How to balance the prevention of crime


The question of how to balance the prevention of crime and not breaching peoples’ fundamental liberties and freedoms has been a vexing one for years. Scholars, policy-makers, politicians among other stakeholders alike have almost been divided at the middle about how the policy of stop-and-frisk should be implemented. The judicial systems of the U.S. have also not been immune to this great divide. Imperatively, the schism has been mostly between the progressives and the conservatives, both of them have taken different standpoints on this policy and legal question. In each passing year, it is reported that the New York Police Department (NYPD) has not only to stop but also frisk many people within its jurisdiction. The numbers which are reported annually run into thousands hence entrenching the debate of the constitutionality of the law.

As the debate still continues to rage, one fact cannot be lost to any analyst. The fact of the matter is that in many of those encounters, the fundamental rights of the citizens on protection from arbitrary and unjust intrusion is often breached.  However, the interesting thing with the need to protect those fundamental rights is that there is also the very need by the government to ensure that it takes all necessary measures to prevent crime from happening as well as apprehending any criminal elements. Therefore, the vexing and rather intricate question among all the concerned stakeholders is to how balance can be achieved between the duty of the government and the rights given and guaranteed by the constitution.  As metropolitan police, the NYPD find themselves in a somewhat dicey situation where they have to balance between these two fundamental tenets.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
How to balance the prevention of crime
Just from $9/Page
Order Essay

Legal or Policy Dilemma

The current policy of stop and frisk continue to pose a severe dilemma in all aspects of its implementation. On one side of the continuum is the fundamental belief and provision that ordinary citizens are free from any form of unjust or unreasonable intrusion of their private lives by the police. This means that privacy is a fundamental right that should not be breached haphazardly by the police department. On the other end of the continuum, there is the need of the police to ensure that they keep the city secure from any criminal gangs and engagements. This role logically requires that the police should be granted some discretion of searching any persons that they may think poses a severe threat to security. Such a discretion hence allows the police the ability to stop any suspicious people for interrogation before they could cause harm to the populace of the city.

The primary goal or objective of this discretion is to allow for forestalling of possible criminal activities that may otherwise cause untold suffering on the people. Despite this given or allowed discretion, it is also prudent to appreciate that it is only allowed to happen within the limits of reasonableness. Therefore, the police should be in a position to offer a reasonable justification for why they stopped for frisking a specific person because they necessarily will have breached their privacy rights. Ultimately, it hence suffices to note that balancing all these two sides is where the intricate and fragile job lies. On one side, protecting the privacy freedoms of the citizens while on the other part also forestalling any crimes before they can be committed.

This dilemma is one which has continued till to-date. Investigative reports which have been conducted in the city since the dawn of this century have shown that the NYPD has in many occasions breached their cardinal duties. This means that they have evidently continued to breach the primary and basic human rights and liberties in their pursuit of legal enforcement duties. This means that the privacy of the people has been relegated to the second position while the crucial role for them has been implementing the policy on stop and frisk. The manner in which this law is applied has also become a severe matter of concern for many people across the political and legal isle. This is because apart from the question of the constitutionality of the policy, there has been the poignant question of whether its application has been fair and equal to all people. Some stakeholders have often opined that the application of this policy program seems only hell-bent on targeting some select racial groups while at the same time giving preferential treatment to other groups. This is a grave and central concern that cannot be overlooked by any measure. The principal training and implementation matrix of the entire program is, therefore, another major question that ought to be tackled in addition to its legal basis. Implementation of any policy agenda is very key because it all helps in giving it legitimacy or its lack thereof. How NYPD implements this policy agenda is another thematic concern which cannot be pushed under the table as this much-touted debate continue to rage.

