Deterence: What police officer's face. Blog #8

     The police are under the microscopic eye of citizens and bureaucracies alike.  They must uphold strong convictions when subjected to certain temptations in dealing with the public.  At times, the police may feel inclined to engage in criminal activities to ensure that criminals receive their “just desserts.” They must serve and protect the greater good.  This does not mean intentionally undermining the system to “punish” offenders.  The criminal justice system consists of number of checks and balances to control police misconduct.

      Police officers must protect and ensure the satisfaction of the public.  If police officers fail to meet citizen expectations, this may cause citizens to feel that the overall police organization is deviant and/or untrustworthy. At this point, it is unreasonable for citizens to make complaints to the police organization ( Travis and Langworthy 467).  Restraints must be placed on officers to not only ensure citizen trust, but also keep individual police officers on the “straight” and “narrow.”  Travis and Langworthy (2007) note six sources of external controls that may reduce misconduct and corruption of police officers/agencies: the government, the media, ombudspersons, the courts, citizen-monitoring organizations, and other police agencies. 

     Elected officials may greatly influence police behavior through their power over the police agency budget, hiring, tenure, and other oversight powers.  These officials are directly responsible and accountable to the citizens who elect them.  This takes some of the pressures off police officers since many of the citizens complaints will channel directly through the elected official.  In the past, racial profiling was becoming a greater concern, causing the passage of legislation that mandated police agencies keep statistics on the characteristics of citizens stopped for vehicle violations (Strom and Durose, 2000).  However, governmental micromanaging leaves the police agencies exposed for possible political corruption.  The agencies may offer their support only to the policies that they feel best suits their political interests as opposed to citizen concerns.  This may not be the most effective way in deterring police misconduct and corruption.  Governmental and political interference weakens the foundation of a police organization. 

     The media plays a key role in alerting citizens to instances of unprofessional or irresponsible police behaviors.  Historically, the media has always been portrayed as the “watchdog” of society, and their life-long motto is “if it bleeds, it leads”.  However, their tendency to embellish the truth may upset concerned citizens and police alike.  News broadcasts noting police corruption will certainly spur the attention of apprehensive citizens now demanding changes. The media may temporarily embarrass police agencies into change.  Although, the media, itself, lacks the power to enforce change. They only have the power to inform citizens and keep them updated on the most current news.  Furthermore, once the media coverage begins to lose public interest, they quickly move on to the next “heart-wrenching” and possibly offensive story to keep citizens continually upset and horrified.  

     The courts also play a crucial role in the everyday lives of citizens.   A citizen can seek court intervention to prevent or even control various forms of police misconduct (Travis and Langworthy 468).  Police officers who accept bribes may be brought to trial for police corruption and citizens may file civil charges against police officers whose misconduct caused them harm.  The courts give citizens discretion over a police officer’s behavior through exercising their right of civil prosecution for wrong doings.  Court intervention only occurs after a wrongdoing has occurred, and therefore does not represent an effective means of deterring police misconduct and corruption. 

      I feel the best way to deter police misconduct necessitates using a combination of external and internal methods. Of the internal methods I, personally, feel the most effective way is the bureaucratic model.  Some individuals require stricter supervision than do others. This model mandates that each police officer shall adhere to policy regulations or they will receive disciplinary actions for their lapse in judgment.  In my military experience, it was necessary to “watch” certain individuals to ensure they stayed on task.  However, police officers must not feel micromanaged or restrained in the performance of their duties. This may discourage many officers and cause resentment among the ranks.  Rules and regulations hold police officers accountable for their actions, but they must also allow for the discretion that each individual officer holds.

Work Cited

Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing.

Lawerence, F.T.,& Langworthy, R.H. (2007). Policing in America. Prentice Hall.

     

Gang Deterrence. Blog #7

     An important aspect of criminal deterrence involves being proactive on gang deterrence.  The Feinstein-Hatch-Schumer Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007 includes more than $1 billion over the next five years for Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts against violent gangs, for witness protection programs, and services geared toward gang prevention.  This bill will enable the hiring of more prosecutors, staff and technology needed to bring cases against gang members.  The “Gang Elimination Act of 2007” estimates that there are over 800,000 gang members in the United States.  These numbers represents a larger army than all six countries combined. 

     The new legislation prohibits gangs from recruiting minors. However, police agencies feel the Gang Deterrence and Community Prevention Act is unlikely to deter gangs and protect the community.  They believe the legislation focuses more on stereo types of gangs, rather than empirical evidence.

