I recently read Malcolm Gladwell’s new book, David and Goliath, and after reading it I realized that Gladwell has the word that the NYPD needs to hear.
Reading Gladwell’s book brought me to the following conclusion: Stop-and-Frisk is a policy that is doomed to do more damage than good because it lacks one essential element: legitimacy.
According to New York State Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50, NYDP officers have the right to stop, question, and frisk individuals that they suspect may be carrying concealed weapons or contraband of any kind. The practice was vetted by the Supreme Court in 1968’s Terry vs Ohio. In this case, a police officer named Martin McFadden stopped, questioned, and frisked a man named John Terry . . . and found a weapon on him. Terry’s defense was that under the fourth amendment, which protects us from unwarranted search and seizure, the officer had no right to stop, question, or frisk Terry. The court agreed with the officer: there was probable cause. Terry and his companion looked suspicious, as they seemed to be casing a store that they were about to rob. Considering the way they were acting, it was reasonable to assume that they were about to commit a crime, and thus their search and seizure was not unreasonable.
The argument for stop-and-frisk is that it reduces crime and saves lives by identifying weapon-wielding criminals through proactive policing. The problem with the policy is that it authorizes police officers to detain, search (and often harass) multitudes of non-weapon-wielders in the process. Nearly 90% of those who have been questioned and frisked under the policy have been neither weapon-wielders nor criminals, according to the NYCLU. Most have been either African-Americans or Latinos, and many have been stopped and frisked by multiple police officers on multiple occasions.
So the question is whether or not this multitude of non-weapon-wielders should see this use of police power as necessary and effective. Assuming that we all agree that there is such a thing as the legitimate use of police power, how can we differentiate the legitimate use of power from the illegitimate?
Gladwell gives us a good answer to this question in David and Goliath. He calls it the principle of legitimacy. According to the schema of the book, Goliath represents those in power . . . in this situation, the NYPD. And David represents those who are subject to that power. Gladwell demonstrates that when power is used in a manner that is not perceived as legitimate by those who are subjected to it, it produces defiance . . . and David tends to win that battle.
It is commonly thought, says Gladwell, that authority is the response to disobedience. In many cases, disobedience is caused by the inappropriate use of authority.
Gladwell gives us three tenets of the principle of legitimacy: 1) The people who are asked to obey must have a voice . . . they have to know that if they speak up, they will be heard; 2) The law must be predictable, which means that it must be consistently and non-discriminatorily applied; and 3) The law must be fair . . . it cannot treat one group differently than another.
So how does stop-and-frisk do in light of these tenets? Not too well at all!
The first problem with the policy is that the people who are subjected to it do not feel like they have a voice. When a young man is detained by the police, he is not allowed to say, Hold on a minute; I was just stopped by a cop two blocks ago! This has to stop! And this is a problem not only in NYC, but in many parts of the country, including the Bay Area. I don’t say this to justify defiance or to condone disrespect towards officers of the peace. I respect their authority and submit to it, and I am commanded to do so by the word of God (see Romans 13). My point is simply that we have a widespread problem in law enforcement that needs to be addressed.
The second problem with the policy is that it is not predictable . . . you can be stopped for no reason at all. This is a huge problem! I know that if I am speeding, driving recklessly, streaking, vandalizing, or harassing another person, I can expect to be detained, questioned, asked to step out of my vehicle, frisked, ticketed, or even arrested by the police, depending on the situation. But if you put me in a world in which I cannot predict whether these things will happen to me or not . . . in which the police can do these things to me for not reason at all . . . and I’ll be nervous all the time in the presence of the police. I won’t see them as my protectors; I’ll see them as predators. This is what’s happening in NYC!
The third problem with the policy is that it is not fair . . . it singles out African-Americans and Latinos. Mayor Bloomberg justified this by saying that African-Americans and Latinos were the most likely to commit crimes in those areas. That is very true, I’m sure. But what we do not see are corrollaries in other sectors of society. What about a law that allows police to randomly stop and search the briefcases of the demographic most likely to engage in insider trading? Or embezzlement? Or tax fraud?
According to the definition of legitimacy that Gladwell presents in David and Goliath, stop-and-frisk (as it is being practiced by the NYPD) doesn’t make the cut, and this is why the stop-and-frisk policy cannot fail to create greater defiance, a deeper antipathy towards the police and their authority, and in turn higher crime rates in the communities in which it is enforced.
At the end of the day, the problem is not stop-and-frisk. Police officers should have the right to stop would-be criminals before they commit crimes. But we should reasonably expect police officers to be experts at identifying would-be criminals. A 90% fail-rate is simply unacceptable. If you’re going to stop and frisk people, 90% of the people you stop and frisk better have a weapon or some drugs on them! A 90% fail rate means that these officers are either tremendously deficient in their powers of observation as it relates to criminal activity, or they are being compelled by the powers above them to stop and frisk people for whom they have no suspicions whatsoever. Either way, the practice is bad.
Yet, as a leader, I must ask myself how legitimate my use of authority is. Do the people who answer to me really feel that they have a voice with me? Are my rules predictable and fair? How does my daughter feel about my use of authority in her life? How do the members of my congregation feel? What about the members of my staff?
This principle applies not only to the NYPD, but to every leader who exercises any kind of authority. Every parent needs to evaluate their use of authority over their children in light of this principle. Every pastor, every teacher, every business leader, every public official . . . and even those who have no formal position of authority. Regardless of who you are, someone looks up to you . . . someone follows you. We would all do well to strive for greater and greater levels of legitimacy in the exercise of our authority, and this happens naturally as we recognize that the authority that we wield over people is not for ourselves, but for the good of the people that we lead. If we set our hearts on their good and not just on the adjustment of their behavior, we may discover the power of love-centered leadership.
