The prison overcrowding problem has generated a lot of attention. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ordered California to reduced its prison population by 33,000 inmates. The reduction would still leave California at 137 percent of capacity.
As the economy slowly recovers, many states strapped for cash have looked at their enormous corrections budgets as a place to save money. Suddenly, holding parole violators accountable, or imprisoning "low risk" drug offenders no longer seems to be a priority in fighting crime.
Often over looked in the the prison glut is the failure, and underfunding, of community mental health services. Prisons have become de facto psychiatric hospitals.
According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, 24 percent of inmates in the United States have serious mental illness. Seventy percent of youth in the juvenile justice system are experiencing some mental health disorder. Fifty percent of previously incarcerated offenders with serve mental illness are returned to prison, often for violations that can be related to conduct brought on by their illness.
While funding for community mental health services has been cut over the last 20 years, corrections' budgets have increased by 350 percent from $10 billion to $45 billion. Funding mental health services and reducing the number of people in prison with severe mental illness will not end the prison crowding problem, but it will have a significant impact and is the humane thing to do.
To read more: http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_the_Issue&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=114145
Monday, June 6, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
America safer today than it has been for past 40 years
Youngstown Vindicator
June 5, 2011
Violent crime has fallen to its lowest level in 40 years. America is a safer place. According to The New York Times, “the odds of being murdered or robbed [in the United States] are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s.”
The FBI’s Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report for 2010 is based on data collected from more than 13,000 law-enforcement agencies nationwide. The report found a significant 5.5 percent decline in violent crime.
The continued decline in crime seems to fly in the face of accepted theories of criminality. Many legal observers suggested that the recession and high unemployment would usher in higher crime rates — that did not happen. Some suggested that lowering the incarceration rate (in 2010 the number of people in prison fell for the first time in 38 years) would impact crime — it did not. Some said that police lay-offs and law enforcement cut backs would increase crime rates — it has not.
There is one constant, the fear of crime and the lengths that citizens will go to avoid being victimized. According to Gallup, nearly 4 in 10 Americans say they are afraid to walk alone at night within a mile of their home.
The number of Americans afraid to venture out alone at night is lower today than when crime rates were soaring in the 1990s. However, fear has not decreased as sharply as the drop in violent crime. In fact, while violent crime is at a record low, the percentage afraid to walk alone at night has crept up; suggesting the fear of crime is not always dictated by reality.
Ironically, the unrealistic fear of crime has had an enormous impact on crime. Experts may not say it and the average American may not admit it, but decreasing crime rates have come at a precious cost — the sacrifice of personal liberty. John Q. Wilson, a renowned criminologist at Boston College recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “Another possible reason for reduced crime is that potential victims may have become better at protecting themselves by equipping their homes with burglar alarms, putting extra locks on their cars and moving into safer buildings or even safer neighborhoods.”
Homes and businesses across the country have taken measures to become more secure. What was once considered extreme is now common place — security systems, spot lights, motion detectors, metal gates over front doors, video surveillance, car alarms, mace, pepper spray, stun guns, hand guns, personal self-defense training, even architectural design with crime prevention in mind.
Driving around rather than through some neighborhoods, avoiding a dimly lit parking lot or spacious parking garage may be accepted as prudent. But it has nonetheless altered the freedom to live and travel as one chooses. A stroll through the park, window shopping or a trip to the ball park involve not only the thought of being entertained but also being safe. Subconsciously most Americans use a mental “safety” check list everyday to keep themselves out of harm’s way.
Most citizens are not even aware that some fundamental constitutional rights have begun to erode in the name of crime fighting. The Supreme Court of the United States has chiseled away at the Sixth Amendment guarantee of “effective” counsel. The High Court recently ruled that a suspect’s request for an attorney does not go on indefinitely and that a police officer does not need to use specific language to inform a suspect of his Miranda rights. In 2009, the court restricted the use of the exclusionary rule as a remedy for state conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. Last month, it narrowed the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures — making it easier for police to barge into a home without a warrant.
Americans have slowly reinvented their way of life to protect themselves from the threat of violence and that evolution may be driving down crime rates in the process. More research is warranted, but it appears that the key to falling crime rates is not so much a matter of what we do, but rather what we don’t do.
June 5, 2011
Violent crime has fallen to its lowest level in 40 years. America is a safer place. According to The New York Times, “the odds of being murdered or robbed [in the United States] are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s.”
The FBI’s Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report for 2010 is based on data collected from more than 13,000 law-enforcement agencies nationwide. The report found a significant 5.5 percent decline in violent crime.