     In November of 2008, ATF opened the gang deterrence in Northern, VA.  ATF Acting Director Michael Sullivan stated, “Coordination has brought us success in the past, and can yield even more in the future”.  The new center ensures that two different gang deterrence unit will be working together under one roof to accomplish the same goal of dismantling violent gangs throughout the United States. Personnel from ATF, FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshals Service, the National Drug Intelligence Center, the Bureau of Prisons and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with Gang Squad prosecutors from the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, will staff the facility.  Director Michael Sullivan stated, “We are bringing all of our expertise to the table.”  A positive outlook brings positive results.  We need to keep our youth from falling into the destructive life of “gang culture.”

Work Cited

Gang Research. Gang deterrence and community protection act. http://www.gangresearch.net/GangResearch/Policy/gangsinpolitics_files/gangdetbill/gangdet05.htm

Jearim, K. (2008). ATF: Gang deterrence center opens in northern Va. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1997314/posts

How to deter crime. Blog #6

     Prevention of crime is the responsibility of every law-abiding citizen.  No one wants to be a victim or feel victimized. Unfortunately, two weeks prior to Thanksgiving I was victimized.  My car was into while I was training at the gym.  The “perp” stole my Dooney Burke purse, wallet, and a sweater I had just purchased for my aunts birthday.  My purse was stowed underneath my seat and was not at all visible.  I am still unsure what drew the “perp” to my vehicle.  This crime left me not only feeling victimized, but took away time I did not have to call my insurance company, my bank, the Sherriff, and the glass company.  In less than an hour, the “perp” charged over $800 to my account.  As a criminal justice major, I was stunned this occurred. I do not have a fancy vehicle and I certainly do not advertise, “Come steal this.” I know for a fact people saw this occur and did nothing to stop it, I found that very discouraging.  I decided to become better informed and my goal is to share this information with my readers.    

     The most important aspect of crime prevention is through learning effective ways to deter crimes.  There are many crime legislation initiatives it is vital people become familiar with them.  People should seek out policies that target crime and will overall protect communities. One of the best ways people can assist in protecting their community is through community involvement.  Programs such as, Big Brothers Big sisters of America will help deter youth crime through positive mentor influence.  If people see a crime or a suspicious activity occur, they “must,” report it.  Crime will only continue by people looking the other way.  People “must” always lock up their valuables and never leave a purse in a car whether it is visible or not. Many criminals stake out the person or car they intend to strike. They have nothing, but time.  Finally, people “must” always be aware of their surroundings and whenever possible travel in a group to avoid being singled out. All of these valuable tips will enable people to feel more secure, and help lower crime rates nationwide. Everyone can be a victim of crime.  Criminals can be deterred simply by not giving them the opportunity.

Work Cited

Hoag, T. (2009).  How to prevent crime. http://www.ehow.com/how_4550101_prevent-crime.html

Sherman, L.W. (2006). Evidence-based crime prevention.

Three-Strike Deterence Blog #5

     Today, the three-strikes law remains a controversial issue among legislators and law enforcement officials. Under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the three strikes statute follows that: A person must be convicted in federal court of a “serious felony” and have two or more prior convictions in federal or state courts. The three -strikes statute states, “At least one of these offenses must consist of a serious violent felony.” The other offense may be a serious drug felony. According to law, violent offenses include murder, robbery of a residence in which a deadly or dangerous weapon is used, rape and other sex offenses; serious offenses include the same offenses defined as violent offenses, but also include other crimes such as burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit a robbery or rape and murder.

     The state of Washington was the first state to enact the “Three Strikes” law in 1993.  Since then, over half the states inclusive of the federal government have enacted the “Three-Strikes” law. The three strikes statute was enacted to reduce recidivism rates, and limit the ability of the offender to receive a punishment other than a prison sentence. However, many offenders who have received lengthy prison terms under this law have fought against it as unconstitutional.

In 2003, a defendant was found guilty of stealing $150 worth of video tapes from two department stores.  The defendant had two prior convictions and pursuant to the “Three Strikes”, statute sentenced the defendant to 50 years in prison.  The defendant challenged his conviction before the U.S. Supreme Court in Lockyer v. Andrade (2003), but the Court upheld the constitutionality of the law.

     In March 1999, the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to California's three-strikes law brought by a man sentenced to 25 years to life under the law for stealing a bottle of vitamins. The justices ruled that lower courts should rule on the controversial law before it is brought before the Supreme Court.  This punishment seems a little severe for stealing a bottle of vitamins.  Some argue that the Three-strikes law leads to prison overcrowding by locking up non-violent criminals for minor offenses. There is limited prison space and that space should be limited to violent offenders.  A man receiving another 25 years for stealing a bottle of vitamins hardly seems just.  Others argue Three-strikes laws are effective in crime reduction because they keep habitual criminals off the street and deter repeat offenders from committing crimes that would land them in jail for many years.

