The FBI recently released its preliminary tabulations of crime statistics for 2011, and the short-term trend seems rather encouraging. However, Professor James Alan Fox of Northeastern University wrote in the Boston Globe that the data are much more of a mixed bag in terms of what these trends really indicate.
It would appear from these estimates, from July through December 2011, that several crime categories showed an increase in the second half of the year, including a 1.9% uptick in murder.
The data shouldn't be used to overstate the significance of the trends for the second half of the year; they are volatile. The late-year increases may be more about low crime levels near the end of 2010 than anything about 2011. Further analysis and more complete data is needed.
Fox wrote, "Whatever the final data show, it would seem that the long-term downturn in crime has slowed, and may even have bottomed out. Crime can’t go down forever, of course. At this juncture, we need to focus on making sure that any increase that does occur is relatively modest."
Professor Fox appropriately points out that now is not the time to start cutting back on crime fighting resources. "With rates relatively low, this is not the time to diminish crime fighting efforts. If we naively presume that the crime problem has been solved (as opposed to just controlled for the time being), the crime rate could easily rebound. If we fail to invest sufficiently in crime prevention and crime control—both personnel and programs, we may someday look back at 2011 and consider them the 'good old days.'"
As state and local governments struggle with diminishing budgets and the resulting cuts to law enforcement, prisons, the courts and social services we may be on the cusp of a dramatic increase in crime, violence and victimization.
To read more: http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/06/crime_is_down_--_or_is_it.html
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Study: Castle Doctrine increases homicides
Laws do not deter crime
Two Professors from Texas A&M University, Mark Hoekstra and Cheng Cheng, studied whether the Castle Doctrine laws deter crime.
The answer, according to the Wall Street Journal, is no. In fact, the evidence suggests the laws have led to an increase in homicides.
From the study: http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf
Results indicate that the prospect of facing additional self-defense does not deter crime. Specifically, we find no evidence of deterrence effects on burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. Moreover, our estimates are sufficiently precise as to rule out meaningful deterrence effects.
In contrast, we find significant evidence that the laws increase homicides. Suggestive but inconclusive evidence indicates that castle doctrine laws increase the narrowly defined category of justifiable homicides by private citizens by 17 to 50 percent, which translates into as many as 50 additional justifiable homicides per year nationally due to castle doctrine. More significantly, we find the laws increase murder and manslaughter by a statistically significant 7 to 9 percent, which translates into an additional 500 to 700 homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine.
Thus, by lowering the expected costs associated with using lethal force, castle doctrine laws induce more of it. This increase in homicides could be due either to the increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or to the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal conflicts. We suspect that self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase, as we also find that murder alone is increased by a statistically significant 6 to 11 percent.
To read more: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/11/study-says-stand-your-ground-laws-increase-homicides/
Two Professors from Texas A&M University, Mark Hoekstra and Cheng Cheng, studied whether the Castle Doctrine laws deter crime.
The answer, according to the Wall Street Journal, is no. In fact, the evidence suggests the laws have led to an increase in homicides.
From the study: http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf
Results indicate that the prospect of facing additional self-defense does not deter crime. Specifically, we find no evidence of deterrence effects on burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. Moreover, our estimates are sufficiently precise as to rule out meaningful deterrence effects.
In contrast, we find significant evidence that the laws increase homicides. Suggestive but inconclusive evidence indicates that castle doctrine laws increase the narrowly defined category of justifiable homicides by private citizens by 17 to 50 percent, which translates into as many as 50 additional justifiable homicides per year nationally due to castle doctrine. More significantly, we find the laws increase murder and manslaughter by a statistically significant 7 to 9 percent, which translates into an additional 500 to 700 homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine.
Thus, by lowering the expected costs associated with using lethal force, castle doctrine laws induce more of it. This increase in homicides could be due either to the increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or to the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal conflicts. We suspect that self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase, as we also find that murder alone is increased by a statistically significant 6 to 11 percent.