The continued decline in crime seems to fly in the face of accepted theories of criminality. Many legal observers suggested that the recession and high unemployment would usher in higher crime rates — that did not happen. Some suggested that lowering the incarceration rate (in 2010 the number of people in prison fell for the first time in 38 years) would impact crime — it did not. Some said that police lay-offs and law enforcement cut backs would increase crime rates — it has not.
There is one constant, the fear of crime and the lengths that citizens will go to avoid being victimized. According to Gallup, nearly 4 in 10 Americans say they are afraid to walk alone at night within a mile of their home.
The number of Americans afraid to venture out alone at night is lower today than when crime rates were soaring in the 1990s. However, fear has not decreased as sharply as the drop in violent crime. In fact, while violent crime is at a record low, the percentage afraid to walk alone at night has crept up; suggesting the fear of crime is not always dictated by reality.
Ironically, the unrealistic fear of crime has had an enormous impact on crime. Experts may not say it and the average American may not admit it, but decreasing crime rates have come at a precious cost — the sacrifice of personal liberty. John Q. Wilson, a renowned criminologist at Boston College recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “Another possible reason for reduced crime is that potential victims may have become better at protecting themselves by equipping their homes with burglar alarms, putting extra locks on their cars and moving into safer buildings or even safer neighborhoods.”
Homes and businesses across the country have taken measures to become more secure. What was once considered extreme is now common place — security systems, spot lights, motion detectors, metal gates over front doors, video surveillance, car alarms, mace, pepper spray, stun guns, hand guns, personal self-defense training, even architectural design with crime prevention in mind.
Driving around rather than through some neighborhoods, avoiding a dimly lit parking lot or spacious parking garage may be accepted as prudent. But it has nonetheless altered the freedom to live and travel as one chooses. A stroll through the park, window shopping or a trip to the ball park involve not only the thought of being entertained but also being safe. Subconsciously most Americans use a mental “safety” check list everyday to keep themselves out of harm’s way.
Most citizens are not even aware that some fundamental constitutional rights have begun to erode in the name of crime fighting. The Supreme Court of the United States has chiseled away at the Sixth Amendment guarantee of “effective” counsel. The High Court recently ruled that a suspect’s request for an attorney does not go on indefinitely and that a police officer does not need to use specific language to inform a suspect of his Miranda rights. In 2009, the court restricted the use of the exclusionary rule as a remedy for state conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. Last month, it narrowed the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures — making it easier for police to barge into a home without a warrant.
Americans have slowly reinvented their way of life to protect themselves from the threat of violence and that evolution may be driving down crime rates in the process. More research is warranted, but it appears that the key to falling crime rates is not so much a matter of what we do, but rather what we don’t do.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
The Cautionary Instruction: Residenct Restrictions and Sex Offenders
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
June 2, 2011
Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down Allegheny County’s sex offender residency restriction ordinance.
Chief Justice Ronald Castille wrote, “The Ordinance banishes many sex offenders from their preadjudication neighborhoods and support systems. The Ordinance also consigns all offenders to isolated suburban areas of Allegheny County that presumably will provide less access to transportation, employment, counseling, and supervision.”
Chief Justice Castille goes on to write, “Isolating all sex offenders from their communities, support systems, employment and treatment is an approach contrary to that of the General Assembly, which requires individually tailored assessments and assistance with rehabilitation and reintegration for appropriate offenders.”
Allegheny County’s ordinance, and many like it, are crafted to protect children from the stranger-predator who trolls the places that children frequent looking for new victims. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reports that strangers rarely sexually offend against children. In 2000, strangers were reported as offenders in three percent of sexual assaults of victims who were under age six, five percent of the sexual assaults of youth ages six through 11, and 10 percent of assaults of juveniles ages 12 to 17.
According to DOJ, the vast majority of sex offenses against minors are perpetrated by someone the child knows, such as an immediate family member, relative, friend or babysitter.
Some research has created doubts about the effectiveness of residency restrictions. Colorado researchers found that sex offenders who re-offended while under supervision did not live closer to schools or child-care centers than those who did not re-offend.
Researchers also found that placing restrictions on the location of supervised sex offender’s residences did not deter sex offenders from re-offending and was not effective in controlling recidivism. Most importantly, the research found that sex offenders who had a positive support system in their lives had significantly lower recidivism rates and fewer supervision violations than offenders who did not have community support.
According to a Minnesota Department of Corrections report, residency restrictions limit housing options for sex offenders and force them to move to rural areas where they are likely to become isolated with few employment opportunities, a lack of social support, and limited availability of social services and mental health treatment. Such restrictions can lead to homelessness and transience, which ultimately interferes with effective community tracking, monitoring and supervision.
Residency restrictions have the potential to do more harm than good.
Visit Ipso Facto
June 2, 2011
Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down Allegheny County’s sex offender residency restriction ordinance.
