Stop and Frisk Essay Example for Free

Stop and Frisk Essay The Stop and Frisk program employed by the New York Police Department, gives police officers the right to initiate a stop of an individual on the street allegedly based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Stop and frisk has been an NYPD tool for decades, but in recent years it has generated an increased amount of criticism and debate due to the alarming rate in which they occur communities of color, who often feel under attack and harassed by the police. Minorities even make up the majority percentage of people searched in predominantly white neighborhoods, which is why I believe that either some kind of quota or limit system should be implement where only a certain percentage of people stopped cane be of a specific race or from specific neighborhood, or New York City should just get rid of the program all together. In 2011 alone, 700,000 New Yorkers were pulled over for stop and frisk searches. Approximately 87 percent were Hispanic or Black and of that percentage 90 percent were deemed innocent (Huffington Post). In comparison, from 2002 to 2011 Hispanics and Blacks made up 90 percent of people stopped, and 88 percent of those stopped were innocent New Yorker (New York Civil Liberties Union). If racial profiling in this case was effective that would be one thing, but there has yet to be any published research that has proven the effectiveness of this program, which is shown in the lack of arrests produced. Violent crimes in New York have decreased by 29 percent between 2001 and 2010; however, other major cities, such as Los Angeles and New Orleans, have experience larger declines without the use of stop and frisk (New York Civil Liberties Union). This is a clear example of why this program that causes more harm than good, should be abolished. This issue is similar to the racial profiling tactics used by Transportation Security Administration officers at countless airports across the United States. Since the September 11th attacks there have been countless claims of racial profiling in airports, particularly against those who appear to be Muslim or Middle Eastern. While it is the TSAs job to keep airports safe and travelers minds at ease, as it is the NYPDs job to accomplish similar goals, this does not give them the right to stop those who are profiled due to their race, religion or simply because their physical appearance is suspicious. However, unlike the random search tactics used in New York, there is evidence that exhibits that the majority of Americans are in favor f racial profiling in airports. According to a 2010 poll conducted by USA Today, 75 percent of Americans polled favored subjecting airline passengers, who fit a profile of terrorists based on age, gender and ethnicity to more extensive security searches. Although airport security is extremely important, I would be in favor of a more random method of searching rather than specifically targeting a certain demogr aphic on the basis that they â€Å"fit a profile. For example, Mexican airport utilize a system where every traveler has to push a button that displays either a red light, which signifies that they must stop for further inspection, and green, which indicates that they are free to pass. Such a random system almost eliminates the possibility of racial profiling. One may argue that although, as a result of this program, only 10 percent of the people stopped and searched are actually arrested, that still means that there are less criminals roaming the streets making the city a safer place. The Police Commissioner of the NYPD, Raymond Kelly, has gone on the defense against critics, saying that neighborhoods, such as Harlem, have grown, population wise, and become safer. Kelly said that the program helped expose 8,000 illegal weapons in 2011 and that it is â€Å"a life-saving measure. † Still, the program faces judgment from local politicians and organizations, such as the New York Civil Liberties Union, who strongly believe that is useless, except in its targeting of residents of â€Å"high-crime areas† and makes them feel like second-class citizens.