To read more: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/11/study-says-stand-your-ground-laws-increase-homicides/
Monday, June 11, 2012
Thirty states seek to expand mandatory reporting laws
Penn State sex abuse scandal behind rapid increase in laws
In the wake of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, about 105 bills on the reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect have been introduced in 2012 legislative sessions in 30 states and the District of Columbia. Legislation has since been enacted in 10 of those states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
According to the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) Oregon, West Virginia, Virginia, and South Dakota are among states that expanded their list of professions that are mandatory reporters, while Indiana and Iowa are requiring schools to develop new policies and reporting procedures for responding to suspected child abuse.
Indiana, also in response to the Penn State sex abuse scandal, passed legislation that requires the state to work with child sexual abuse experts to develop education materials, response policies, and reporting procedures on child sexual abuse, reported CSM. A new Iowa law requires schools to implement policy for employees in contact with children to report suspected physical or sexual abuse.
Also as a direct result of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, Florida has passed what is now the toughest mandatory reporting legislation in the country: Failure to report suspected child abuse is a felony, and universities would be fined $1 million and stripped of state funding for two years if officials don't report child abuse. According to CSM, the law applies to everyone — from university coaching staff to elementary school teachers to students.
Forty-eight states require at least some professionals to immediately report knowledge or suspicion of child sexual abuse to some authority, according to the NCSL. The list of professionals varies by state and can include teachers, school nurses, doctors, social workers, police, day care workers, coaches and camp counselors, reported the CSM.
Eighteen states have laws that require mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse by all adults. Many of those states have no specific sanctions for those who fail to comply with such laws, while others have penalties but they are not enforced unless a case is particularly heinous or deadly.
To read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0609/Sandusky-child-sex-abuse-scandal-raises-questions-about-state-laws
In the wake of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, about 105 bills on the reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect have been introduced in 2012 legislative sessions in 30 states and the District of Columbia. Legislation has since been enacted in 10 of those states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
According to the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) Oregon, West Virginia, Virginia, and South Dakota are among states that expanded their list of professions that are mandatory reporters, while Indiana and Iowa are requiring schools to develop new policies and reporting procedures for responding to suspected child abuse.
Indiana, also in response to the Penn State sex abuse scandal, passed legislation that requires the state to work with child sexual abuse experts to develop education materials, response policies, and reporting procedures on child sexual abuse, reported CSM. A new Iowa law requires schools to implement policy for employees in contact with children to report suspected physical or sexual abuse.
Also as a direct result of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, Florida has passed what is now the toughest mandatory reporting legislation in the country: Failure to report suspected child abuse is a felony, and universities would be fined $1 million and stripped of state funding for two years if officials don't report child abuse. According to CSM, the law applies to everyone — from university coaching staff to elementary school teachers to students.
Forty-eight states require at least some professionals to immediately report knowledge or suspicion of child sexual abuse to some authority, according to the NCSL. The list of professionals varies by state and can include teachers, school nurses, doctors, social workers, police, day care workers, coaches and camp counselors, reported the CSM.
Eighteen states have laws that require mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse by all adults. Many of those states have no specific sanctions for those who fail to comply with such laws, while others have penalties but they are not enforced unless a case is particularly heinous or deadly.
To read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0609/Sandusky-child-sex-abuse-scandal-raises-questions-about-state-laws
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Prisoners released in 2009 served 36% longer than prisoners in 1990
Prisoners released in 2009 served an average of nine additional months in custody, or 36 percent longer, than offenders released in 1990, according to a report released by the Pew Center on the States' Public Safety Performance Project. The study found that for offenders released from their original sentence in 2009 alone, the additional time behind bars cost states $23,300 per offender, or a total of over $10 billion, more than half of which was for nonviolent offenders.
The report, Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms, also found that time served for drug offenses and violent offenses grew at nearly the same pace from 1990 to 2009. Drug offenders served 36 percent longer in 2009 than those released in 1990, while violent offenders served 37 percent longer. Time served for inmates convicted of property crimes increased by 24 percent.
"Violent and career criminals belong behind bars, and for a long time," said Adam Gelb, director of the Public Safety Performance Project. "But building more prisons to house lower-risk nonviolent inmates for longer sentences simply is not the best way to reduce crime."