Chief Justice Ronald Castille wrote, “The Ordinance banishes many sex offenders from their preadjudication neighborhoods and support systems. The Ordinance also consigns all offenders to isolated suburban areas of Allegheny County that presumably will provide less access to transportation, employment, counseling, and supervision.”
Chief Justice Castille goes on to write, “Isolating all sex offenders from their communities, support systems, employment and treatment is an approach contrary to that of the General Assembly, which requires individually tailored assessments and assistance with rehabilitation and reintegration for appropriate offenders.”
Allegheny County’s ordinance, and many like it, are crafted to protect children from the stranger-predator who trolls the places that children frequent looking for new victims. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reports that strangers rarely sexually offend against children. In 2000, strangers were reported as offenders in three percent of sexual assaults of victims who were under age six, five percent of the sexual assaults of youth ages six through 11, and 10 percent of assaults of juveniles ages 12 to 17.
According to DOJ, the vast majority of sex offenses against minors are perpetrated by someone the child knows, such as an immediate family member, relative, friend or babysitter.
Some research has created doubts about the effectiveness of residency restrictions. Colorado researchers found that sex offenders who re-offended while under supervision did not live closer to schools or child-care centers than those who did not re-offend.
Researchers also found that placing restrictions on the location of supervised sex offender’s residences did not deter sex offenders from re-offending and was not effective in controlling recidivism. Most importantly, the research found that sex offenders who had a positive support system in their lives had significantly lower recidivism rates and fewer supervision violations than offenders who did not have community support.
According to a Minnesota Department of Corrections report, residency restrictions limit housing options for sex offenders and force them to move to rural areas where they are likely to become isolated with few employment opportunities, a lack of social support, and limited availability of social services and mental health treatment. Such restrictions can lead to homelessness and transience, which ultimately interferes with effective community tracking, monitoring and supervision.
Residency restrictions have the potential to do more harm than good.
Visit Ipso Facto
Falling Crime Rates: Plausible Explanations?
Professor James Alan Fox recently wrote in the Boston Globe, that there are a number of "plausible explanations to account for the downturn in lawlessness that this nation has enjoyed since the early 1990s." Fox suggests the same factors that have been repeated by experts over the last fifteen years:
•the calmer aftermath of the late-1980s crack epidemic that had caused city crime levels to spike until the drug market shifted;
•improved police strategies that rely heavily on innovative technology and sophisticated crime analysis tools;
•expanded use of incarceration along with longer sentences that have kept more criminals off the streets; and
•the graying of America whereby the fastest growing segment of the population are the aging "baby-boomers" who are now over 50 years old and hardly babies anymore.
Fox also goes to great lengths to debunk a theory that has been around for awhile raised by Steven Levitt--the abortion theory of lower crime rates.
Fox does concede that he is "baffled" by the short-term plunge in crime from the first half of 2009 to the first half of 2010, especially the 6.2% drop in violent crime that included a 7.1% dip in murder. Fox writes, "there is nothing even close to definitive that can account for such a large reduction over such a limited time period (other than the natural fluctuations inherent of short-term trends)."
Tomorrow, I will post my theory behind declining crime rates when I post my Sunday column in the Youngstown Vindicator.
To read more: http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2011/06/abortion_and_crime_-_a_missing.html
•the calmer aftermath of the late-1980s crack epidemic that had caused city crime levels to spike until the drug market shifted;
•improved police strategies that rely heavily on innovative technology and sophisticated crime analysis tools;
•expanded use of incarceration along with longer sentences that have kept more criminals off the streets; and
•the graying of America whereby the fastest growing segment of the population are the aging "baby-boomers" who are now over 50 years old and hardly babies anymore.
Fox also goes to great lengths to debunk a theory that has been around for awhile raised by Steven Levitt--the abortion theory of lower crime rates.
Fox does concede that he is "baffled" by the short-term plunge in crime from the first half of 2009 to the first half of 2010, especially the 6.2% drop in violent crime that included a 7.1% dip in murder. Fox writes, "there is nothing even close to definitive that can account for such a large reduction over such a limited time period (other than the natural fluctuations inherent of short-term trends)."
Tomorrow, I will post my theory behind declining crime rates when I post my Sunday column in the Youngstown Vindicator.
To read more: http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2011/06/abortion_and_crime_-_a_missing.html
Friday, June 3, 2011
Feds Spend $10 million to Send a Lifer to Prison . . . for Life
Vincent Basciano was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison by a New York City jury. The federal government had sought the death penalty for Basciano’s involvement in mob killings in the New York area.
More than a year ago, the federal judge presiding over the case said it would be expensive and futile for the government to seek the death penalty for Basciano if he were found guilty, reported the New York Times. Whatever happened in the trial, he would never leave prison alive. Basciano was already serving life without parole “under extremely restrictive conditions in one of the nation’s most secure penal institutions.”
