The 14th Amendment aims to guarantee “equal protection” for everyone under the law. But often violations of equality do not take the form of laws or practices that target one group or another (e.g. “Germans shall not eat ice cream”) that are easy to identify and so rectify. Instead, the disparate treatment can only be documented with numbers. But there’s at least two problems: (A) some numerical disparities do not, in fact, reveal prejudice. That police arrest far more males then females, for example, doesn’t tell us the police hate men and prefer women; instead it has a lot to do with the fact then men commit more crime than women; and (B) what numbers we should look act and how is rarely a simple matter.
So, many of the legal battles around whether or not police departments engage in racist practices can feel less like legal debates and more like a seminar in statistics.
In this assignment, we will look at precisely one such legal battle: the debate and subsequent legal battle over whether stop-question-frisk as practiced by the NYPD unfairly targeted people of color. To see how such a battle played out, we will look closely at two expert witness reports submitted to court in a key legal case: Floyd v. New York. One report (“Smith and Purtel”) was submitted by NYC to defend its police department; the other (“Fagan”) was submitted by a variety of legal activist groups seeking to change the NYPD’s policies.
In this assignment, you will need to read both reports carefully and then answer in considered prose the six questions below on those reports. Doing so will require focused, logical thinking–and there’s no shortcuts. Probably no point in starting this assignment unless you have 10 hours to devote to it.
This chart details how many points you can win with this extra-credit assignment.
| grade | points |
| 100 | 15 |
| 99 | 14 |
| 98 | 13 |
| 97 | 12 |
| 96 | 11 |
| 95 | 10 |
| 94-90 | 9 |
| 89-88 | 8 |
| 87-86 | 7 |
| 85-84 | 6 |
| 83-82 | 5 |
| 81-80 | 4 |
| 79-78 | 2 |
| 77-0 | 0 |
Answer these six questions.
1. “patrol strength” (meaning the number of officers in an area who may or may not make a Terry stop) is essential for understanding whether or not there was unjustified racial disparity in such stops.
Two questions:
A. How does Fagan construct a “proxy” for what is unknowable directly from data: the number of officers in an area at any given time?
B. Smith and Purtel in their report take issue with Fagan’s “proxy” for patrol strength. Which side has the better argument and (far more importantly) why? Be specific and do not simply repeat the argument of your preferred side but instead assess the relative merits of both sides.
Answer this question in two paragraphs of carefully written prose and follow these writing requirements:
A. Be sure to have at least four direct quotations, with at least two direct quotations coming from each of the primary sources.
B. When using direct quotations from the sources, be sure to use method 3 or 4 from HW 1 and also be sure to reduce your quotations to ten for fewer words. See here on how to reduce quotations. (five points off if you do not).
C. When making your arguments, be sure to ground those arguments in specific evidence from the sources. (14 points off if you do not).
D. Be sure in those paragraphs where you make points from evidence to organize those paragraph in the familiar cl/ev/wa format from HW 1 and that you put a (CL) in front of your paragraph’s claim, an (EV) before the evidence, and a (WA) in front of the warrant. (Keep in mind (A) not all paragraphs should be in cl/ev/wa format–just those that make a point from evidence. Introductions and conclusions, for example, rarely present evidence. Also keep in mind (B) that the cl/ev/wa format is for organizing individual paragraphs rather than for organizing whole papers. A strong paper will likely have a series of cl/ev/wa paragraphs as well as a number of paragraphs that are not in that format.) (14 points off if you do not).
2. The defendants in the case (that is, the City and by extension, the NYPD) believe that the appropriate “benchmark” for racial disparity is whether or not the percentage of a racial/ethnic group stopped in a neighborhood exceeds the percentage of that group who is criminally active (e.g., if group X represents 40% of the “criminally active” in a neighborhood, we would not conclude there was racial disparity in Stop-Question-Frisk activity against group X until more than 40% of the stops were of that group).
And, the figures for the racial breakdown of the “criminally active” population come largely from victims’ descriptions of the alleged perpetrator and supplemented occasionally, when possible, by more conclusive evidence from the police when they “cleared” a case. (This idea is important as it sidesteps the issues of statistical skewing from either over policing or police bias in arrests).
Fagan argues vigorously against the use of this benchmark. Smith and Purtell argue for it–and for understandable reasons. If it is an appropriate benchmark, there was very little racial disparity in NYPD’s practices. If, on the other hand, Fagan is right and it is an inappropriate benchmark, then his findings of unjustified racial disparity might be very, very real.
Which side has the better argument and (far more importantly) why? Be specific and do not simply repeat the argument of your preferred side. Instead, assess the relative merits of both sides in a careful critique.
Your response should take the form of three to four carefully constructed cl/ev/wa paragraphs. Follow these writing requirements:
A. Be sure to have at least six direct quotations, with at least three direct quotations coming from each of the primary sources.
B. When using direct quotations from the sources, be sure to use method 3 or 4 from HW 1 and also be sure to reduce your quotations to ten for fewer words. See here on how to reduce quotations. (five points off if you do not).
C. When making your arguments, be sure to ground those arguments in specific evidence from the sources. (14 points off if you do not).
D. Be sure in those paragraphs where you make points from evidence to organize those paragraph in the familiar cl/ev/wa format from HW 1 and that you put a (CL) in front of your paragraph’s claim, an (EV) before the evidence, and a (WA) in front of the warrant. (Keep in mind (A) not all paragraphs should be in cl/ev/wa format–just those that make a point from evidence. Introductions and conclusions, for example, rarely present evidence. Also keep in mind (B) that the cl/ev/wa format is for organizing individual paragraphs rather than for organizing whole papers. A strong paper will likely have a series of cl/ev/wa paragraphs as well as a number of paragraphs that are not in that format.) (14 points off if you do not).
3. Fagan calculates the percentage of stops (both radio run and non-radio run; “radio run” being a Terry stop initiated by a citizen complaint to the police that then leads to officers being dispatched by radio) that are “apparently unjustified.” What are those percentages (that is, for both radio and non-radio run)? Should we consider those percentages as large or small and for what reasons? That is, how should we decide where the appropriate dividing line is between acceptable and unacceptable number of “apparently unjustified” Terry stops?
Your response should take the form of ONE carefully constructed cl/ev/wa paragraph.
Follow these writing requirements:
A. Be sure to have at least two direct quotations
B. When using direct quotations from the sources, be sure to use method 3 or 4 from HW 1 and also be sure to reduce your quotations to ten for fewer words. See here on how to reduce quotations. (five points off if you do not).
C. When making your arguments, be sure to ground those arguments in specific evidence from the sources. (14 points off if you do not).
D. Be sure in those paragraphs where you make points from evidence to organize those paragraph in the familiar cl/ev/wa format from HW 1 and that you put a (CL) in front of your paragraph’s claim, an (EV) before the evidence, and a (WA) in front of the warrant. (Keep in mind (A) not all paragraphs should be in cl/ev/wa format–just those that make a point from evidence. Introductions and conclusions, for example, rarely present evidence. Also keep in mind (B) that the cl/ev/wa format is for organizing individual paragraphs rather than for organizing whole papers. A strong paper will likely have a series of cl/ev/wa paragraphs as well as a number of paragraphs that are not in that format.) (14 points off if you do not).
4. On p. 35 of his report, Fagan argues that the contraband “hit rate” of random vehicular stops was higher than the hit rate in NYPD’s SQF practice in the years studied. In essence, Fagan argues, NYPD officers’ ability to successful identify suspicious behavior was worse than if they had simply stopped people randomly on the street.
Now read this brief legal article.
Explain why (or why not) the legal idea of “constructive possession” means we should be wary of comparisons of “hit rates” in vehicles with “hit rates” of pedestrians. In other words, does police use of “constructive possession” pose a challenge to comparing “hit rates” for pedestrian and vehicular stops. Why or why not?
Your response should take the form of one to two carefully constructed cl/ev/wa paragraphs.
Follow these writing requirements:
A. Be sure to have at least four direct quotations, with at least two direct quotations coming from each of the primary sources.
B. When using direct quotations from the sources, be sure to use method 3 or 4 from HW 1 and also be sure to reduce your quotations to ten for fewer words. See here on how to reduce quotations. (five points off if you do not).
C. When making your arguments, be sure to ground those arguments in specific evidence from the sources. (14 points off if you do not).
D. Be sure in those paragraphs where you make points from evidence to organize those paragraph in the familiar cl/ev/wa format from HW 1 and that you put a (CL) in front of your paragraph’s claim, an (EV) before the evidence, and a (WA) in front of the warrant. (Keep in mind (A) not all paragraphs should be in cl/ev/wa format–just those that make a point from evidence. Introductions and conclusions, for example, rarely present evidence. Also keep in mind (B) that the cl/ev/wa format is for organizing individual paragraphs rather than for organizing whole papers. A strong paper will likely have a series of cl/ev/wa paragraphs as well as a number of paragraphs that are not in that format.) (14 points off if you do not).
5. Smith and Purtell critique the use of the population census as a benchmark in assessing racial disparity. Are their arguments persuasive or not and (far more importantly) why? Pay particular attention to their discussion of video work done in Britain.
Your response should take the form of three to five carefully constructed cl/ev/wa paragraphs.
Follow these writing requirements:
A. Be sure to have at least six direct quotations, with at least three direct quotations coming from each of the primary sources.
B. When using direct quotations from the sources, be sure to use method 3 or 4 from HW 1 and also be sure to reduce your quotations to ten for fewer words. See here on how to reduce quotations. (five points off if you do not).
C. When making your arguments, be sure to ground those arguments in specific evidence from the sources. (14 points off if you do not).
D. Be sure in those paragraphs where you make points from evidence to organize those paragraph in the familiar cl/ev/wa format from HW 1 and that you put a (CL) in front of your paragraph’s claim, an (EV) before the evidence, and a (WA) in front of the warrant. (Keep in mind (A) not all paragraphs should be in cl/ev/wa format–just those that make a point from evidence. Introductions and conclusions, for example, rarely present evidence. Also keep in mind (B) that the cl/ev/wa format is for organizing individual paragraphs rather than for organizing whole papers. A strong paper will likely have a series of cl/ev/wa paragraphs as well as a number of paragraphs that are not in that format.) (14 points off if you do not).
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
