Racial Discrimination In Early America

Police officers are authority figures, but abusing that authority can make them villains in the eyes of the public. In some cases, they have discriminated, used excessive force, and even entered homes without permission. No position of authority justifies being socially discriminative, harming innocent people, or conducting illegal searches. One’s age, race, gender, or social status does not decrease their value as humans. Officers must keep law and order in communities, but citizens have the right to not be unduly mishandled or injured by officers. The U.S. Constitution protects Americans from illegal search and seizure. Facts and observations have been provided about police conduct and their role in society. It promotes the argument that
The slaves were imported Africans and Native Indians. When slaves escaped, or revolted the local law enforcement officials were responsible for tracking them down or stopping the revolt. After slaves were freed, the local law was still responsible for keeping them in line. Because of this, there has always been a troubled relationship between police and minorities. It seems as if police are always present in minority neighborhoods. Racial discrimination happens everywhere, but especially in minority neighborhoods. A good example of this is “stop and frisk” programs. This is when police stop someone without probable cause, and searches them for weapons. If they find anything illegal, the person can be arrested. Many minorities have been convicted and sent to prison because of this discriminatory program (Harte , 2017). Keep in mind, which nothing illegal would be found if they were not stopped and frisked in the first place. The practice is not common in suburbs. The practice is not common in mostly white areas. Such discrimination hurts the reputation of the police. Stop and frisk would probably occur less if it were not a part of another, larger policing strategy. This strategy is known as “broken windows” policing. The simplest way to explain it is a theory that cracking down on minor crimes will help prevent major ones. The police use it in many ways, but all of them lead to more confrontations with minorities (Kelling and
It is ideal for those who want to plunder and entices people who normally would not dream of vandalism. Such conditions even entice those who probably consider themselves law-abiding citizens. They suggest that this free-spirited behavior leads to the breakdown of peace and control in the community. Once this begins, stable areas can change, in a few years or even in months. The change is for the worse into an unfriendly and scary place. Because these areas typically have more minorities; they encounter them more. It is not racial bias, it is just coincidence. Once they are in such areas, the best policy to fight crime is “stop and frisk.” Those law enforcement officers that believe in “stop and frisk.” argue that the policy reduces crime. They say it is been proven in the cities where it is widely used. They argue, it is successful in reducing violent crimes. They claim it prevents crimes including murder, attempted murder, assault, and rape. By stopping individuals based on reasonable suspicion of minor crimes, police are often able to stop major crimes before they happen. The police admit there has been cases of brutality, but they deny that it is common. They have a hard job, and their lives are always at risk. Criminals do not want to be caught so they often resist and put up a fight. Because the job can be so dangerous police must assume the threat is real and must end it as quick as possible. This gives