Posted by Scott on January 31st, 2007 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
Vera Institute of Justice released the following to the press:
Although crime is up in many American cities, lawmakers should think twice before raising penalties and extending prison sentences, advises a study released today by the Vera Institute of Justice, a 45-year-old nonprofit organization that works on safety and justice issues and is headed by Michael Jacobson, who ran New York City’s jails and probation system for Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
“Thirty years ago, prevailing wisdom was that sending people to prison was the best and only response to rising crime,” says Stemen. “But crime is a complex phenomenon, influenced by many factors. Incarceration is just one potential influence, and research shows that increasing incarceration isn’t the best or only way to reduce crime.”
Instead, Stemen’s research review suggests that policymakers consider investing in areas such as policing or education, which show equal or better correlation with lower rates of crime.
Government investment in things such as more police, reducing unemployment, or raising education levels may be more cost effective in reducing crime. One national study found, for example, that a 10 percent increase in wages corresponded with a 2 percent drop in property crime and a 25 percent drop in violent crime.
“Removing violent repeat offenders from society obviously makes sense,” concludes David Keene, “but the idea of jailing virtually everyone who breaks our laws and throwing them into institutions that are little more than warehouse lock-ups quickly reaches the point of diminishing returns.”
Read the entire press release.
The above findings make sense to me. Rehabilitation rarely works, but most jails and prisons do not even try to rehabilitate the criminals. As a result, jails and prisons simply become a warehouse for criminals. If anything, this just makes the criminals more dangerous, because they associate with other criminals and fail to learn how to participate legally and peacefully within society.
I believe that society can more effectively reduce violent crime by preventing it before it happens, with such methods as education, security, and poverty reduction.
Of course, I still want anyone who offensively hurts or victimizes anyone else locked up and kept in jail until they no longer pose a threat. If we cannot rehabilitate the victimizer, then keep him in jail for the rest of his life.
Unfortunately, our current incarceration system fails to do that. Instead, it releases victimizers who hurt us – often to make room for non-violent drug offenders who hurt nobody but arguably themselves.
What do you think?
1 Comment »
Posted by Scott on January 30th, 2007 — Posted in News, Teen Violence
Marilyn Henry wrote an informative article about teen violence. She says:
…for the second year the U.S. Senate has designated the week of Feb. 5 as Teen Violence Awareness and Prevention Week.
Teen violence is a significant problem often not recognized by teens, parents, teachers and others who have daily contact with adolescents. According to the American Bar Assn., about one in five female high school students report being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner, and teens have a higher risk of intimate partner abuse than adults.
Fifty-nine percent of all teens report knowing friends or peers who have been victims of dating violence.
Patterns of dating violence often start early, with victims as young as 11 or 12, and carry through into adult relationships. Violent relationships in adolescence have serious consequences for victims, many of whom will continue to be abused in their adult relationships and are at higher risk for substance abuse, eating disorders, risky sexual behaviors, serious injury and suicide.
Read entire Times Reporter article by Marilyn Henry.
I did not even know about teen Violence Awareness and Prevention Week until I read the above article. I hope the week raises awareness about this important topic. Because of their inexperience, teenagers lack the knowledge to identify, avoid, and escape abusive relationships. Additionally, the emotional scars of victimization affect teens worse than more mature adults.
What do you think?
1 Comment »
Posted by Scott on January 29th, 2007 — Posted in Domestic Abuse
Ayinde O. Chase recently wrote an article about the shocking prevalence of false allegations of domestic violence in the United States. Here’s an excerpt:
A new report released on Monday sheds some light on an alarming issue. Over one million false allegations of domestic violence are filed each year. The accusations usually stem from a family break-up and the removal of children from their parents
“A Culture of False Allegations: How VAWA Harms Families and Children” outlines how the Violence Against Women Act defines “domestic violence” in broad terms. The definition spawned over one million claims of domestic “violence” each year in which physical violence is not even alleged.
Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, says “Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply… In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage.”
This is the view that even if there had been no violence, then the fear of violence would be sufficient to deny contact with the child(ren). Such fear is usually discussed as from the father on the mother, though violence in both directions is of about equal frequency.
As a result, children often lose daily contact with one of their parents.
Sadly, the report shows how children who grow up in a single-parent home are greater risk of child abuse, academic failure, and a broad range of social pathologies.
Read entire All Headline News article by Ayinde O. Chase.
I find this news very scary, not only for the sake of the falsely accused parents, but also for the victims of domestic abuse. Now society and law enforcement have to waste resources sifting through false allegations to deal with the actual incidences of domestic violence. While psychologically-damaged and physically-hurt women suffer in abusive households, the state must waste its resources appeasing vindictive non-victims who take advantage of the legal system. Let alone the victims of false allegations who may pay undue consequences such as losing custody of or visiting rights to their kids!
What do you think?
3 Comments »
Posted by Scott on January 28th, 2007 — Posted in News
Mark Townsend recently reported about legal reforms in the United Kingdom to increase rape convictions. Here’s an excerpt:
A new statutory definition of capacity to consent to sexual intercourse will mean that, if a woman is so drunk she is incapable of consent, a man who sleeps with her may be charged with rape.