Though almost all states increased length of stay over the last two decades, the overall change varied widely between states. Among 35 reporting states representing nearly 90 percent of 2009 prison releases, time served rose most rapidly in Florida, where terms grew by 166 percent and cost an extra $1.4 billion in 2009. Prison terms increased in Virginia by 91 percent, North Carolina (86 percent), Oklahoma (83 percent), Michigan (79 percent), and Georgia (75 percent). Eight states reduced their overall time served, including Illinois (25 percent) and South Dakota (24 percent).
Among prisoners released in 2009 from the reporting states, Michigan had the longest overall average time served, at 4.3 years, followed by Pennsylvania (3.8 years). South Dakota had the shortest average time served at 1.3 years, followed by Tennessee (1.9 years). The national average time served was 2.9 years. Download the report and state fact sheets.
The report is based on National Corrections Reporting Program data from 35 states that was collected and verified by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The reporting states covered 89 percent of the inmates released in 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available. States not included in the study had not reported sufficient data over the 1990-2009 study period.
The report, Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms, also found that time served for drug offenses and violent offenses grew at nearly the same pace from 1990 to 2009. Drug offenders served 36 percent longer in 2009 than those released in 1990, while violent offenders served 37 percent longer. Time served for inmates convicted of property crimes increased by 24 percent.
"Violent and career criminals belong behind bars, and for a long time," said Adam Gelb, director of the Public Safety Performance Project. "But building more prisons to house lower-risk nonviolent inmates for longer sentences simply is not the best way to reduce crime."
Though almost all states increased length of stay over the last two decades, the overall change varied widely between states. Among 35 reporting states representing nearly 90 percent of 2009 prison releases, time served rose most rapidly in Florida, where terms grew by 166 percent and cost an extra $1.4 billion in 2009. Prison terms increased in Virginia by 91 percent, North Carolina (86 percent), Oklahoma (83 percent), Michigan (79 percent), and Georgia (75 percent). Eight states reduced their overall time served, including Illinois (25 percent) and South Dakota (24 percent).
Among prisoners released in 2009 from the reporting states, Michigan had the longest overall average time served, at 4.3 years, followed by Pennsylvania (3.8 years). South Dakota had the shortest average time served at 1.3 years, followed by Tennessee (1.9 years). The national average time served was 2.9 years. Download the report and state fact sheets.
The report is based on National Corrections Reporting Program data from 35 states that was collected and verified by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The reporting states covered 89 percent of the inmates released in 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available. States not included in the study had not reported sufficient data over the 1990-2009 study period.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
NIJ: Drug courts reduce recidivism
A study funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) found that alternatives to handling drug cases, such as specialized courts that usher more people into rehab, can sharply drop recidivism rates, scale back on overall crime and produce deep cost cuts in an overwhelmed criminal justice system, according to Youth Today.
The report comes as the nation is in somewhat of a split over how best to handle many criminal cases, including drug offenses.
As Massachusetts considers a crackdown on repeat violent offenders, the position by many lawmakers has been to ease drug penalties.
In Missouri, legislators passed a bill to create more parity in sentencing for powdered and crack cocaine offenses. In the push to cap violent and drug crime in the 1980s and 1990s, many states passed tough laws that skewed penalties for different types of cocaine, with the result being more minorities – and especially blacks − were locked up for longer periods of time, reported Youth Today.
Many states, and even Congress late last year, have revisited those laws, pulling back in hopes of reducing prison populations and the high costs of policing, the courts and incarceration.
According to Youth Today, the upside of drug courts include a decrease in drug relapse, a drop in reoffending and lower overall criminal justice costs as offenders were eased back into society, something that is expected to help steady state budgets that were so wrecked by the down economy.
Among other findings, the research released by the NIJ found:
• About 40 percent of drug court participants reported less criminal activity, compared with 53 percent of offenders who went through traditional courts.
• Fewer rearrests were reported for drug-court participants than offenders of similar crimes who were processed through criminal court. The difference was 52 percent to 62 percent.
To read more: http://www.youthtoday.org/view_article.cfm?article_id=5350
For full report: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/238527.pdf
.
The report comes as the nation is in somewhat of a split over how best to handle many criminal cases, including drug offenses.