The Legal Threshold

The Fourth Amendment

At the centre of this publicized debate is the concern about what legal dimension of the stop and frisk policy as implemented by NYPD. Of high relevance in this regard is the infamous fourth amendment. This amendment has been cited on many occasions by people who oppose the frisking policy, arguing that it bars the police from breaching the privacy of the citizens. From a broad vantage argumentation standpoint, it can be argued that this amendment seeks to ensure that American citizens are well protected from any unreasonable breach of their privacy rights. According to this amendment, search or in some instances seizures that are to be conducted by the police should be done within the boundaries of reason and logic. The amendmentprovides that at no given moment unless when there is an established and valid probable cause, should the privacy of any person should be violated by the government. The same amendment goes ahead to postulate that before the police can search or seizure the house of any person, a warrant ought to be issued to that effect, and such a permit should have a legal basis.

There is a universal agreement among many stakeholders that the Fourth Amendment sought to ill the malaise of unjudicial seizures by the police even in some of the most peculiar circumstances. The law anticipated a situation whereby no citizen will live in fear that the police may arbitrarily enter into their places of residence and start searching their property just on mere suspicion that those people harbour criminal behaviours. However, according to the provision of this amendment, the right of privacy is not an absolute one, but rather it is subjective(David Rudovsky& Lawrence Rosenthal, Debate: The Constitutionality of Stop-and-Frisk in New York City,University of Pennsylvania, 2013).  This means that in as much as the citizens are protected from arbitrary arrests and searches by the police, such a right can also be waived. For such a waiver to be put in place, then legal thresholds must be first fulfilled.

The question of implementation and how to construe this amendment has been a significant issue in the Supreme Court. The highest court in the land has in many several occasions offered both rulings and advisory opinions on the limits and extents of the amendment. On an overall basis, it is critical to appreciate that in all those rulings the court has always maintained that no law or change that should be construed as being superior than the other(s). This means that there is always the cardinal principle of equality when interpreting statutes. However, the court went on to argue that the rule of protection from external interference of any person is a cardinal tenet of the country’s constitution. In this sense, the court was of the opinion that no American that should have his or her private privacy breached by a law-enforcement officer on very arbitrary grounds because such actions will amount to illegalities. In several landmark declarations, the apex court opined that it was the primary intention of the architects of the constitution to ensure that personal security and privacy of all Americans were in all situations except on occasions provide by the law.

One landmark ruling of the apex court stands out when it comes to the court’s pronouncements concerning the Fourth Amendment is the one on Terry v. Ohio. At the centre of this case was the question on the grounds on which someone’s privacy can be limited and lifted by the law enforcement officers. Centrally, the court was supposed to address itself to the concern whether a warrant was supposed to be narrow or broad when allowing the police to stop, frisk or search a person of even their places of residence. In the pursuit of their role of ensuring that they confiscated any lethal weapons that may be possessed by a suspected person, to what extent are the police expected to limit their operations. The court, in its determination to argued that the Ohio police department was justified since it was guided by justifiable suspicion. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1967). This is a fundamental tenet to note since it is the one that determines the latitude that is enjoyed by the police in their operations. It means that before police go-ahead to stop a person for any frisking, they must satisfy themselves that such people pose a serious and evident danger to the public serenity hence it is reasonable for them to be searched. Contrary, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that probable cause could be used as a justifiable reason or ground upon which the stop and frisk policy can be implemented.

The primary role of police officers is supposed to do for them to have a strong legal ground for intrusion is that they should have robust, compelling and verifiable facts that point to the potential harm of the person in question. This means that the police ought to have done some robust background search that can support their actions. Any reliance of facts that are incoherent and indemonstrable will, therefore, lead to an ultimate breach of the Fourth Amendment according to the court (L Meares, Programming errors: Understanding the constitutionality of stop-and-frisk as a program, not an incident, University of Chicago, 2015). Additionally, it is expected that even after the police obtain the overwhelming evidence or facts that prove that their search was warranted, also their operations should be narrowly tailored. This means that the actions of the police should not go overboard from what they were intended to achieve in the first place. This is because for any stop to be made, then it means that there ought to have been a reason behind it, and therefore the officers should be limited by those intentions. Strictly speaking, it, therefore, follows that any police while doing any searches on suspected persons should ensure that their actions are circumscribed by the factors or instances that necessitated that search.   In this case, the court noted that the safety of the police officer has been threatened evidently by the complainant and, hence the search was done within the precepts of reason.

