STOP-AND-FRISK TO REDUCE CRIME 2
Stop-and-Frisk to Reduce Crime
Summary
It is evident from available data that the policing strategy of stop-and-frisk was not
responsible for the crime reduction in New York City as many believe. There has been no
established link between crime rates and stop-and-frisk. Rather, the decline in crimes in New
York City is said to have started before the introduction of this policy and has remained
relatively low. Statistics also suggest that crime has reduced in New York City regardless of
whether the number of stops fell or increased (Cullen, 2016). Moreover, research results indicate
that the policy was racially used on blacks and Latinos, making it a tool of discrimination.
Therefore, there is no certainty on the use of stop-and-frisk to successfully reduce crime.
Although it has contributed to fighting crimes in New York City, other methods such as
CompStat, have played a more significant role in reducing crimes.
Conclusion
From my analysis, stop-and-frisk cannot be credit for reduced crime in New York City. It
is an unfriendly policy considering police officers have the mandate to stop and search innocent
people without any substantial evidence. Additionally, it has been used in indirect racial profiling
where people of color and Latinos have become targets of this strategy (Bump, 2016). Therefore,
it is not an effective method of dealing with crime in any given city, including Chicago. As such,
I cannot recommend it as an efficient tool to be used in efforts to bring change in Chicago.
However, introducing stop-and-frisk should be considered as one of the methods to be used
alongside others such as CompStat in order to achieve desired outcomes (The Editors 2013).
Given that outcomes of several research studies have indicated no relationship between reduced