Women in the Progressive Era Essay -- American History

In the 1890s, American women emerged as a major force for social reform. Millions joined civic organizations and extended their roles from domestic duties to concerns about their communities and environments. These years, between 1890 and 1920, were a time of many social changes that later became known as the Progressive Era. In this time era, millions of Americans organized associations to come up with solutions to the many problems that society was facing, and many of these problems were staring American women right in the face. Women began to speak out against the laws that were deliberately set against them. Throughout this time period, women were denied the right to vote in all federal and most state held elections. Women struggled to achieve equality; equality as citizens, equality in the work place, and equality at home. During this time, Americans worked to fight corruption in government, reduce the power of big business, and improve society as a whole. Just as the Irish wanted good work and the farmers wanted a good banking system, women wanted equality. Women and women's organizations worked for various rights for different groups of people. They not only worked to gain the right to vote, they also worked for political equality and for social reforms. But how did this all start to happen? It didn’t happen overnight, and it wasn’t a one-person battle. Women wanted the same rights as men already had. But they didn’t just stop there, women played a major role in the rise of the child labor laws, stood up for minorities, and they wanted prostitution to end. Most people who opposed woman suffrage believed that women were less intelligent and less able to make political decisions than men were. Opponents argued th... ... â€Å"75 Suffragists.† Women’s Studies.(29 October 2003). Berkeley, Kathleen C. The Women’s Liberation Movement in America. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1999. Frankel, Voralee and Nancy Schrom Dye. Gender. Class, Race, and Reform in the Progressive Era. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1991. Freeman, Julie. The Progressive Era. 11 February 2002. (04 November 2003). Kerber, Linda K., Alice Kessler-Hessler and Kathryn Kish Sklar. US History as Women’s History. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995. â€Å"Living the Legacy: The Women's Rights Movement 1848 - 1998." The National Women's History Project. 1997. (30 October 2003). Muncy, Dr. Robyn. Women in the Progressive Era. 30 March 2003. (04 November 2003). Schneider, Dorothy. American Women in the Progressive Era 1900-1920. New York: Facts on File, 1993.

Capital Punishment and Sensitive Societal Issue

Punishment Punishment, Witness, and dehumanization are common in the world today illustrated in poems such as, â€Å"Punishment† by Seamus Heaney and â€Å"Capital Punishment† by Sherman Alexie. The poems give the world a different perspectives based on the authors viewpoint, yet both authors seem to favor punishment. Therefore everyone in their life deserves to be punished based on the authors work or even a witness for one reason or another to speak for something they have done or witness. These authors wanted to show a strong feeling towards punishment whether or not the crime was minor or major. In â€Å"Punishment† the speaker was a witness to dehumanizing punishment of the bog women. In â€Å"Capital Punishment† the cook was a witness to a cruel punishment. Even though both authors focused on different types of punishment they both expressed how witnessing and dehumanization have a vital role in different situations. Can punishment and race have factors that can change one another? Can the ethnicity of a criminal effect the severity of the punishment bestowed upon them? The ethnicity of a criminal or witness can determine how cruel and usual a punishment can be towards the criminal or witness. Witnessing is seeing an event, crime, or even an accident take place. In the poem the author talks about witnessing a horrible event. Punishment begins with a person possible the speaker or even the poet hanging with a noose around her neck and seems to be dead. The speaker seems like he could have witness the entire death. He describes the bog woman as, â€Å"she was a barked sapling that is dug out oak- bone, brain firkin: her shaved head like a stubble of black corn, her blindfold a soiled bandage, her noose a ring to store the memories of love† (Heaney, 1157). Even though he describes her as a scapegoat why does the speaker not speak up for this cruel dehumanizing punishment. The punishment was so outrages that the audience felt her pain. However, the speaker first says â€Å"my poor scapegoat† (Heaney, 1157), and we feel as if he feels the sorrow the readers do, shortly after he says, â€Å"I almost love you† (Heaney, 1157). With his participation of the punishment it leaves the audience believing that the woman deserves the punishment because of her past. â€Å"Capital Punishment† is told in first person, a cook is preparing a last meal for an Indian man. He says â€Å"I sit here in the dark kitchen when they do it, meaning when they kill him, kill and add another definition of the word to dictionary† (Alexie, 1164). The line â€Å"I am not a witness† is repeated throughout the poem, it is said after Alexie addresses a sensitive societal issue. Topics such as capital punishment are very difficult for the cook to explain. The speaker of the poem is sympathetic with the condemned man and knows that the reason he is on death row is due to the color of his skin. After the narrator describes and tells the reader what he is thinking and observing, he uses a line saying, â€Å"I am not a witness† symbolizing that the narrator can only imagine but relate to what the Native American is going through. He changes from â€Å"I am not a witness† to â€Å"I am a witness† (Alexie, 1162) when the narrator tells the reader a story about how the society can hang two people but throw both people in one grave. The line symbolizes that two wrongs do not equal one right. The cook sympathies with the criminal because he knows that his punishment is only that sever because of his ethnicity. I am a witness† is Alexie's way of saying this type of punishment is happening and is something that cannot be ignored or overlooked. The author asks the question, who are we to judge? Who decides someone's life is over? Alexie says at the end of the poem, † †¦ If any of us stood for days on top of a barren hill during an electrical stor m then lightning would eventually strike us and we'd have no idea for which of our sins were reduced to headlines and ash. † (Alexie 1165). Alexie was trying to say no matter what, a sin is a sin, the terms in which the sins were committed are meaningless, and the bottom line is that a sin was committed. However, if we were killed for our actions how would we know if the condemned would make up for that sin or turn out for the worst? Both poems prove that the author's point of view of each punishment in the poem shows significance in the writer's everyday life. Seamus Heaney's â€Å"Punishment† shows bitter love and can somewhat symbolize the relationship of the love of his life. Sherman Alexie's â€Å"Capital Punishment† symbolizes the punishment people experience especially through racial discrimination. In addition, by Alexie being Native American too, that proves he was making a statement about bitter punishment towards his culture. The ethnicity of a criminal or witness can determine how cruel and usual a punishment can be towards the criminal or witness. Work Cited Alexie, Sherman. â€Å"Capital Punishment. † Making Literature Matter: An Anthology for Readers and Writers. By John Schilb and John Clifford. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000. N. page. Print. Heaney, Seamus. â€Å"Punishment. † Making Literature Matter: An Anthology for Readers and Writers. By John Schilb and John Clifford. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000. 1156-157. Print.