The general precedent that was set by this case was that the personal experiences of an officer could be used to ascertain whether a person has criminal intentions or not. The Jury was of the opinion that before a police officer could detain a suspect, then it was pivotal that they first examined them keenly to see whether they exhibited any ambiguous behaviour. If the suspects acted in ways which are vague and inconsistent with reasonable human conduct, then the police will have justifiable grounds of stopping and searching them within reasonable limits. Therefore, the police have the discretion of determining whether a person’s way of conduct necessitates a search or not. However, such deference on the part of the police should ensure that rules of reasonableness are utterly followed to the latter meaning that there should be facts that can back such claims. This implies that police officers should not just be guided by their emotions when making such critical decisions on the people that they want to stop for frisking.

In the case of United States v. Sokolow, the court further opined that evaluation of the suspect’s behaviour is the essential pre-requisite that should guide the actions of a police officer (United States v. Sokolow, No. 87-1295 490 U.S. 1 (1989). This is especially pertinent when dealing with drug dealers or those misusing certain drugs. By extension, some scholars have often argued that by examining the past historical records of a particular person, the police can decide whether to stop them or not. Historical records can be used as a useful evaluation matrix because the record and capture any suspicious dealings that a suspect may have engaged themselves in the past. For example, it is incumbent upon the police officer to ensure that they have compelling facts that a particular person has been involved in drugs dealing before they start searching them on suspicion of drug trafficking.  Any officer who will not have such a historical record which beyond doubts incriminate the person being frisked will be in breach of the spirit of the Fourth Amendment. The suspect’s criminal profile in this context acts as the major indicator, whether it will be necessary to conduct frisking exercise or not. Ultimately, the restraining of suspects by police officers who wish to conduct stop and frisk should always be done within the set constitutional limits.

Equal Protection Clause

There are several clauses both in the constitution and statutory files of the U.S. that provide and advocate for equal treatment of all people despite their races. Although the Fourth Amendment does not explicitly bar the use of race when it is required, it does succinctly call for equal treatment of all people. The law is very outright with regards to whether police officers have the right to commence criminal investigations upon a person on the sole basis of them being of a certain race. Such acts are prevented by law because they will ultimately seek to suggest that it is only people of only specific races who will be targeted while others get preferential treatments. The clause on equal protection calls for all duty officers to ensure that they withhold equality at all times in how they treat people(John Barrett, “STOP AND FRISK” IN 1968:DECIDING THE STOP AND FRISK CASES:A LOOK INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT’S CONFERENCE, 2020.)This means that no person should be targeted by the police on the sole grounds that of their racial origins because such an act can easily be termed as racial profiling. The colour of the skin of a person cannot be used as the pedestal upon which suspicion of wrongdoing can be based upon. The police officers have no mandate in any way of profiling the people of suspected criminal engagements or conspiracies solely because they do not like their skin colour.

However, case law by the judicial courts has also put some caveats to the extent to which racial inclinations can be used for equality. In this particular instance, the courts, through judicial interpretations, have argued that when the race is used as a descriptive characteristic of a certain suspect, it may be used for investigations. This means that investigations cannot be hampered by the fact that a given suspect comes from a certain race.  In such a situation, it cannot be construed that race has been used to target the suspect unfairly. This legal precedent was lucidly set in the case of Brown v. Oneonta where the Jury of the Court of Appeal extensively deliberated the question of the use of race in investigations (Brown v. City of Oneonta, 911 F. Supp. 580 (N.D.N.Y 1996) (1996). The major question that the court was supposed to consider was the extent to which some physical characteristics of a person such as race and gender could constitute part of criminal investigations or proceedings.

