{"title":"纽约警察局(NYPD)的警察世界观、无意识偏见及其对种族和民族差异的潜在贡献因“偷偷摸摸的行动”而停止。","authors":"W. Morrow, John A. Shjarback","doi":"10.1080/15377938.2019.1636920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Floyd et al. v The City of New York (2013), the federal district court judge ruled that the New York Police Department (NYPD) was engaging in unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices that targeted predominately Black and Latino New Yorkers. Among the major decisions made in Floyd (2013), the judge identified “Furtive Movement” as being a weak indicator for establishing the reasonable suspicion needed to justify a Terry stop. Moreover, the judge recognized that “Furtive Movement” is a vague and subjective term, which may be affected by unconscious bias and lead to racial and ethnic disparities in stop outcomes. Building on the judge’s concern about unconscious bias, the current study attempts to (1) provide a theoretical framework for understanding how police officers’ worldview may contribute to or interact with unconscious biases and to (2) examine whether NYPD officers are more likely to stop Black and Hispanic New Yorkers than their White counterparts for the reason of “Furtive Movement.” The latter inquiry is explored using NYPD stop-and-frisk data from 2011, 2013, and 2016. The social scientific implications of this research provide support for (1) the judge’s apprehension toward police stops on the basis of furtive gestures and (2) the effectiveness of court-ordered intervention.","PeriodicalId":45166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15377938.2019.1636920","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Police worldviews, unconscious bias, and their potential to contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in New York Police Department (NYPD) stops for reason of “furtive movement”\",\"authors\":\"W. Morrow, John A. Shjarback\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15377938.2019.1636920\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In Floyd et al. v The City of New York (2013), the federal district court judge ruled that the New York Police Department (NYPD) was engaging in unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices that targeted predominately Black and Latino New Yorkers. Among the major decisions made in Floyd (2013), the judge identified “Furtive Movement” as being a weak indicator for establishing the reasonable suspicion needed to justify a Terry stop. Moreover, the judge recognized that “Furtive Movement” is a vague and subjective term, which may be affected by unconscious bias and lead to racial and ethnic disparities in stop outcomes. Building on the judge’s concern about unconscious bias, the current study attempts to (1) provide a theoretical framework for understanding how police officers’ worldview may contribute to or interact with unconscious biases and to (2) examine whether NYPD officers are more likely to stop Black and Hispanic New Yorkers than their White counterparts for the reason of “Furtive Movement.” The latter inquiry is explored using NYPD stop-and-frisk data from 2011, 2013, and 2016. The social scientific implications of this research provide support for (1) the judge’s apprehension toward police stops on the basis of furtive gestures and (2) the effectiveness of court-ordered intervention.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15377938.2019.1636920\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2019.1636920\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2019.1636920","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Police worldviews, unconscious bias, and their potential to contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in New York Police Department (NYPD) stops for reason of “furtive movement”
Abstract In Floyd et al. v The City of New York (2013), the federal district court judge ruled that the New York Police Department (NYPD) was engaging in unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices that targeted predominately Black and Latino New Yorkers. Among the major decisions made in Floyd (2013), the judge identified “Furtive Movement” as being a weak indicator for establishing the reasonable suspicion needed to justify a Terry stop. Moreover, the judge recognized that “Furtive Movement” is a vague and subjective term, which may be affected by unconscious bias and lead to racial and ethnic disparities in stop outcomes. Building on the judge’s concern about unconscious bias, the current study attempts to (1) provide a theoretical framework for understanding how police officers’ worldview may contribute to or interact with unconscious biases and to (2) examine whether NYPD officers are more likely to stop Black and Hispanic New Yorkers than their White counterparts for the reason of “Furtive Movement.” The latter inquiry is explored using NYPD stop-and-frisk data from 2011, 2013, and 2016. The social scientific implications of this research provide support for (1) the judge’s apprehension toward police stops on the basis of furtive gestures and (2) the effectiveness of court-ordered intervention.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice explores the prejudice that currently affects our judicial system, our courts, our prisons, and our neighborhoods all around the world. This unique multidisciplinary journal is the only publication that focuses exclusively on crime, criminal justice, and ethnicity/race. Here you"ll find insightful commentaries, position papers, and examinations of new and existing legislation by scholars and professionals committed to the study of ethnicity and criminal justice. In addition, the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice presents the latest empirical findings, theoretical discussion, and research on social and criminal justice issues.