‘Stop-and-frisk’ doesn’t work
Daniel Gallington’s call for “aggressive policing” (“How do we stop the shooting of children? Aggressive policing.,” Nov. 3) offers a throwback to harmful and failed policies for addressing gun violence in Chicago: the use of invasive policing tactics in Chicago’s minority neighborhoods.
What makes this proposal particularly galling is that the steps suggested are precisely those that repeatedly were used and repeatedly failed for more than a half century.
Gallington suggests without evidence that a “stopand-frisk” program will successfully get illegal guns off the streets while brushing aside the harm done by such racially discriminatory realities.
Over many years, the American Civil Liberties Union has examined the use of stop-and-frisk by Chicago police. Stop-and-frisk is a brutal policy that drives a wedge between police and the community. A frisk is not a gentle pat-down. It regularly involves police throwing young men of color against walls or over the hoods of police cars while officers do searches, which include placement of officers’ hands down people’s pants. These stops are nearly exclusively conducted against people of color in Chicago — although this seems to be Gallington’s goal. Third, such stops and pat-downs yield little in the way of crime control.
In 2021, Chicago police reported making 68,556 pedestrian stops: 70% of the stops were of Black residents, even though the city’s population is only about 33% Black. Fewer than 1 in 5 of these searches resulted in finding any type of contraband, including guns and drugs. That means that more than 8 in 10 of the stops resulted in not getting any guns off the street but instead harassing, humiliating and stopping a disproportionate number of Black pedestrians. That is not what effective policing looks like.
Reducing gun violence, particularly violence against children, is paramount. While there is no quick fix, we know what will work. Violence will be reduced if we investigate and reduce the easy access to handguns in many neighborhoods. We can reduce violence by investing in the community, from economic development to mentoring, mental health services and family support programs. And we can reduce crime by funding alternatives to incarceration that divert young people from criminal activity.
These steps are hard, but they will work. Aggressive tactics and invasive surveillance measures sound tough and urgent, but they will not make any neighborhood safer. We know this because it has not worked for more than a half century.
— Alexandra Block, senior supervising attorney, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, Chicago