In this specific instance, a White woman in her older years based in Oneonta, New York, was viciously attacked by a young black man. Due to her old age, the woman was not in a capacity to give the specific physical characteristics of her attacker only that she only recalled that he was black. At the time, the city of Oneonta was only inhabited by only 300 blacks and hence due to the relatively small number of blacks, police proceeded to undertake a sweeping investigation of the entire town. It was reported that in the subsequent three years, the police in that city had interrogated over 200 blacks concerning the reported case. The court on this matter argued that the question of the blacks was not biased since their race was used as the sole basis of interrogation but rather part of broader physical description. Therefore, in this instance, it was evident that the policy programs that were being implemented by the police were neutral racially since they never solely targeted the blacks. The police were just merely being driven by the description that had been given by the victim. Ultimately, it meant that the police were only required to rely upon race when it was the only single factor that constituted a physical description that can be relied upon to undertaking credible investigations. However, it is quite intricate to determine the degree to which the police use race in instances of encounters in the streets.

Researchers posit that in some instances, the police may have justifiable grounds of using race in investigating persons on suspicion of criminal engagements. However, in other cases, the police can also apply discriminatory aspects of race under the façade of preventing the occurrence of crimes within their jurisdiction. The latter incident often happens when the police lack any cogent and enough evidence that can be cited as the sole basis upon which they were undertaking their investigative actions. Reasonableness requires that at the very minimum, the police will be under duress to demonstrate that they had prior information that the person who they searched was a potential criminal or law-breaker and hence their action was necessary. Notably, at no particular instance are the police required to use the race of a person as a basis for establishing some suspicion on them. This is because any intrusion that will be conducted on such a ground shall constitute illegality that is constitutionally punishable. Therefore, it should be appreciated that in as much as a race may sometimes constitute a critical component of criminal suspicion, it cannot be used as the sole reason for breaching the private life of a suspect. There ought to be enough unimpeachable evidence that the person poses a serious threat to public security.

Stop and Frisk Encounters by NYPD

The NYPD has been consistent in its implementation of the aggressive and draconic policy of stop and frisk for years now. The suspect has in many instances involved temporary detaining of civilians for a search or frisking on suspicion that such people deal with contrabands or other crimes. Over the decades, there have been increasing concern on how the entire process is carried out by the police hence leading to the critical scrutiny of the justice system of New York.  Politicians and scholars have been at logger-heads concerning the entire matrix in which this policy is being implemented. The numbers of the people who were once detained temporarily under this program have been skyrocketing each year. The total cumulative number of detainees hit the rooftop during the mayoral term of Michael Bloomberg, who was a keen supporter of the policy.

It is reported that in only 2016, a cumulative sum of 12, 405 people were stopped and frisked in New York. However, this was not the year which recorded the astronomic increase in the total number of people who were detained under the policy framework. In previous years the program also was taking place even on some expanded margin as was it was witnessed in 2011. During 2011 the highest number of detainees was reported at 686,720 (Stephen Lendman, NYPD Stop and Frisk Ruled Constitutional, Activist Post, 2013, (last visited Feb 20, 2020). Despite the claim by the police that they are acting in the prevention of possible crimes within the city, the program came under immense pressure from many different sectors of the society. The primary contention or concern at the time was how the program was being used by the police to promote acts of racial profiling. Hence, there was an outbreak of cries of the policy being used to helping racism in the manner and dynamics in which it was being implemented.

At the height of these concerted grievances in 2017 by the minority races, it was reported that over 90 per cent of those who were detained for frisking or question was the Blacks and the Latinos.  This means that the highest preponderance of arrests was only focused on these two racial groups at the exclusion of others hence raisin pertinent questions about its equality. Also, many of those blacks and Latinos who were detained and frisked were mostly aged between fifteen and twenty-five years since they were perceived as the ones posing  danger. To indicate how the program was not objective and skewed, reports indicated that an estimated 70 percent of those who were frisked were later released since they were not found guilty of any probable crimes. Only 55 per cent of the net population of New York City as of 2010 was composed of either black-Americans or the Latinos. This meant that also other races made up some substantial composition of the total population. Contrastingly, the statistics of those who were detained are quite interesting in how they are unbalanced and mostly skewed towards certain ends. This was because around 75 per cent of those who were stopped and frisked were only Latinos and the blacks. This led to many people raising concerns about the unbalanced and inequitable manner in which the entire practice was being conducted. Of primary concern was whether the policy was only made at targeting certain races which were being negatively perceived by the police.