The controversial move is strongly opposed by judges, who believe it should be left to a jury to decide whether an alleged victim was in a fit state to agree to intercourse.
Further steps, including an alleged attacker’s previous sexual convictions being discussed before the jury, and hearsay evidence in which the victim told family or friends about an attack – but not police – could also be permitted. Doubling the number of sexual assault referral centres from 15 to 30 by 2008 is another of O’Brien’s proposals.
The government also believes it is necessary to develop measures for dealing with rape victims with mental-health problems, as well as fresh methods of rehabilitating convicted sex offenders to stop them reoffending.
Ministers are also currently examining whether to grant judges the power to remove the right to anonymity of women who make false rape claims. Courts may be able to lift anonymity if there is concern that the woman will fake another assault.
Read entire Observer article by Mark Townsend.
I like to hear about reforms to increase the conviction of truly guilty rapists, and I hope more countries adopt such reforms.
However, I feel weary about increasing the prosecution of so-called date-rape, by expanding the definition of rape. I especially find myself disagreeing with this when the proposed laws seem to falsely suggest that we need date-rape laws to stop men specifically. Statistically, men drink as often as women before having sex. Thus, when using objective criteria (i.e. how drunk the person is) to define alcoholic date-rape, women date-rape men as much as men date-rape women.
I would prefer to see the states resources put towards stopping forcible rape, rather than put to stopping people who simply has consensual sex with a drunk.
People, both men and women, choose whether or not to drink alcohol. If we don’t consider a drunk person’s consent to sex legally valid, then how can we hold drunk drivers responsible for choosing to drive? In the same way we hold a drunk driver responsible for choosing to drive, we can hold a drunk person responsible for choosing to have sex. If someone cannot control themselves when drinking, that person needs to use their sober self-control to choose not to drink or accept the consequences of such as decision.
What do you think?
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on January 24th, 2007 — Posted in Martial Arts, News
Ashlee Crews is 12 years old, with only 95 pounds on her 4-foot-11-inch frame. But she has just thrown a 5-foot-10-inch, 160-pound man to the floor.
She used a technique called “uke-nage,” a karate term which means to escape someone’s hold and throw that person to the ground.
David Crews, Ashlee’s 24-year-old brother, is the man she just overpowered, and he’s happy about it.
Mr. Crews has been studying Isshinryu karate under grandmaster Phil Little for several years, and now his two younger sisters also have begun studying at Phil Little’s School of Karate in Anderson.
“I think everyone regardless of age or sex should study (karate), whether it’s for a month or six months, because the world doesn’t get any safer,” Mr. Crews said, wrapping Ashlee in a bear hug.
Mr. Little, a 10th degree black belt, said the most important part of self-defense is confidence.
“Be more assertive, because the person who is going to prey upon you is looking for weakness,” he said. “Confidence portrays strength.”
If someone attacks you, try to get free and get out of the way, Mr. Little said.
If you have to fight, strike quickly and try to mark the attacker’s facial area and draw blood, so his DNA can be traced.
Read entire independentmail.com article by Samantha Harris.
I wasn’t aware of that tip to try and draw blood for DNA evidence. It’s definitely true. I think the best part of taking martial arts or other self-defense classes isn’t the fighting techniques, but rather the confidence. By learning to appear and actually be confident, assertive, and aware, students of these types of classes learn to avoid getting into dangerous situations which would require the fighting moves.
What do you think?
1 Comment »
Posted by Scott on January 17th, 2007 — Posted in News
Greg Gordon and Marisa Taylor recently released an article about the rising violent crime rates in the Untied States. Here’s an excerpt:
Chuck Wexler, who heads a think tank for police departments across the country that has monitored crime trends in cities, said the data over the last 18 months suggest that the crime surge “isn’t a statistical aberration.”
After 14 years of declines in crime, police in some communities began to report double-digit increases. That left the administration vulnerable to criticism because the crime jumps came after the White House instigated $1 billion in cuts in anti-crime funding since 2001 as it shifted its focus to the war on terrorism.
Among the casualties was a Clinton administration program to hire 100,000 police officers.
Other researchers agree that the reasons for the rise in crime are more complicated than money, and they vary from city to city. They point to factors such as increasing gun-, gang- and drug-related violence; growing juvenile crime; a deep hopelessness among poor, young black men; and an upsurge in prison releases after years of record numbers of incarcerations.
Read entire article.
Although using federal funds to reduce violent crime makes more sense than using it for oil wars or NASA, I doubt that decreased federal funding causes the rising violent crime rates. Instead, I agree with the “other researchers” that other factors cause the increase in violent crime rates, namely an upsurge in prison releases.
The United States government lets violent criminals out of prison to make room for non-violent druggies. Additionally, criminals and criminal organizations, such as mafias and gangs, make money due to the illegalization of victimless crimes such as drug use and prostitution. Instead of the local pharmacy making money from drugs, gang-members and armed thugs make the money from the multi-billion dollar industry.
We need to reduce violent crime by repealing drug prohibition.
What do you think?
No Comments »
