| Abstract |
"This book examines the role of stop & frisk as one of America's predominant crime control strategies. In the past, policing focused on responding to crimes in progress or (more often) already committed. Beginning in the mid-1990s, American policing moved toward proactive strategies for deterring crime from occurring in the first place. Crime in the United States was dropping, and police leaders claimed responsibility for this success. However, but during the 2010s violent crime began to swing upward again. Police now had responsibility for crime, and this led almost inevitably to more heavily targeted and aggressive police tactics. In theory, stop & frisk promotes deterrence in two ways, by increasing offender's risk of being caught and punished, and by discouraging the general public from even considering offending in the first place. In law, stop & frisk was validated by the Supreme Court as a reasonable compromise between the personal freedoms of Americans and the risks presented by an increasing armed and crime-ridden society. Officers could frisk an individual for a weapon even without the t traditional requirement that there was probable cause to think they had committed a crime. This book takes a third focus, stop & frisk in actual practice. It examines its origins as Chicago's predominant strategy for responding to the turnaround in violent crime. The story includes the political agendas of two mayors and four chiefs of police. Further chapters examined how stop & frisk played itself out on the streets of Chicago, and its impact on public opinion. There are chapters detailing the views of police officers who did the work of stop & frisk, and an analysis of its impact on murders and shootings. A final chapter considers alternatives to stop & frisk as it was practiced in Chicago"-- Provided by publisher. |
