Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
Is Stop-and-Frisk the cure to Chicago’s gun violence?

Is Stop-and-Frisk the cure to Chicago’s gun violence?

Last updated on: March 4, 2017 at 4:11 pm by Jane the Actuary

Is Stop-and-Frisk the cure to Chicago’s gun violence? 2017-03-04T16:11:35-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

That’s what Bill Daley suggests in an opinion piece in the Tribune last Thursday.

First, Illinois must require mandatory prison time for illegally carrying a gun in the state. People lawfully owning licensed firearms need not worry. The General Assembly has been studying and preparing to change gun laws while people keep dying. Enough! Act!

In 2006, New York increased its mandatory penalty for carrying a loaded illegal gun to 3 1/2 years in prison. Many factors affect violence, but one fact is stark: New York City, with a much larger population, had fewer than half as many homicides last year (334) as Chicago did.

Gun laws can and must be justly enforced. NFL standout Plaxico Burress spent nearly two years in prison for carrying an unlicensed handgun (with which he accidentally shot himself in a New York nightclub). He rightly was treated the same as any nonfamous, nonwealthy person.

Second, we must give police wider leeway to stop and search suspects for illegal guns. Many people wrongly believe a federal judge in New York City ruled that stop-and-frisk policies are unconstitutional. In fact, the judge specifically said such tactics can be legal if they don’t amount to racial profiling.

A study of New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy, published last year in a Columbia Public Law Research Paper, concluded that targeted police stops “based on probable cause or (indications) of actual crime” were associated with “significant crime reductions.”

Whether intentionally placed or coincidentally, on the facing page was a letter to the editor by Rev. Dave Kelly of the Precious Blood Ministry of Reconciliation, a community outreach of a Catholic religious order, the Missionaries of the Precious Blood. Here’s his take:

If the state enacts longer mandatory prison sentences, here’s a prediction you can take to the bank: Criminals will not be deterred by the possibility of longer prison sentences, if they even are aware of the penalties. More young black and brown people — some carrying guns for their own protection — will be packed into prisons. And most will become even more dangerous criminals when returned to the streets later in life.

On the same day, an article appeared in The Atlantic, Rethinking Mass Incarceration in America. It’s a TL;DR piece, but the gist of it is that everyone thinks that prosecution for drug offenses is driving the high incarceration numbers, but that’s really only a small piece. The bigger issue is that, to a far greater degree than other Western countries, we incarcerate rather than place offenders on a rehabilitation-type track, and we give much longer sentences than is customary for the same offence elsewhere. This is coming out of a new book, Locked In, by John Pfaff; the National Review also provides a summary of what seems like a very interesting book that’s on hold at the library.

The question is this:

Would a stop-and-frisk policy be an effective deterrent of gun crimes?

One of the causes of the high murder rate in a city like Chicago is that the murder clearance rate is so low — only 30% according to a September 2016 Tribune article. Presumably — though the article doesn’t spell this out — certain types of homocides are more likely to be solved than others. Which means that, even if penalties for murder, or attempted murder or other gun-violence crimes, are sky-high, there won’t be much of a deterrent effect if the young men doing the killing don’t think there’s much risk of actually going to jail.

Obviously, the problem of finding the perpetrator is not an issue with an illegal possession that was identified in a stop-and-frisk. Presuming that the officer does everything by-the-book so that the perpetrator can’t complain that it was an illegal search and seizure, it should be an easy case, right?

But would the police be able to implement stop-and-frisk consistently enough, and with regular enough patrols, that would-be illegal gun possessors would feel that they run enough of a risk of being caught, to change their behavior?

And, if so, would that have an impact on gun crimes? It seems to me that this would only be effective if shootings and deaths were crimes of impulse, so that would-be killers and shooters changing their practice of carrying guns, due to stop-and-frisk, and deciding to keep their guns at home, would mean less impulse. But if these shootings are planned in advance, then it’s less likely that stop-and-frisk would truly make a dent. It might reduce day-to-day carrying, but won’t prevent the future felon from taking a gun along when their very intent is to commit a crime — and just staying out of sight of a patrol, and avoiding locations where the police are known to patrol.

Compare this to drunk driving. There the crime of drunk driving is directly related to the injury of car accidents. Enforce drunk driving diligently enough, and you cut down on the deaths and injuries due to accidents caused by impaired drivers. (Though the effectiveness of the ever-broadening definition of “impaired” driving is another question.) But what if drunk driving carried massive penalties, but enforcement only ever occurred on highways, and yet the majority of drunk driving happened on city streets?

I’m not an expert at gun violence, or crime in general, but it does seem that, in general, the prospect of imprisonment is not working as effectively as you’d think it should be as a deterrent, whether it’s because criminals judge that their chances of getting caught are slim, or that prison isn’t perceived of as that bad an outcome.

Readers, thoughts?

Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACrimeScene.jpg; By Supaflyrobby (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Previous Post

March 3, 2017

College-financing advice wanted!

Next Post

March 4, 2017 What's the purpose of deferred deportation?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Paul say he does not do the good he wants to do, but instead does?

Select your answer to see how you score.

What leads to death What displeases God What is sinful The evil he does not want to do