Stop & Frisk and the Politics of Crime in Chicago

Abstract

AbstractThis book examines the role of stop & frisk as one of America’s predominant crime control strategies. Historically, policing focused on responding quickly to reports of crime. Beginning in the mid-1990s, American policing moved toward proactive strategies, hoping to deter crime from occurring in the first place. In theory, stop & frisk promotes deterrence in two ways: by increasing an offender’s risk of being caught and punished, and by discouraging the general public from considering offending in the first place. In law, stop & frisk was validated by the Supreme Court as a reasonable compromise between limiting the personal freedoms of Americans and recognizing the risks presented by an increasingly armed and crime-ridden society. Officers could frisk an individual for a weapon even without the traditional requirement of probable cause. This book investigates stop & frisk in actual practice. It examines its origins as Chicago’s predominant strategy for responding to 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. The book also examines 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.