     Studies have shown that African-Americans are disproportionately affected by the Three-Strikes law policy.  The original intent of the law was to get violent offenders off the streets, but now offenders are receiving longer prison terms for minor offenses.  This law does not seem to be an effective deterrent of crime.  However, it is unlikely that criminals with two convictions will change their ways and walk the straight and narrow. What should be done with the criminals who have no desire or will to become contributing members of society?

Work Cited

Murphey, J., (2000).  Are three-strikes laws fair and effective? http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1290b-1.html

Three-Strikes Sentencing Laws.  http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_stages/stages-sentencing/three-strikes-sentencing-laws.html

Death Penalty Deterrence? Blog #4

     A controversial topic upsetting many Americans today is the legal system usage of the death penalty.  Death penalty laws date as far back as the 18^th century, B.C.   The Code of Hammaurabi codified the death penalty into 25 different crimes (DPIC, 2008).  Actually, Great Britain heavily influenced the American use of the death penalty.   European settlers came to the new world and brought with them their system of capital punishment (DPIC, 2008).  In the nation’s earliest history, executions were usually administered as a public spectacle in the town square.   The event would serve as a warning and a deterrent to those of similar thoughts.  (Allen, Latessa, Ponder, & Simonsen, 2007).  Today, many argue that capital punishment inflicts excessive cruelty on the perpetrator and violates the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment.

          Dozens of states that have chosen not to enact the death penalty have statistically lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty.  The data gathered by the FBI shows that half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average.  Booner and Fessenden (2000) reported that over the past 20 years, states with the death penalty have homicide rates 48% to 101% higher than states without the death penalty.  Death penalty opponents claim that these figures suggest that execution rarely acts as a deterrent for capital offenses.   These figures deter many non-capital punishment states from enacting capital punishment laws.  The claim is that if the death penalty were in fact, effective, no crime would occur (Allen, Latessa, Ponder, & Simonson, 2007, p. 417).  A study done in 1993, however, shows that many people in favor of the death penalty would support incarceration alternatives (Johnson, 2008). 

     Prosecutors argue that there are numerous reasons to carry out capital punishment.  Many people believe that rehabilitation is ineffective.  Violent criminals make dozens of free moral choices that ultimately result in the loss of another citizen’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.   Prosecutors also use the death penalty as a “plea bargain” chip, which allows a legal resolution of the crime, but at a lower level of punishment.   

     The main issue in California is not guilt or innocence but whether the defendant deserves to be put to death.  California spends the most money on capital cases and has the highest record of death row inmates in the country.  California also has more attorneys per capita than most states.   Citizens of California would be mildly concerned if all of a sudden the rate of executions began to climb.  Of course, these same citizens are greatly concerned if imprisoned offenders are release into their own neighborhood.   As Professor Karver stated, “citizens should care, because we do not want this offenders in our backyard.”  “The whole thing is a mess,” said former state Supreme Court Justice Edward Panelli, a conservative who voted to affirm most death sentences he reviewed.  “It wouldn’t hurt me at all if they just changed the law” (Mintz, 2002).

     Capital punishment and the death penalty have existed as early as the eighteenth century.  Supporters of the death penalty felt that if it is “swift and certain”, administered in the public’s eye, they would be less inclined to commit crimes.  However, many states that have enacted the death penalty actually have higher reported homicide rates than others.  This may suggest that the death penalty has little to no deterrent effect on the occurrence of crimes.  The rate of death row inmates continues to climb, with California having over 600 death row inmates.  In an effort to punish these offenders, California taxpayers incur the astronomical expense of ensuring these offenders pay the “ultimate” price for the crimes they committed.  Families of victims suffer mental anguish as the appeals process can take up to 20 years.  There are survivors who feel that if the offender is executed this will still not necessarily bring them closure for their loss.  Capital punishment proponents believe that immediate execution will bring closure and survivors can move on.  Capital punishment opponents believe the offender’s execution represents another form of murder.

     Great controversy exists over states implementation of the death penalty.  Ignored is the fact that eliminating the perpetrator removes the desire of the survivors to retribute the crime on their own.  I feel that people who commit heinous crimes against others do not deserve comfort from society.  A hard-line stance on violent crime is a requirement for our society.   Why are the victims left to basically suffer alone or with little help?  The limitless legal help and money thrown at society’s miscreants is an obscene waste.  Certainly, mistakes have and will continue to happen in the justice system.  They also happen and will continue to happen in the surgery room of the hospital.  Yet, nobody is stopping surgery.   It is absurd that these violent offenders receive better treatment than the average law-abiding citizen who finds his tax-dollars wasted on the incarcerated.

Work Cited

Allen, H.E., Latessa, E.J., Ponder, B.S., & Simonsen, C.E.  (2007).  Corrections in America: An introduction.  Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:  Pearson Education Inc.

