Because Americans are so used to the term “probable cause”, many would disagree with the idea that stop-and-frisk is legal because it is based on “reasonable suspicion”, a slight rewording but wit a definitive line of separation. Personally, I believe it is legal because the government’s purpose is to protect and govern its people in order to promote safety and maintain order. Numbers show that this policy has had a positive impact on major cities such as New York so it is somewhat safe to assume that it would make Philadelphia safer. However, the problem lies in the definition of “reasonable suspicion” and whether or not this suspicion can be justified under legal terms. The government must clearly identify under what conditions a citizen would be subject to a search.
No comments:
Post a Comment