Physical Force and Racial Profiling

In 2011 alone, it was established that blacks and Latinos were stopped over 500,000 times by the police on the guise of stop and frisk policy. The issue was further worsened by the realization that within the same period it was reported that the police were also on the spotlight for their application of physical force against the people who were being suspected. The term of physical force has been defined in several diverse ways by different scholars or institutions. However, the ubiquitous meaning of the term is that it means pushing someone against an object like a car or even to the ground with the ultimate aim of subduing them. Additionally, physical force can include the use of dangerous objects like guns or batons against a person. The law establishes that the use of physical force against suspects is only allowed on some certain instances, especially where the life of the police officer is under threat. Another situation that use of physical strength can be allowed legally is when the culprit has shown aspects of resisting lawful detention.

However, under normal circumstances, police officers are restrained in their use of suspects, especially when the latter show no signs of endangering the lives of the officers. In the many frisks that are conducted by NYPD annually, in some instances, there is the physical application force. In 2013, it was reported that the police used physical force on 23 per cent of the total Latinos and Blacks who were stopped and frisked. This rate was way up when compared to the meagre 12 per cent on the part of the Whites. These statistics alone raise fears of selective targeting of the people of colour. Interestingly, despite the numerous frisks and searches that were conducted on blacks and Latinos, it was only around 1 per cent of them who were found to have dangerous weapons like knives. Comparatively, the number of Whites who were found to have hazardous weapons was twice high than their black counterparts. This showed that despite posing a greater danger, the Whites have continued to get better and preferential treatment compared to the blacks.

Thereare increasing concerns threshold that is used to measure the level of suspicionby the police is not a standard one. The reason behind this assertion is that the matrix that is used to determine the level of suspicion among the blacks and the whites is very different. Basically, this means that the blacks and Latinos are in most occasions judged harshly and unfairly than the Whites who mostly get lenient judgements from the police. For instance, when a black and white are found to be in possession of a knife, it was notable that the White person ended up getting lenient conviction compared to the black. To corroborate this assertion, researchers have gathered three data points as empirical evidence of the varied treatment that people receive in the process of the stop and frisk implementation. First is the belief that the whites are more likely to stop than other race once they are ordered to do so by the police. The blacks and Latinos are reported to show some high-levels of resistance when ordered to stop for frisking than the whites. The second reason is that the Whites have their frisking originating from radio calls. This means that the police rarely get to exercise their discretion when stopping and to frisk the Whites as opposed to the Latinos where caution is applied. The second variation that shows how races are treated differently is about the reason that is given for the detention. In the case of the blacks, frivolous and petty reasons are in many instances given by the responsible officers, unlike their White counterparts who are generally arrested after thorough background search.

Concerning the proffered reasons in different cases, the most commonly cited reasons by NYPD are furtive movements. Defined in a broad and colloquial manner, the term furtive movement refers to a model of walking that is largely guised to make someone not to be recognized easily by authorities. This term is a very vague one because in some instances it may refer to walking fast, slowly, sideways etc. The police, therefore, invoke such vague allegations as the supposed justifications behind their detentions. This means that the police only seek to look for flimsy reasons that can be used as potential grounds for incriminating the blacks and the Latinos. In the case of Floyd v. City of New York, the police were put to task to explain wayward walking that may raise suspicion of possible criminality (Floyd v. City of New York, 1:08-cv-01034-SAS-HBP (2013). In many other related cases involving NYPD, the significant reasons that were given to the Blacks and Latinos when stopped were that their movement raised suspicion. However, these instances mostly happened to the Blacks, unlike the Whites. This means that the police are mainly professional with their code of conduct when they are dealing with the Whites, but that is not the case with the Blacks. Ultimately, it shows that less time is often taken when evaluating whether the Blacks and Latinos committed a crime than it takes with the Whites.