Johnson, K. (2008). California death penalty system 'dysfunctional'. USA TODAY,p. A.3.  Retrieved November 15, 2008, from ProQuest Newsstand database. (Document ID: 1503635781).

Mintz, H. (2002). Death sentence reversals cast doubt on system- Courtroom mistakes put executions on hold. San Jose Mercury News (CA) Morning Final ed., 1A. Retrieved November 24, 2008 from NewsBank on-line database (America's Newspapers) on the World Wide Web: <http://infoweb.newsbank.com>.

The Damages of Crime. Blog #3

 Statistics show that men are more likely to be victimized than women.  However, women fear being victimized.  Although, women receive less victimization than men, women are subjected to much more violent crimes than men (rape & domestic abuse).  This is indicative that women typically tend to be physically weaker than men, which makes women more susceptible to crime and attractive to a perp.

     Minorities tend to fear being victimized more than the majority.  Blacks fear being victimized far more than Caucasian’s. Conversely, Caucasian’s fear being victimized by “young” black males than any other ethnicity. A social consequence of crime is strong racial distrust. A problematic social consequence of crime is people’s perception of a certain area or ethnic group.  (metropolitian area) ie east LA, Detroit.

    Costs of crime can be short term or long term, expanding out to the duration of a person’s life.   The ulimate cost of crime is the loss of life, often innocent.  However, there are many other costs associated with crime: medical costs, property loss, and loss of income. The costs of crime often result in pain, suffering, and lower quality of life. Crime impacts not only the victim, but will forever change the lives of their family, friends, and the quality of the neighborhood. It was reported in the early 21^st century that the annual cost of crime in the United States exceeded 1.7 trillion.

Work Cited

<a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/12122/Economic-Social-Effects-Crime-Who-crime-affects-most.html">Economic and Social Effects of Crime - Who Crime Affects Most</a>

Toughest Sheriff in U.S. Blog #2

      We have all heard the motto “Get Tough on Crime.” Sherriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona believes that putting prisoners on public display is the best way to deter people from crime. . Arapio created the first women’s chain and juvenile gangs in the nation. He like many people feels that prisoners do not deserve better living conditions than that of our American soldiers. Arapio stated, "Its 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths."

      The prisoners live in the in tents and wear pink underwear. Arapio stated, “I want jail to be a miserable experience.” All of the comforts of county jail have been eliminated and his prisoners are only allowed to watch the Disney channel and and C-Span. He has the right idea. We have too many recidivists as it is, so jail cannot be that bad of place to be if people keep coming back.

            The conservatives support him fully and feel their tax dollars are being put to good use. The Arizonians love him and he has won all of his sheriff elections by double digits. However, the liberals feel that he is human rights violator, and a racial profiler. The federal government wants him to change his ways or plans to shut him down. Many feel that the Sheriff has abused his office in violation of the federal law. A protest of over 5,000 people against the use of tactics occurred in Arizona yesterday. Nevertheless, Sheriff Joe remains optimistic and believes his re-elections statistics speak for themselves. Hang in there Sheriff Joe.

 Work  Cited

Randy, J. (2009). Time Magazine. Sheriff Joe Arapio.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1929920,00.html Retrieved: Oct 13, 2009

Ruiz, A. (2009). New York Daily. Why Arizona’s Sheriff Joe must go and soon. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/03/11/2009-03-11_why_arizonas_sheriff_joe_arpaio_must_go_.html

Retrieved Oct 13, 2009

 

Deterrence and Self-Interests Blog #1

What is criminal deterrence and why is it important? Deterrence is the process of discouraging and preventing people from committing criminal acts. Having these restraints placed on people with criminal “intent” enables the “law-abiding” people to feel safe. However, this is a hotly debated topic as to how stringent the restraints must be to allow citizens to feel secure in their environment.

The Classical School of Criminology includes such thinkers as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. These theorists believed that people were “hedonistic” and only concerned with their own self-interests. People would commit crimes, but only if it benefited them in some way. The strategies of deterrence reinforced that criminals understood that only non-criminal actions are in people’s own self interest. Both Beccaria and Bentham felt that the punishment given must be in direct proportion to the crime committed and carried out promptly.

Today, neither promptness nor proportionality seems to exist within the tangled web of the criminal justice system. Criminals remain stuck in the prison system for years due to all the bureaucratic “red tape”. Now, the prison system faces severe overcrowding. In fact, California must release over 48,000 prisoners by 2010. Many of these criminals have been arrested and convicted of the same crime multiple times. This only places law enforcement officers in harm’s way and needlessly wastes tax-payers money.

www.crimetheory.com/Theories/Classical.htm

www.wordreference.com/definition/deterrence