When is civil disobedience justified Free Essay Example, 1250 words

Civil disobedience is justified when citizens experience injustice from the government Introduction Civil disobedience is justified when citizens experience substantial injustice from the government. Civil disobedience is deliberate disregard for the rule of law by citizens in advancing moral principles are protesting against government policies. It includes disobeying particular laws that are considered as unjust and other laws in drawing attention to the perceived injustice in the society. Examples of civil disobedience include the Civil rights Movements of 1960s and the recent Arab uprisings in North African countries and Asian countries. Some unlawful acts that citizens may engage in include non-payment of taxes, trespassing to government buildings, and damage of property and obstruction of traffic in the major highways. Citizens accept the adverse consequences of their actions as a means of furthering the objectives and causes. Civil disobedience was a major tactic of advancing the rights of Women in the USA, and the abolition of Apartheid in South Africa in early 1990s. This paper will discuss the reasons why civil disobedience is justified when citizens experience injustice from the government. Civil disobedience has been successful in ending injustice in the society. We will write a custom essay sample on When is civil disobedience justified or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now Many government policies are flawed and civil disobedience is only effective method of ending injustice in the society. Civil disobedience is mainly geared at advancing social issues that affect the majority of the citizens in the society. According to Martin Luther King, Jr letter from Birmingham jail, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. If injustice affects a single group of individuals directly, it will also affect other members of the society indirectly. According to his letter, the government should address the causes of the demonstrations in Birmingham and not the effects of the demonstrations (Ingram 90). Martin Luther’s letter clearly indicates that the minority has used all the available channels like negotiation but civil disobedience is the last resort to end the injustice. Negro leaders had sough negotiations but political leaders consistently refused to negotiate in good faith in ending the social injustice. According to Martin Luther, it is essential to create tension if the society has refused to negotiate so that leaders can confront the real injustice issues. According to Luther, justice delayed is the same as justice denied but violence should not be used to achieve justice.