live true to their standards. They're all in favor of lowering income inequality, being soft on criminals, growing a more multicultural society. Give them what they ask for. Stop profiling, stop frisking people. Deal with the consequences.

 

[hjmick]

No.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The ONLY time a Cop should put his hands on you is when you are Under Arrest.

 

[eagle1462010]

No. Never sell Freedom under the guise of public safety.

 

[Ringel05]

The ONLY time a Cop should put his hands on you is when you are Under Arrest.

True. Until then he should only use a nightstick, pepper spray or a stun-gun....... and the occasional 9 mm round.......

 

[JimBowie1958]

Seems unanimous that people value their freedom over hypothetical lives saved.

At least so far.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Legally, no. Morally, yes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Legally, no. Morally, yes.

Paradoxical answer; care to explain what you mean exactly?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Does Reducing Crime Justify Random Stop and Frisk Policies?

A purely hypothetical question, don't want to get into local politics.

If a specific policy involving stopping people of all ages at random and searching them lowers crime and saves lives, does that justify violating the Constitution that prohibits warrantless searches?

The Constitution does not prohibit all warrantless searches (see, e.g., Terry v. Ohio (1967)).

 

[JimBowie1958]

Does Reducing Crime Justify Random Stop and Frisk Policies?

A purely hypothetical question, don't want to get into local politics.

If a specific policy involving stopping people of all ages at random and searching them lowers crime and saves lives, does that justify violating the Constitution that prohibits warrantless searches?

The Constitution does not prohibit all warrantless searches (see, e.g., Terry v. Ohio (1967)).

So you are saying that NYPD's Stop and Frisk searches may not violate the Constitutions 4th Amendment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

Do you think that has any relevance to NYPDs policy of Stop and Frisk?

 

[TheOldSchool]

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.