However, the decision to seek the death penalty had already been made by the Bush Administration and the federal government was not turning back. Just finding a jury pool, not selecting a jury, but just finding a pool from which a jury would be selected cost $44,000 according to the Times. Each potential juror was paid the ordinary juror fee of $40 for a day. There were 1,100 potential jurors.
Taxpayers flipped a tab of more than $10 million to send away a killer for life who was already serving life. According to the Times, the final bill for the defense has not been submitted, but as of April, they had reached $4.3 million.
The jury returned a sentence of life over death after about only two and one-half hours of deliberation.
To read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/nyregion/a-high-price-for-seeking-the-death-penalty.html
More than a year ago, the federal judge presiding over the case said it would be expensive and futile for the government to seek the death penalty for Basciano if he were found guilty, reported the New York Times. Whatever happened in the trial, he would never leave prison alive. Basciano was already serving life without parole “under extremely restrictive conditions in one of the nation’s most secure penal institutions.”
However, the decision to seek the death penalty had already been made by the Bush Administration and the federal government was not turning back. Just finding a jury pool, not selecting a jury, but just finding a pool from which a jury would be selected cost $44,000 according to the Times. Each potential juror was paid the ordinary juror fee of $40 for a day. There were 1,100 potential jurors.
Taxpayers flipped a tab of more than $10 million to send away a killer for life who was already serving life. According to the Times, the final bill for the defense has not been submitted, but as of April, they had reached $4.3 million.
The jury returned a sentence of life over death after about only two and one-half hours of deliberation.
To read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/nyregion/a-high-price-for-seeking-the-death-penalty.html
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Ohio to Execute Inmate with Cancer
Ohio has an execution scheduled for a killer stricken with cancer. The state will make it easier for condemned prisoner Kenneth Smith, who lost his larynx to cancer, to make a final statement immediately before his execution by lethal injection.
According to the Associated Press,the state will raise the gurney where Smith will lie and let him keep one arm free to make it easier for him to use his artificial voice box. It would be the first time an Ohio inmate has not been completely strapped down since the state resumed the death penalty in 1999.
Prison officials are using the change as part of their argument that a federal judge should dismiss a lawsuit challenging Ohio's execution procedures.
The 45-year-old Smith is scheduled to die July 19 for killing Lewis Ray and Ruth Ray in their home in 1995.
According to the Associated Press,the state will raise the gurney where Smith will lie and let him keep one arm free to make it easier for him to use his artificial voice box. It would be the first time an Ohio inmate has not been completely strapped down since the state resumed the death penalty in 1999.
Prison officials are using the change as part of their argument that a federal judge should dismiss a lawsuit challenging Ohio's execution procedures.
The 45-year-old Smith is scheduled to die July 19 for killing Lewis Ray and Ruth Ray in their home in 1995.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Pennsylvania Brings Inmates Home
The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections announced that 1,111 inmates housed in Michigan have returned to Pennsylvania. Last year, Pennsylvania sent about 2,000 prisoners to Michigan and Virginia due to prison overcrowding.
It cost $62 per day per inmate to house the prisoners in Michigan. That’s lower than the Pennsylvania average of $90 per day, but the inmates sent to Michigan were Pennsylvania’s least costly: healthy, well-behaved and requiring lower security, according to the Harrisburg Patriot-News.
The Pennsylvania prison population has leveled off, making it possible to return the inmates from Michigan. However, the inmates in Virginia will stay until at least the end of the year according to Secretary of Corrections John Wetzel.
According to the Patriot-News, the U.S. prison population declined for the first time in nearly 40 years, yet Pennsylvania led the nation in adding inmates. Since 1980, state spending on prisons has increased six times faster than spending on education. One Pennsylvanian in 248 is behind bars.
To read more: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/05/pa_prison_inmates_return_from.html
It cost $62 per day per inmate to house the prisoners in Michigan. That’s lower than the Pennsylvania average of $90 per day, but the inmates sent to Michigan were Pennsylvania’s least costly: healthy, well-behaved and requiring lower security, according to the Harrisburg Patriot-News.
The Pennsylvania prison population has leveled off, making it possible to return the inmates from Michigan. However, the inmates in Virginia will stay until at least the end of the year according to Secretary of Corrections John Wetzel.
According to the Patriot-News, the U.S. prison population declined for the first time in nearly 40 years, yet Pennsylvania led the nation in adding inmates. Since 1980, state spending on prisons has increased six times faster than spending on education. One Pennsylvanian in 248 is behind bars.
To read more: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/05/pa_prison_inmates_return_from.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