As Massachusetts considers a crackdown on repeat violent offenders, the position by many lawmakers has been to ease drug penalties.
In Missouri, legislators passed a bill to create more parity in sentencing for powdered and crack cocaine offenses. In the push to cap violent and drug crime in the 1980s and 1990s, many states passed tough laws that skewed penalties for different types of cocaine, with the result being more minorities – and especially blacks − were locked up for longer periods of time, reported Youth Today.
Many states, and even Congress late last year, have revisited those laws, pulling back in hopes of reducing prison populations and the high costs of policing, the courts and incarceration.
According to Youth Today, the upside of drug courts include a decrease in drug relapse, a drop in reoffending and lower overall criminal justice costs as offenders were eased back into society, something that is expected to help steady state budgets that were so wrecked by the down economy.
Among other findings, the research released by the NIJ found:
• About 40 percent of drug court participants reported less criminal activity, compared with 53 percent of offenders who went through traditional courts.
• Fewer rearrests were reported for drug-court participants than offenders of similar crimes who were processed through criminal court. The difference was 52 percent to 62 percent.
To read more: http://www.youthtoday.org/view_article.cfm?article_id=5350
For full report: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/238527.pdf
.
Friday, June 8, 2012
The Cautionary Instruction: A tale of two rulings In Sandusky trial
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
June 8, 2012
Two rulings this week by the judge presiding over the trial of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky reveal a system amenable to openness but burdened with an antiquated view toward achieving accessibility.
The two rulings appear to be in conflict. Initially, Judge John M. Cleland ruled that the victims must use their names when testifying. The victims had asked the court to use pseudonyms to protect their identity.
Judge Cleland then revoked permission for journalists to tweet and email dispatches from inside the courtroom after the media sought clarification on the judge’s decorum order -- a set of ground rules for trial.
When the judge addressed the pseudonym request he wrote, “Courts are not customarily in the business of withholding information. Secrecy is thought to be inconsistent with the openness required to assure the public that the law is being administered fairly and applied faithfully."
While Judge Cleland sought to provide openness on the one hand—he clamped down on a novel method of access provided through modern technological advances. Twitter opens Pennsylvania’s courtrooms in much the same way television opened courtrooms in Ohio, Florida and numerous other states.
Judge Cleland recognized this through his decorum order which initially permitted the use of electronic devices for courtroom-based communications. There were limitations. “The devices may not be used to take or transmit photographs in [the courtroom]; or to record or broadcast any verbatim account of the proceedings” in real time from the courtroom.
A number of media outlets, including The Associated Press and ESPN, filed a motion seeking clarification of the judge’s order.
The media’s motion argued that restricting the use of direct quotes was unconstitutional and the use of direct quotes should not be prohibited because doing so would, according to court documents, “risk diminishing the accuracy of reports on the trial.”
As a result the judge said he was "compelled to rescind" the portion of the order granting electronic-based communications because, based on the media’s motion, he finds his interpretation of the law “confusing to reporters, unworkable, and therefore, likely unenforceable.”
Juxtapose the electronic communication ruling with the witness identification ruling. Rejecting the use of pseudonyms for victims Judge Cleland wrote, "Arguably any victim of any crime would prefer not to appear in court, not to be subjected to cross-examination, not to have his or her credibility evaluated by a jury -- not to put his name and reputation at stake." Judge Cleland continued, "But we ask citizens to do that every day in courts across the nation." Yet, citizens interested in the Sandusky case will have to read about those witnesses in the next day’s newspaper.
Judge Cleland, with a couple strokes of a pen, made evidence in a high profile case both more open and less accessible -- at least by today’s modern means of access.
Visit Ipso Facto
June 8, 2012
Two rulings this week by the judge presiding over the trial of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky reveal a system amenable to openness but burdened with an antiquated view toward achieving accessibility.
The two rulings appear to be in conflict. Initially, Judge John M. Cleland ruled that the victims must use their names when testifying. The victims had asked the court to use pseudonyms to protect their identity.
Judge Cleland then revoked permission for journalists to tweet and email dispatches from inside the courtroom after the media sought clarification on the judge’s decorum order -- a set of ground rules for trial.
