Karen,
I agree with one of those Penn experts whose comments about crime Ray posted
a few days ago. Something like, beware of politicians or institutional
leaders who tell you they have the quick and simple solution to crime. There
are no quick or simple solutions.
We the people need to make a commitment to allocating resources to solve
lots of specific problems that together increase crime. One thing that
should be done is the end to the prohibition on drugs. At the same time,
fund drug and other psychiatric treatments for those who need it. For proven
drug addicts, I would let them get subsidized prescriptions. These systems
as they are now functioning are completely broken and we're traumatizing our
society with the failed prohibition. While we are wasting money, there are
huge numbers of addicted people begging for help they can't access.
I would say our society forms policies driven by anger and too many of us
have lost commitment to principals, which were supposedly treasured in our
American myth. We have gotten so utilitarian that we've also lost our
compassion.
We turn a blind eye to our neighbors needs. We not only accept bullying we
often encourage it if it can benefit us. Our neighborhood situation is a
powerful example to me. When issues of transparency or inclusiveness come
up, the person who values these is called a proccessaholic, trustafarian,
etc. To conclude the point, I believe too many of us are ethically
challenged and lack the will to engage in an honest discussion about our
problems when an anger based solution is available.
Karen, I very much disagree about this policy. The police still have too
many unresolved problems for us to encourage more aggressive behavior in the
absence of a crime. This will almost certainly lead to profiling and more
abuse cases.
In yesterday's Inquirer there is the story about a surveillance video in
North Philly showing another police beating at 1:30 AM. From the article,
"Byrd suffered broken ribs, a fractured left arm, a concussion, and eye
damage from the arrest." And, ".appears to show police striking Kyle. with
batons, slamming a car door repeatedly on his body, pepper spraying his
face, and throwing him to the ground." And, ".an officer walks to him and
pokes him in the back with a baton, as if to check whether he is still
alive."
You're a lawyer and your description of our constitutional rights sounds
correct, This is an ideal. In practice, people are having their
constitutional, civil, and human rights violated everyday. In theory, we don't
engage or believe in torture, but that is not true.
What is the percentage of criminal cases disposed via plea bargain in
Philadelphia? I bet its well over 90% There are huge numbers of innocent
people sitting in jails having their rights violated. People are beaten up
by those "few bad apples" and there is something called the code of silence
among the police. It's not just civic association boards that observe a code
of silence.
Those of us who are skeptical of a policy to increase police aggressiveness,
I think, believe these other problems must be fixed first. Also, the idea of
stop and frisk, in my opinion, is almost "profiling" by definition. If
this discussion isn't some different policy but simply existing procedure,
why would it be emphasized in the discussion of solutions to current
problems.
Now understand; people in poor neighborhoods often show symptoms of
post-traumatic stress probably from the cumulative stress of poverty. The
harm to people who go to jail when innocent is enormous. Or if they receive
police beatings or confinement, during which like Sharrieff feared, they
thought they were going to be killed. Or if it happens down the street,
people start feeling the stress of living in a police state. Who will
protect the people when the people are afraid of the police? We can't just
have the police show up at special events to hand out lollipops. We need a
professional police force not engaging in behaviors legal or not which
intimidate innocent people.
All of this stuff also sets the victim up to cost society. Whether it's
future crime, drug addiction, or damage which reaches into entire families;
we need to see this happen less and not have policies that increase this
problem. This increased police aggressiveness is one of those simplistic
quick fixes that makes more problems and does very little good.
Respectfully,
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: "KAREN ALLEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 5:16 PM
Subject: [UC] Stop and Frisk
I don't agree with the characterization that the police will be given free
reign to stop and frisk anyone they want, or that it would necessarily lead
to racial profiling. Whatever Nutter may say about it, police procedure
still is governed by the Federal and State Constitutions.
Stop and frisk has been part of the criminal law since 1961, when the US
Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case, Terry v. Ohio, that the
procedure is constitutional under specific circumstances. First, it can
only be used as part of an initial police investigation when police have a
reasonable, articulatable suspicion that a crime is taking place. They
cannot just stop people walking down the street and frisk them.
If they have reasonable suspicion, and can articulate specific facts to
support that, the police can stop a person to investigate, ask questions,
etc. As part of that investigation, they have the right to protect
themselves against weapons the person may be carrying and could be used
against them, so the police are permitted to frisk only for their own
personal safety. They are allowed to only "pat down" the outer clothing
of the person to determine only if the person has a weapon. If the police
cannot feel anything that could reasonably be a weapon, the frisk is over.
They cannot use stop and frisk to search for anything else, such as drugs
or stolen property. For that they have to have probable cause sufficient
to make an arrest, and anything improperly seized during a stop and frisk
is subject to being thrown out at a suppression hearing before trial.
Stop and frisk is not a new or radical concept and is already in practice
every day here in Philadelphia and across the country. That's the law,
but that's not to say that it can't be or hasn't been abused.
The other side of the coin is what SHOULD be done to stop the
out-of-control murder rate?
Karen Allen
From: emko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: emko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Univcity List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Stop-n-frisk and innocent people in jail (was RE: [UC]
Stop-N-Frisk, Racial Profiling and Law Enforcement)
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 15:13:10 -0400
I'm really disturbed about this proposal, too. I was ready to vote for
Nutter until I heard he was behind it.
Since when do the police get to stop and frisk whoever they want? (Well,
I guess since Rizzo . . . which obviously doesn't make it right -- or
within the law.) I don't care how much crime there is, this is
unconstitutional and, in my opinion, anti-democratic, unAmerican, and
really scary. As the old saying says, "First they came for the (fill in
the blank), but I didn't care because I wasn't a (fill in the blank).
Then they came for the . . . " Etc.
Nutter seemed like a pretty smart guy to me. Now I'm beginning to think
his name says it all.
Maggie
On May 9, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Kyle Cassidy wrote:
I have similar concerns with any "stop and frisk" policy. I can't see
how it won't turn into a costume hunt. "Hey! Look at that guy's shirt!
It has some weird heavy metal devil sign on it! Frisk him!"
I've been reading an awesome photo book called "the innocents"
(http://www.amazon.com/Innocents-Taryn-Simon/dp/1884167187/ ref=pd_bbs_2/
002-8402081-3920861?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178724557&sr=8-2)
By Taryn Simon. It's beautiful portrait photos of about sixty people
who'd been convicted of a crime, put on death row waiting execution,
only to be exhonerated (usually by advances in DNA technology) It has a
preface written by Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck from the Innocense
Project. Absolutely stunning photography and gut wrenching stories of
people who were sentenced to death based on the flimsiest of evidence.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 11:24 AM
To: S. Sharrieff Ali; [email protected]
On my way I was stopped by the police and thrown into a
"paddy-wagon" (police van),
hand-cuffed and detained for an hour in the dark locked van.
When the van door
finally opened, my hopes of being released soon turned to
disappointment when
2 other kids my age were locked in with me, hand-cuffed as well.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database:
269.6.6/794 - Release Date: 5/8/2007 2:23 PM
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