It is because of the different treatments that are accorded to these races that make perceptions about the police to differ radically. Therefore, it suffices to note that the stop and frisk policy has continued to be a major divisive factor among many people. First, the minorities argued that their stopping for frisking was illegal and that it should not have happened even in the first place. According to their opinions, the police utterly disregarded their fundamental privacy rights as the Fourth Amendment contemplates it. Secondly, the minority groups argue that their targeting was solely based on the colour of their skin and races and hence feel that their equality rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were severely breached (Opinion | Racial Discrimination in Stop-and-Frisk, The Blacks often opine that though they never resist being stopped and be frisked, the only major point of worry of them was that racial profiling was the most significant determinant. Under customary legal practices, it is expected such a policy should be excised with much caution and care so that it is not seen as targeting people from individual races or economic classes. That is why the courts posited that it should be implemented within the confines of reasonableness. This means that the police officers have no role in arrogating themselves some extra-legal powers legal powers that may end up breaching other people’s rights and liberties.

The Supreme Court has, in many occasions, ruled that of great prominence is that the police should always ensure that the implementation of stop and frisk policy is done in a manner that inspires racial neutrality. This means that a mere policy although serving very important roles with regards to security and public order, it should not be used as a scapegoat for breaching fundamental constitutional tenets. In 2015, Pew Research conducted research which sought to collect people’s views about the policy implementation matrix. Of the people who took part, only 20 per cent of the Blacks thought that the police should use force when stopping and frisking suspects (Rose Lenahan, What “Stop-and-Frisk” Really Means: Discrimination & Use of Force (2017), Contrastingly, 77 per cent of the Whites were supportive of the police applying force in the course of dispensing off their mandate. Additionally, in the same survey polling, it was established that it was only 14 per cent of all Blacks in New York City who had trusted with the working modalities of the police. However, a whopping 45 per cent of the Whites opined that they trusted the police in their work.


The debate about the stop and frisk policy is a scathing one because of the pertinent issues that arise from it. The city officials have been consistent in arguing that the minorities are in many instances targeted since they often commit more crimes than the Whites. However, these allegations are not backed up by any empirical and compelling facts. However, even assuming that such narratives were correct, it is not ethical and legal to use the policy as a tool of profiling against a specific community or race. The police should always ensure that they maintain neutrality and equality in their implementation of the policy. It is prudent to appreciate that the Fourth Amendment puts a caveat in the latitude that is given to the police even as they execute their responsibilities of ensuring that they maintain security


Brown v. City of Oneonta, 911 F. Supp. 580 (N.D.N.Y 1996) (1996).

Programming errors: Understanding the constitutionality of stop-and-frisk as a program, not an incident.

Debate: The Constitutionality of Stop-and-Frisk in New York City

392 U.S. 1

No. 87-1295



Get professional assignment help cheaply

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason may is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Our essay writers are graduates with diplomas, bachelor, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college diploma. When assigning your order, we match the paper subject with the area of specialization of the writer.

Why choose our academic writing service?

  • Plagiarism free papers
  • Timely delivery
  • Any deadline
  • Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
  • Subject-relevant academic writer
  • Adherence to paper instructions
  • Ability to tackle bulk assignments
  • Reasonable prices
  • 24/7 Customer Support
  • Get superb grades consistently






Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Buy Custom Essay

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

  • Plagiarism free papers
  • Timely delivery
  • Any deadline
  • Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
  • Subject-relevant academic writer
  • Adherence to paper instructions
  • Ability to tackle bulk assignments
  • Reasonable prices
  • 24/7 Customer Support
  • Get superb grades consistently

Online Academic Help With Different Subjects


Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.


Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.

Computer science

Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!


While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.


Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.


In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.


Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.


We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!


We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.


Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.

What discipline/subjects do you deal in?

We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.

Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?

Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.

What if I don’t like the paper?

There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.

Reasons being:

  • When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
  • We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.

In the event that you don’t like your paper:

  • The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
  • We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
  • Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.

Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?

Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.

What if the paper is plagiarized?

We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.

When will I get my paper?

You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.

Will anyone find out that I used your services?

We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.

How our Assignment  Help Service Works

1.      Place an order

You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.

2.      Pay for the order

Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.

3.      Track the progress

You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.

4.      Download the paper

The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

smile and order essaysmile and order essay PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!

order custom essay paper