When the judge addressed the pseudonym request he wrote, “Courts are not customarily in the business of withholding information. Secrecy is thought to be inconsistent with the openness required to assure the public that the law is being administered fairly and applied faithfully."
While Judge Cleland sought to provide openness on the one hand—he clamped down on a novel method of access provided through modern technological advances. Twitter opens Pennsylvania’s courtrooms in much the same way television opened courtrooms in Ohio, Florida and numerous other states.
Judge Cleland recognized this through his decorum order which initially permitted the use of electronic devices for courtroom-based communications. There were limitations. “The devices may not be used to take or transmit photographs in [the courtroom]; or to record or broadcast any verbatim account of the proceedings” in real time from the courtroom.
A number of media outlets, including The Associated Press and ESPN, filed a motion seeking clarification of the judge’s order.
The media’s motion argued that restricting the use of direct quotes was unconstitutional and the use of direct quotes should not be prohibited because doing so would, according to court documents, “risk diminishing the accuracy of reports on the trial.”
As a result the judge said he was "compelled to rescind" the portion of the order granting electronic-based communications because, based on the media’s motion, he finds his interpretation of the law “confusing to reporters, unworkable, and therefore, likely unenforceable.”
Juxtapose the electronic communication ruling with the witness identification ruling. Rejecting the use of pseudonyms for victims Judge Cleland wrote, "Arguably any victim of any crime would prefer not to appear in court, not to be subjected to cross-examination, not to have his or her credibility evaluated by a jury -- not to put his name and reputation at stake." Judge Cleland continued, "But we ask citizens to do that every day in courts across the nation." Yet, citizens interested in the Sandusky case will have to read about those witnesses in the next day’s newspaper.
Judge Cleland, with a couple strokes of a pen, made evidence in a high profile case both more open and less accessible -- at least by today’s modern means of access.
Visit Ipso Facto
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Cuomo: Possession of marijuana not a crime
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and the speaker of the Assembly came out in support of a change in the law so that publicly possessing small quantities of pot would no longer be a misdemeanor, reported the New York Times. “This is primarily a young-person problem, about 60 percent,” said Gov. Cuomo. “And primarily, overwhelmingly, a problem for the black and brown community, 94 percent of the convictions.”
In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, have overseen a vigorous marijuana enforcement effort. About 400,000 people have been arrested over the last 10 years for breaking New York State Penal Law 221.10, which makes it a misdemeanor to openly possess or burn less than an ounce of pot, reported the Times.
In a startling turnaround, both Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly said that they supported the change in the law.
According to the Times, Cuomo also privately promised to fix a few lines in the laws governing marijuana possession, the changes he proposed this week. Currently, having a small quantity of pot is not a crime if it is not visible; it is merely a violation, like a traffic summons. However, if the pot is openly displayed, it is a misdemeanor. So, people ordered to turn out their pockets by a police officer are displaying marijuana, a misdemeanor.
Those misdemeanor charges, Mr. Cuomo said, were an “aggravated complication” of searches conducted in New York City. Last year, about 700,000 people were stopped, questioned, and in many cases, searched; most of those people were black and Latino.
To read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/nyregion/altering-a-law-the-police-use-prolifically.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion
In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, have overseen a vigorous marijuana enforcement effort. About 400,000 people have been arrested over the last 10 years for breaking New York State Penal Law 221.10, which makes it a misdemeanor to openly possess or burn less than an ounce of pot, reported the Times.
In a startling turnaround, both Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly said that they supported the change in the law.
According to the Times, Cuomo also privately promised to fix a few lines in the laws governing marijuana possession, the changes he proposed this week. Currently, having a small quantity of pot is not a crime if it is not visible; it is merely a violation, like a traffic summons. However, if the pot is openly displayed, it is a misdemeanor. So, people ordered to turn out their pockets by a police officer are displaying marijuana, a misdemeanor.
Those misdemeanor charges, Mr. Cuomo said, were an “aggravated complication” of searches conducted in New York City. Last year, about 700,000 people were stopped, questioned, and in many cases, searched; most of those people were black and Latino.
To read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/nyregion/altering-a-law-the-police-use-prolifically.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
