Nypd's Stop And Furisk Policy

I researched NYPD’s stop and frisk policy and reviewed all of the material from the perspective of formalism. From a formalism standpoint, I’ve concluded that the NYPD stop and frisk policy is unethical, for several reasons. First of all, stop and frisk is not a good universal rule. This classification, called the categorical imperative states that in order for something to be considered ethical, it must always be ethical, in all situations, with no exceptions. Stop and frisk is not a bad policy, but the way it has been practiced in NYPD is. Statistics have shown that police officers were stopping an unproportioned amount of African-Americans and Latinos. To be ethical, stop and frisk would have to be considered ethical universally, everywhere, all the time. It isn’t ethical or right to stop and frisk everybody in public, nor

The practical imperative orders that we never use people as a means to an end, or for any reason; People can’t be used to further an agenda, or for a result. The intent of aggressive stop and frisks may be a variety of reasons, officer safety, to create police omnipresence, or to further the individual police officer’s profiling agenda. The stop and frisk policy includes the use of many people in 2015, of the 22,939 citizens who were stopped, only 20% of them were arrested. This means that 18,353 completely innocent citizens were inconvenienced, and possibly afraid. The standard of suspicion for stop and frisk is only reasonable suspicion. This standard is basically a “hunch” just a slight suspicion that a crime may have or is about to be committed. Because the standard is so low, it’s easy for officers to target somebody and conjure an explanation as to why they looked suspicious, therefore making it simple to use people for a particular consequence. For these reasons, the formalism ethical approach views NYPD stop and frisks as