THIS ASSIGNMENT FOR EVERYONE. Those who did not participate in harkness were emailed a separate assignment.
I inadvertently posted this on the wrong blogger account, so it is now Saturday evening and I am just realizing that. For this reason, the blog is not due until Monday night.
Stop and Frisk, Right or Wrong?
https://www.commonlit.org/texts/stop-and-frisk-right-or-wrong
1984 and this article both consider the difficulty in finding balance between protecting people's freedom
and keeping citizens safe. In 1984, the totalitarian government allows its citizens no freedom, which they
supposedly do in their best interest. Discuss whether or not the government should be able to violate
citizens' freedom if it is in their best interest. What dangers arise when citizens assume that all government
actions are undertaken in their best interest? Who gets to decide what is in the citizens' best interest?
Think about the 3 slogans and what they represent in the book. Education, Technology and
Leisure.Applythis article to what we are reading as well as to current events.
As Mike Kubic expressed, “To be protected by the government and, at the same time, be
ReplyDeletesecure against an illegitimate use of its powers are bedrock American values going back to the founding of our republic.” The citizen should not have to be constantly controlled by the government, instead they should seek God to find out what is truly in their best interest. The government should not have the ability to take away someone’s freedom even if they say that this is in their best interest, because of government corruption and selfishness. However, this is not saying that the government is not needed. There are certain basic principles that must be enforced, especially human dignity.
Citizens should not be told what is in their best interest, because of government
corruption which goes hand in hand with greed. There have been various instances where political figures say that a certain thing is best for the nation, and then will support acts or laws that may only benefit them. The Washington Post said, “Those lawmakers were among 73 members of Congress who have sponsored or co-sponsored legislation in recent years that could benefit businesses or industries in which either they or their family members are involved or invested, according to a Washington Post analysis.” This quote shows that many in positions of power are looking out for themselves rather than the people they are governing, and that is what makes the checks and balances system in the United States so important. The human condition naturally has some form of greed so thinking that everything the government does is for the benefit of the citizens is dangerous. This makes the inhabitants of the land too comfortable and ignorant. This is similar to one of the slogans in 1984, which is ignorance is strength. The political figures in this book use the proles’ ignorance to their advantage to keep them in the lower class. The whole point of their government was not to help people but to contain and restrict them to the same place.
The society in 1984 was based off of historical events, which shows just how government
can take many things beyond an acceptable point. George Orwell used characteristics of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Soviet Russia to create the society of Oceania. Orwell took this one step further by making “the Party” even more controlling. In places like Nazi Germany, freedom to oppose government openly was stripped away, while in Oceania freedom to think was even taken away. If all of these governments existed, then who is to say that this could not happen.
When reading 1984, it is simple to see how “the Party” manipulated their people into
believing that this was the correct way to live. It is not good to underestimate people’s ability to use speeches and words to manipulate, because these are the types of things that can result. The government should not be able to control their citizens. They should only be able to enact laws that will protect people from harm and conserve liberties.
Great job on your essay, Melaina! I really liked that you mentioned that George Orwell used characteristics from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Soviet Russia.
DeleteThis is a good essay Melaina! I thought it was really good how you included the slogans with real life events. Good job!
DeleteNice essay! I liked how you tied your arguments into human greed. It made the essay very interesting and enjoyable to read. I also liked your use of quotations, good job!
DeletePeople have fought over the stop-and-frisk policy for many years now, it has been the topic of many discussions, and rightly so. It is something that people feel strongly about, one way or another. Not only does this policy relate to what we are reading in 1984, but it relates to some of our current events today.
ReplyDeleteOne question that is often debated over in this policy is whether the government should be able to violate the freedom of citizens if it is in their best interest. I believe that asking a person to stop for five minutes to see if they have a gun is worth any amount of lives that may be saved if a gun were to be found. If this policy is allowing lives to be saved, how can we deny it? When it comes to the matter of to save a life or not, we should always support the side that is saving lives. Despite knowing this, this wasn’t how it was received. Many people felt that it was a sort of passive attack by the police force. Now, when citizens believe that everything a government does is in their best interest, it instills this feeling of extreme power. The citizens are likely to feel that they have more control than the government does. When it comes to deciding what is in the citizen’s best interest, it should not be left up to the citizens. We can only see a very small picture, we don’t see what is going on everywhere else. I believe that these decisions should be left to the government with a vote from the public.
The stop-and-frisk policy has much to do, and relate, with the book we are reading right now, 1984. This book speaks of a society that is ruled in a totalitarian government. The government claims they do everything in the citizens’ best interest, but they have no freedom nor any rules. As much as we might want the idea of no rules, we all should know that it is not in our best interest. The Party, which is like the “higher authority” of this totalitarian state, promotes three slogans, War Is Peace, Ignorance Is Strength, and Freedom Is Slavery. Each slogan has a theme, education, technology, and leisure, respectively. These themes all play into the stop-and-frisk policy and how it was received among the public. In terms of education, people were being informed of many more statistics on crime in their city or are they lived in. Technology, people didn’t realize that officers were not only doing this to retrieve guns. They also did this to find pouches of drugs that people may have been carrying on them. In terms of leisure, people felt their freedom was being restricted. Many citizens likely felt offended when they were asked to stop and be frisked by an officer.
Finally, the policy also relates to current events in the world today. With the Black Lives Matter movement, many people are losing trust and respect in police officers today. When the policy was created, people also lost trust in police officers and their local police forces. Citizens blamed all police officers and were frustrated with them all. No one stopped to realize that there were only doing what they were asked. As frustrating as it must have been to be on the side of haves to be frisked, imagine what it must have been like for an officer who also felt they were violation people. Today, with the actions of twenty, give or take, police officers being brought to light and seen as racist, police departments all over the country are suffering.
Great job on your essay Audrey! I liked how you pointed out the relation between this policy and the three slogans of "the Party."
DeleteNice essay, Audrey. You tied together the sources very nicely. I enjoyed the flow of this essay. I agree with you that the anger toward the police is centered around policies they cannot control. Nice work!
DeleteNice essay! You did a good job of explaining everything in good detail without the information becoming redundant or boring. You also did a good job in tying it all into the slogans of the party.
Delete“Stop and Frisk: Right or Wrong” is an article by Mike Cubic detailing the positive and negative effects of a law which allows police officers to search suspicious looking people without an arrest warrant. This has brought many questions about the rights and freedoms of American people. This also is relatable to the world of today, as many high-powered persons make controversial decisions. This can even be tied to the book “1984,” and the slogans of the governing body of the fictional government, Oceania. The protection of the people must come first, and legislation should be used for that.
ReplyDeleteThe United States is known as, “the land of the free,” and while it may seem the laws of the government hold America back, they are what allow it to flourish. At the most basic level, freedom is the ability to do whatever one wishes, whenever one wants. While that sounds good, one must look into the implications of full freedom. This idea of freedom would mean no laws, no control, and would ultimately lead to a state of anarchy. America would be ripped to shreds. In the book “1984,” the phrase “Freedom is Slavery,” is often used. If everyone could control what they had, they would become addicts, murderers, rapists, and more. Victims become slaves to the abuser, and the abuser becomes a slave to Satan. Can death and abuse be the freedom that defines America? Of course not. The government has a responsibility to enact laws that protect the people. Laws against abuse, murder, and drug use exist in order to keep the people safe. Police being able to frisk others more frequently allows for more frequent and immediate action, which could save possibly thousands of lives. Even if it turns up nothing, it is better than losing the life of someone loved, like a child. “War is Peace,” is another frequently used slogan in 1984. If the government does not fight against the people, in the sense that they would let them have whatever they wanted, chaos would ensue and there would be no peace. Is a world of anarchy, death, destruction, and despair that exists out of the expense of others the freedom that will guide the future?
Everyone should feel protected where they live, and it would be a poor job on a governing body if they could not give their people this feeling. However, citizens also need to be aware of the morals behind their leaders. One major example is the Equality Act. The act seems like it would promote equality for everyone; however, it forces people to accept viewpoints they may not agree with, as well as not being able to fight against it. The hidden undertone of this act is that some opinions are more correct than others, and that incorrect opinions are not allowed to be voiced, which destroys equality. “Ignorance is Strength,” is another quote used frequently in 1984. People do not know the implications of the Equality Act, and feel it is bringing America together as it promotes unity. The people of the country are ignorant in realizing that this will only divide America, and as long as citizens remain oblivious, the government will be able to do whatever it wants. In relation to the idea of frisking, if police officers choose to be ignorant of possible threats because of possible punishment or backlash, criminals will thrive without having anyone to stop them. Ignorance is strength, but that strength tends to fall in the wrong hands.
The government has a moral obligation to protect its citizens. If there was no enforced protection, everyone would fall prey to sin. It is also equally important that citizens understand laws of protection, as they may accidentally be endorsing evil and immoral acts, which allows Satan to creep his way into anyone. Though the current government is abusing ignorance to push their own agenda and the people second, a government is responsible for the protection of its citizens and their lives, and proper legislation should be used in order to save lives.
Great essay, Tanner! I really liked how you brought up the Equality Act in your essay. It is very important to look at the values of a person before you put them into a position of power.
DeleteGreat job on your essay Tanner! Your paragraph about the stop and frisk was really great!
DeleteThe moral obligation is a great point in your essay Tanner! I love how you incorporated the Equality Act in your essay. Great Job!
DeleteYour essay was really good Tanner! I liked how you connected the three slogans together to not only each other, but the whole argument overall. Great work!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe totalitarian government in the book “1984” allows its citizens no freedom whatsoever. The government claims that they make these strict rules and absurd laws because it is in the best interest of the people living in Oceania. These restrictions and deprivment of free will can create problems for people who disagree or even agree. It is moral for the government to brainwash their citizens and create fear so that the rules are followed? The government should not be able to take away freedom and the story 1984 reveals the dangers that arise when freedom is abolished.
ReplyDeleteIn the society of Oceania, the people obey one, all-powerful ruler known as Big Brother. Big Brother controls the citizens of Oceania by creating fear if the laws are broken and hiding the truth that may make people question the society. He instituted three slogans by which people are required to live by: war is peace, ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery. The slogans represent how Big Brother controls technology, education, and leisure which should all be freedoms. The government controls the people and gives them little freedom and if they disobey, they are killed. The government should not be able to deprive people of their freedoms. The rules of Oceania are a perfect example of the government abusing their power rather than creating laws that work in the best interest of society.
The stop and frisk policy allows police officers to stop a person and search them if they feel any sort of suspicion. The overall purpose of this policy is good because its goal is to protect citizens. People feel that this policy goes against their rights, however. If s person is doing nothing wrong, they will feel violated and upset about being stopped and searched. The government does this to ensure safety, but it can easily be seen as a violation of freedom. The government should be able to stop someone for a legitimate reason, but not because of race, religion, or any other invalid reason. They should use their power to protect citizens as long as the reasoning behind it is acceptable and justified.
It is the government's responsibility to protect their society and ensure people live comfortable and safe lives. When the government makes decisions, it often causes uproar between citizens who have different opinions. This is why it is so important that the government makes decisions that are truly in the best interest of their people. The government should not be able to manipulate people as Big Brother did in 1984. A citizen's freedom should only be violated under the circumstances at which they could be in danger. A person deserves to choose, say, and do as they please. A government is necessary under all circumstances, but when power is abused, citizens are manipulated, and freedom is lost the government is no longer serving its main purpose, to protect society.
Great job on your essay, Abby! I really liked the question that you posed in your initial paragraph. It created a great opportunity to think about what we are about to read.
DeleteGreat essay Abby! The examples of the slogans really strengthens the argument. The feelings of the citizens are very important and I love how you exemplified that in your essay.
DeleteThe stop and frisk policy has been a controversial topic in America for some time. A Newsweek correspondent wrote an article on the dangers of the stop and frisk policy, also known as Terry Stops. The policy can be related to the book 1984, which shows the effects of a controlling government. The stop and frisk policy is a danger to the freedom of Americans and other democratic countries.
ReplyDeleteThe stop in frisk policy allows the police to stop citizens if they “look suspicious” without any warrant or probable cause. The policy is already flawed with the subjectivity of who looks suspicious or not. African Americans are impacted by racial stereotypes with this policy, and were stopped and searched significantly more than other ethnicities. The policy also violates the fourth amendment which states “unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”. Many would say that it is for safety purposes but the New York Liberties Union has found that the practice is ineffective. Only a small portion of the stop and frisk victims have been arrested. It also creates a divide among police and citizens who should be working together. It makes people afraid of cops because they might get searched and it breaks the trust. The policy is unconstitutional and invasive.
In the book 1984, the phrase “freedom is slavery” is used. The freedom to walk around without the police being able to stop people makes other slavery to crime. This is manipulating people into believing that it is a righteous policy because it will keep them safer when in reality there is no proof that stop and frisk actually works. Proclaiming that it is for citizens safety when it has no effect is manipulating people to give up their freedom. Relinquishing freedom in the name of safety if the first step into totalitarianism. The nazi party exemplifies this. After a young Jewish boy shot a German officer, Hitler demonized the Jews and persuaded the people that the Jewish were dangerous. A promise to keep Germans safe is where much of Hitlers power came from. The ability to control the people using fear gives the government dangerous power. Many laws are important to keep peace, but violating the fourth amendment and creating invasive laws that don’t actually help safety efforts is unacceptable.
The government should not be able to use the stop and frisk policy. It infringes on our rights as Americans. 1984 and Nazi Germany and great examples on how fear is used to control. The stop and frisk policy violates the fourth amendment and the dignity of American citizens.
Elena, awesome work on your essay. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. I found the part about stop and frisk being about fear to be eye-opening. Good work!
DeleteThis was a great essay Lani! I liked your example of the Jewish boy, I think that really helped tie your whole point together. Good work!
DeleteHow far is too far? This age old question applies to many different scenarios, one of the most obvious being government control. The government was instituted to protect and guide the people of a nation. However, at what point does this action stop? There is a time when the government is trying to take control over things out of its reach. For this reason, there is a standard for the government to follow. It must protect all of the people and set guidelines for people, while also not infringing upon their freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe novel 1984 was written as a warning to people everywhere. It was disguised under the fiction genre as a dark dystopian story; however, people quickly caught on to the underlying theme and similarities to fascism and communism. The book is set in a nation ruled by a totalitarian government. The three slogans of the single party are, “Freedom is slavery,” Ignorance is strength,” and, “War is peace.” All three of these slogans are ironic and contradictory. They represent the insanity of a government that is in control of every part of its citizens’ lives. This has stripped these people of actual freedom: the ability to know truth, the abilty to enjoy life, and the ability to advance.
In the article concerning stop and frisk, it is outlined how the police, under orders from the government, can stop people to be “frisked” under the conditions that they suspect someone commited a crime or may commit a crime. In this passage, they describe how the majority of people who were stopped were Hispanic or African American. These statistics began to concern people that stop and frisk might just be allowing the police to racially profile people. This is an incredibly prominent issue in politics today. People are rallying against police brutality and racism in protests that have a tendency to turn violent.
Total government control is a horrifying thought that comes to life in George Orwell’s 1984. However, it doesn’t take total control for a government to be infringing upon a person’s rights. The policy allowing stop and frisk is under fire for being just an opportunity for police officers to practice racism and, therefore, take freedom away from a group of people. Any small unjust practice must be stopped for the point of preventing corruption in the government. When ignored, a small act of injustice can snowball into injustice throughout the entirety of the system, allowing a government like the one in 1984 to rule. Thereby, this will allow government to corrupt all of the people produced through the system as well, eventually blurring the truth of society enough to allow contradictory things, such as the slogans of the party, to be logical. Overall, the government can go too far and should not have total control over all citizens. The people must decide for themselves to be good or bad, but never indifferent.
How far is too far? This age old question applies to many different scenarios, one of the most obvious being government control. The government was instituted to protect and guide the people of a nation. However, at what point does this action stop? There is a time when the government is trying to take control over things out of its reach. For this reason, there is a standard for the government to follow. It must protect all of the people and set guidelines for people, while also not infringing upon their freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe novel 1984 was written as a warning to people everywhere. It was disguised under the fiction genre as a dark dystopian story; however, people quickly caught on to the underlying theme and similarities to fascism and communism. The book is set in a nation ruled by a totalitarian government. The three slogans of the single party are, “Freedom is slavery,” Ignorance is strength,” and, “War is peace.” All three of these slogans are ironic and contradictory. They represent the insanity of a government that is in control of every part of its citizens’ lives. This has stripped these people of actual freedom: the ability to know truth, the abilty to enjoy life, and the ability to advance.
In the article concerning stop and frisk, it is outlined how the police, under orders from the government, can stop people to be “frisked” under the conditions that they suspect someone commited a crime or may commit a crime. In this passage, they describe how the majority of people who were stopped were Hispanic or African American. These statistics began to concern people that stop and frisk might just be allowing the police to racially profile people. This is an incredibly prominent issue in politics today. People are rallying against police brutality and racism in protests that have a tendency to turn violent.
Total government control is a horrifying thought that comes to life in George Orwell’s 1984. However, it doesn’t take total control for a government to be infringing upon a person’s rights. The policy allowing stop and frisk is under fire for being just an opportunity for police officers to practice racism and, therefore, take freedom away from a group of people. Any small unjust practice must be stopped for the point of preventing corruption in the government. When ignored, a small act of injustice can snowball into injustice throughout the entirety of the system, allowing a government like the one in 1984 to rule. Thereby, this will allow government to corrupt all of the people produced through the system as well, eventually blurring the truth of society enough to allow contradictory things, such as the slogans of the party, to be logical. Overall, the government can go too far and should not have total control over all citizens. The people must decide for themselves to be good or bad, but never indifferent.
How far is too far? This age old question applies to many different scenarios, one of the most obvious being government control. The government was instituted to protect and guide the people of a nation. However, at what point does this action stop? There is a time when the government is trying to take control over things out of its reach. For this reason, there is a standard for the government to follow. It must protect all of the people and set guidelines for people, while also not infringing upon their freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe novel 1984 was written as a warning to people everywhere. It was disguised under the fiction genre as a dark dystopian story; however, people quickly caught on to the underlying theme and similarities to fascism and communism. The book is set in a nation ruled by a totalitarian government. The three slogans of the single party are, “Freedom is slavery,” Ignorance is strength,” and, “War is peace.” All three of these slogans are ironic and contradictory. They represent the insanity of a government that is in control of every part of its citizens’ lives. This has stripped these people of actual freedom: the ability to know truth, the abilty to enjoy life, and the ability to advance.
In the article concerning stop and frisk, it is outlined how the police, under orders from the government, can stop people to be “frisked” under the conditions that they suspect someone commited a crime or may commit a crime. In this passage, they describe how the majority of people who were stopped were Hispanic or African American. These statistics began to concern people that stop and frisk might just be allowing the police to racially profile people. This is an incredibly prominent issue in politics today. People are rallying against police brutality and racism in protests that have a tendency to turn violent.
Total government control is a horrifying thought that comes to life in George Orwell’s 1984. However, it doesn’t take total control for a government to be infringing upon a person’s rights. The policy allowing stop and frisk is under fire for being just an opportunity for police officers to practice racism and, therefore, take freedom away from a group of people. Any small unjust practice must be stopped for the point of preventing corruption in the government. When ignored, a small act of injustice can snowball into injustice throughout the entirety of the system, allowing a government like the one in 1984 to rule. Thereby, this will allow government to corrupt all of the people produced through the system as well, eventually blurring the truth of society enough to allow contradictory things, such as the slogans of the party, to be logical. Overall, the government can go too far and should not have total control over all citizens. The people must decide for themselves to be good or bad, but never indifferent.
Gina, I really like your argument. I like your use of statistics, which I think helps add to the ethos and logos of your argument, and I like how you described totalitarian government as horrifying, I feel it is rather eye-opeing.
DeleteGina, I like how you compared this situation to the book. I also like how portrayed 1984 as a warning. I also like how you said that the people have to decide.
DeleteThe stop-and-frisk policy has been the spark of controversy for many years now and it has arisen in many conversations. There appears to be a strong and clear split of one side or the other in the discussion, and while this is a modern issue, it also relates to what we are reading in 1984. The largest question sparked with the policy is the idea of the government violating the freedom rights of citizens if it is in the bet interest of the citizen or the country. For example, the policy allows a police officer to stop and search someone just because they “look suspicious.” While this may present as a good thing to protect citizens, many disagree and claim that it is violating their rights that were fought for so long ago. These freedoms should not be taken away because they may result in something similar to the society of Oceania, in which the government controls everything, even thoughts. They also institute control by using fear of being eradicated from existence. The government, lead by a supreme leader known as Big Brother, also controls all methods of technology and how information is displayed to the society so the truth is manipulated. This society as a whole is a great representation of the government being abusive with power and not using their power to better their citizens and society. If there is not some push back against the stop-and-frisk policy, it will eventually lead to a society similar to 1984 because the government will have gone too far past repair for a free society for all.
ReplyDeleteJackie, I really like your argument. I like how you related sop-and-frisk to Oceania, and your mention of society's manipulation. I found it intriguing that you said society could turn into something similar to Oceania if the practice is continued.
DeleteJackie, I liked how you talked about how this topic is very controversial and that there are many people supporting both sides of it. I agree that the government in 1984 is abusing their power.
DeleteStop and Frisk is a police strategy that involves the random stopping and searching of individuals in large areas, such as cities to help maintain order and stop illegal activity. In theory, this is a good idea, but it has been proved to be biased toward certain racial groups, as well as other groups. This, in turn, makes places more dangerous for certain people and leads to a sense of inequality and fear.
ReplyDeleteMany people have debated the validity of this police strategy, but the true question that should be posed is the fairness and the equality of it. If it can be implemented in a way that is fair to everyone and has no bias. It is the government’s job to supply everyone with a sense of safety and security. Things that are as controversial as this lead people to believe that they might not be as safe as they’re supposed to feel or as safe as other groups of individuals feel. This relates to George Orwell’s 1984 in a variety of ways. First, it shows that different groups of people can be treated drastically different, and the “protection” they offer might not be as legitimate as it seems. When the government protects all its citizens righteously and fairly, many people and cultures prosper and flourish, but when this does not occur, some people are oppressed, and denied various basic civil rights.
The three slogans apply because they help shed light on the deception in today’s culture and society. War is peace allows the justification of unjust murder or death, and it keeps society in a tense mood. The other slogans also related to various other injustices that can be seen in today’s society.
The importance of righteous government protection can be beneficial in more ways than can be initially seen. It helps protect the moral well-being of many individuals in addition to keeping civil peace and preventing violent protest. When injustice is present, many individuals can become indignant and use scapegoats for the source of their problems. In some cases, this can make various situations worse, and could potentially lead to an increase in the issues that are originally being protested.
Therefore, the government should not be allowed to use the stop and frisk policy because it is unfair to certain groups of people, and can lead to unrest, protest, and a negative sentiment toward law enforcement. Better methods to protect citizens can be developed, and implemented in a way that is fairer to everyone.
Great arguments Alex! I loved how you stressed the importance of figuring out if frisking was equal and fair before verifying the validity of the process.
DeleteThe stop and frisk policy that is executed by police officers has been a controversial topic within the United States for quite some time. As a country built on the principles of freedom and equality, many Americans believe that the action of frisking goes against the founding principles of America. Allowing a police officer to frisk at his own will and defy humans rights of freedom is simply unjust, although it may have decreased crime rates. This process is seen as a way for the government to control the population as the frisking has been deemed as unconstitutional and racist.
ReplyDeleteThe stop and frisk movement began as an attempt to reduce crime and violence within the streets of New York. The police were able to stop and frisk any individual who they deemed as “suspicious.” This was allowed as police were not permitted to make “unconstitutional” stops as mentioned in the Fourth Amendment. An article by Mike Kubic titled, “STOP AND FRISK: RIGHT OR WRONG?” Covers the issue while giving more background information as to why society opposed it. The most prevalent and shocking statistic brought to attention by Kubis is that 684,000 people who were stopped were African- American and Latin. This sparked a belief that the government should be responsible for this statistic that could be a result of deliberate racism.
The frisk and stop policy has brought misfortune to many students. Dangers arise such as the risk of being exposed. The comparison between the novel 1984 and the belief of controlling the people with a few words over a loudspeaker. The government in 1984 is different because it reflects upon history and the history of fascism and communism. Both are similar and totalitarianism restricts the freedoms of the population. The people begin to want to break free after feeling controlled like puppets for a long time. The three slogans of the government represent “Education, Technology and Leisure”. These are all ways in which the government can watch and remain in the citizens' life and greatly affect their freedom.
In both situations, the government stated that their actions were in the “best interest of the people”. These best interests are not considered and are not outweighed with the other possible consequences. The citizens should be able to participate and plan their own forms of safety. It would benefit people to remain in order and to not keep changing things as they develop. Frisking and full government control creates an uneasy atmosphere whose citizens are likely to know what makes them feel safe or not.
Good job. By including a lot of sources in your essay, you gave it a better overall impact.
DeleteIn 1984, the government tries to control what people do in their daily
ReplyDeletelives. They are trying to away the people of Oceania’s freedom and rights, and they are pretty successful with it. The government thinks that they are doing what is best for these people, but they are not. The same thing is happening to some of the people who are and were involved in a stop and frisk. Some violence and crime is being stopped by this method, but it also makes people feel that they are being controlled and that their freedom is being taken away. They feel like the government is not united with them and that they are trying to control them.
The government in Oceania is led by a single person. The main person
of the government is known as Big Brother. The government of Oceania uses control to rule over their people. Some of the slogans that they use for propaganda are war is peace, strength is ignorance, and freedom is slavery. These slogans are used for education, technology, and leisure. They are using the slogan that deals with education in the idea of stop and frisk. They are telling people that this method will help bring down crime levels in certain cities. Even though this may be true, they are not showing the whole side of the story. Most of the people that are being stopped are African Americans, and they feel that they are being violated and feel that some of their freedoms are being taken away. Some people have reported that they were not even doing anything wrong or suspicious, and the next thing they know is that they are being searched. Many of the police officers that did this have been accused of racial profiling.
The stop and frisk method is violating the fourth amendment and the
rights of the people. The loophole that they found was to only do this if they think someone is being suspicious. If a police officer has a feeling that someone is suspicious, then they can stop and frisk someone. Sometimes these feelings that they have are right, but sometimes they are wrong. People's rights are being violated in this process, and some of their freedoms are being taken away from them, just like the people of Oceania.
Great essay Tami! I like how well you connected 1984 to stop and frisk.
DeleteStop and frisk is a law that cops can stop suspicious people on the street and search them. The stop and frisk law is also known as the terry stop. This is because of the 1968 court case between Terry and ohio. The law states that the stop cant be unreasonable, but by the law being under the judgment of the police it makes the law controversial. It brings up new problems with racism and harassment. It is hard for the government to make laws that both give people privacy while keeping them safe. The law is good and keeps people safe because if a cop sees a suspicious man outside a store about to rob it and the cop stops him and searches him and finds a gun the cop would have stopped the man from robbing the store, but at the same time if he stops that guy and he doesn't have a gun then it seems like the cop is harassing the man.
ReplyDeleteI think that the law is god but only in desperate or serious situations. If cops got to walk around town and search people then that does not make america the land of the free. The 4th amendment stops cops from being able to search your stuff without suspicion which is indeed freedome. If cops could just show up to your house and walk through it and search it then america would be a communist country. But if cops couldn't stop people when they had suspicion of them doing something bad then America would be a much more dangerous place. There are definitely rules that are made to keep america in line and search and frisk is one of them.
The stop and frisk policy has been a hard debated subject in America. It gives active duty police officers the right to search a citizen at any time. Some feel that this is a violation of freedom, and should not be allowed in the United States. Others argue that it is necessary to keep people safe. Despite how nice it sounds to be able to trust everyone we meet, that can never be the case in current times. We are owed basic protection from the government, and the stop and frisk policy allows police officers to protect citizens from potentially dangerous people.
ReplyDeleteIf Americans held themselves to higher standards in societal foundations; such as the educational department, and legal system, we may be able to forget all about Stop and Frisk. But as of now, there will always be a threat. People carry guns around, get arrested, and then carry knives in prison, just to come out more savage then they entered. America is not a place where people who are bad tend to get better. Therefore, Stop and Frisk is absolutely necessary in protecting citizens from any dangerous threat. It should only be concerning to the people partaking in the illegal activity.
The Stop and Frisk policy is in the best interest of the population. Despite the intervention between the government and the citizens, it is necessary. However, the opposing side's concerns should not be discredited. It does not take much to get to the point of, "give an inch, take a mile." We should never roll over and let the government control us, but we should always keep in mind that sometimes what they institute is in our best interest. If anything were ever to cross the line of freedom and basic human rights, it is our job to stand up for what we know is right for us. But for stop and frisk, it is a basic safety precaution that we are owed in a world full of danger.