When Policing Becomes Harassment
Jacob Sullum's excellent piece on the New York Police Department's unconscionable and unconstitutional stop-and-frisk program ("When Policing Becomes Harassment," July) highlighted the astounding level of abuse in the program as well as the equally astounding insouciance by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg toward the program's human costs.
Reason TV could retire its "Nanny of the Month" award, since Bloomberg has no reasonable challengers-or at least you could change the name to "Bloomberg of the Month." But not content to be just our mommy, Bloomberg also apparently relishes the role of daddy, the hard disciplinarian who "knows best" about our safety.
When Bloomberg and his law-and-order supporters claim the program is reducing crime, they're engaging in a rank speculation that should make any criminologist shake his head. Nationwide, the crime rate has been dropping precipitously for reasons that criminologists are still struggling to identify.
Yet even if the program has reduced crime, we still must consider the costs. The Fourth Amendment, after all, can be a wrench in the gears of effective crime fighting. If crime reduction were the only goal, then everyone should be stopped and frisked, suspicion be damned.
The Fourth Amendment delineates a relationship between citizens and government that is integral to the post-Enlightenment, classical liberal vision of the State. We are not their subjects. They are ours.
Research Fellow, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Letters are welcome and should be addressed to
reason 1747 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20009 fax: 202-315-3623 email@example.com
-Twitter user @SteveForbesCEO, in response to "Obamanomics 2.0" (July)
"Morozov is kind of right here, but for all the wrong reasons. The Internet is a kind of abstraction that we apply meaning to. It's no different than 'The Phone System' was to Victorian societyâ€¦so nothing new there. 'Internet freedom' is freedom. Just like the Journalist Shield law is the First Amendment."
–reason.com commenter "Paul," in response to, "A Net Skeptic's Conservative Manifesto" (July)
"I don't understand how you can patent something that has existed for eons. Sure, you could develop a method of testing for specific genes and patent that, but the genes themselves? No way."
–reason.com commenter "Xenocles," in response to "Should We Patent Human Genes?" (July)
"Drugs are a lot like liberty in general. If one only supports legalization of only the drugs they consider to be less harmful then it's hardly a belief in liberty that motivates them. It's like freedom of speech, protections don't need to be in place for popular speech. It's the unpopular speech that must be protected."
–reason.com commenter "John Galt," in response to "Obama's Last Gasp at a Legacy" (July)