7

In response to a growing set of empirical studies demonstrating their widespread discriminatory effects, pretextual stops have been subjected to decades of criticism from scholars, the public, and jurists. However, pretextual stops have been defended by some as a necessary public safety measure, particularly in the fight against violent gun crimes. Following a series of highly publicized police shootings of unarmed Black drivers during pretextual stops, and in the absence of substantial judicial or legislative guidance, a growing number of prosecutors have developed policies deprecating the prosecution of pretextual stops absent a clear public safety benefit. Without empirical evaluations of pretextual stops, however, it has been difficult for practitioners or justice advocates to rebut complaints that these new policies remove an important deterrent to crime and the circulation of illegal firearms. This Article reports the results of the first empirical evaluation of the impact of pretextual stops on crime and gun seizures, made possible by the Ramsey County Attorney’s decision to both decline prosecution of non-public-safety stops and to share data about those stops. We find that reduced stops have led to decreased racial disparities without affecting crime rates. Notably, the most common justification for pretextual stops—the recovery of illegal firearms—remained constant in the largest police department aligned with the new policy. We urge prosecutors to review the growing body of evidence we describe and contribute to this evidence base by gathering and sharing data about their policies with researchers. To that end, this Article provides a comprehensive review of relevant empirical evidence, reports the findings of the Ramsey County evaluation, and outlines how prosecutors and police departments in other jurisdictions can utilize the Ramsey County model to engage in evidence-based reform.

[Bolding added]

Abstract page archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240829115138/https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol61/iss1/4/

PDF download link is https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3478&context=sdlr

PDF download archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240829115121/https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3478&context=sdlr

top 1 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Internet Archive:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://web.archive.org/web/20240829115138/https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol61/iss1/4/
https://web.archive.org/web/20240829115121/https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3478&context=sdlr
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
7 points (81.8% liked)

politics

19138 readers
4179 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS