Broken Windows Theory in the news

Criminological theory doesn't often pop up in the mainstream media, so I'll admit I had a little thrill this morning to see Drs. Wilson and Kelling's Broken Windows theory in the New York Times -- "Author of 'Broken Windows' policing defends his theory" (Sam Roberts, August 10, 2014). 

The Times coverage is actually pretty critical of the theory, now being linked to the recent choking death of a Staten Island man, Eric Garner. Case in point: "Critics denounce the theory as neoconservative pablum resulting in overpolicing and mass incarceration for relatively minor offenses...they say it was not derived from scientific evidence and its connection to the city’s drastic decline in major crime remains unproven. (Roberts, 2014). 

If you’re not familiar with Broken Windows theory, the basic idea is to have the police pay attention to little signs of disorder, like broken windows, litter, and graffiti. Minor quality-of-life offenses. Catch them while they’re small problems. If not, it’s like hanging out a sign to criminals that says ‘Hey! Come on in! You can get away with anything here and none of the residents or police will fuss.’

Some years ago, I drove through the upscale Summit NJ with, unbenowst to me, a broken tail light. While I was stopped at a stop light, a woman in a Mercedes pulled up next to me to inform me that my tail light was broken and I should get it fixed. I think of that as Broken Windows in action. Make a fuss about little ugly things – in this case, my car – before they become big, ugly and illegal things.

It’s one thing when residents point out things like litter, crumbled curbs, abandonned cars, and broken tail lights. When the police engage in it though, the downside is that they face being accused of disproportionately targeting the poor and people of color.

In response to the article’s point that Broken Windows’ impact on crime has been unproven, I went looking in the CJ literature to see what evaluations of the theory had been done, and what they found. I offer a few highlights below:

·        Yang (2012) found that physical and social disorder, and violence, are related in certain neighborhoods. But the relationship is described as “imperfect.” Some areas with disorder don’t experience violence.

·        Golub, Johnson, Taylor & Eterno (2003) – Based on interviews with 539 arrestees, the authors note that offenders are aware of heighened police presence through quality-of-life policing. Those offenders who committed disorder-type offenses cut back on doing so because of greater police presence.

·        Sampson & Raudenbush (1999) found that with the exception of robbery, there was no real relationship between crime and public disorder.

There are also a host of scholarly articles critical of the theory, for reasons touched on in the Times article. So the view of and evidence about Broken Windows and quality-of-life policing are mixed. (This isn't so different with other crime theories.) I don't think anyone could say that Broken Windows has been discredited, though. 

When Broken Windows went into effect in New York City in the 1990s, William Bratton was police commissioner under then-Mayor Rudy Guiliani. Now he’s police commissioner again, this time under far less hard-nosed Mayor Bill de Blasio. Whether Bratton will change his tune about quality-of-life policing will be revealed. As he recently stated, “We [the police] are not a racist organization – not at all.” (Hayes, 2014) So perhaps...

References:

Golub, A., Johnson, B.D., Taylor, A. & Eterno, J. (2003). Quality-of-life policing: Do offenders get the message? Policing, 26(4), 690-707.

Hayes, T. (2014). NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton: 'We are not a racist organization.' Huffington Post, August 9th. Viewable at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/09/bill-de-blasio-choke-hold_n_5664453.html. 

Roberts, S. (2014). Author of 'Broken Windows' defends his theory. New York Times, August 10th. Viewable at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/nyregion/author-of-broken-windows-policing-defends-his-theory.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0. 

Sampson, R.J. & Raudenbush, S.W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603-51.

Yang, S.M. (2012). “Assessing the spatial–temporal relationship between

disorder and violence.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 139-163.

Handling Sexual Assault on Campus: Let the Police Handle It

The problem of rape on campus is not new, but it's receiving lots of attention lately thanks to renewed focus on Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972. (See here.)  This provision of the federal law —  "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal Assistance" — puts the spotlight on how colleges and universities investigate claims of rape by their students. 

Because of the stipulations of Title IX, students are given the option of either reporting the rape to the police or university officials. To quote an article in the New York Times, “The great majority... choose their school, because of the expectation of anonymity and the belief that administrators will offer the sort of support that the police will not.” (Bogdanich, 2014).

New York Times coverage of one rape incident, and the university's handling of it, is here. Particularly cringe-worthy is the description of the university committee assembled to talk with the victim in a hearing of sorts: “The chairwoman, Sandra E. Bissell, vice president of human resources, was joined by Brien Ashdown, an assistant professor of psychology, and Lucille Smart, director of the campus bookstore, who the school said had expressed an interest in serving.” (Bogdanich, 2014)

The campus bookstore director? Seriously??

Would this be the same procedure if it were a robbery or murder? A campus committee of university staff, maybe a student rep, and a professor trying to get tenure would meet — but only from October through June — to pose a bunch of intrusive questions to victims. Since they wouldn't meet in a police station or courtroom, then where? A classroom? Department conference room? Maybe one that doubles as the copy room so various people can wander in and out during the 'hearing'? For those students unfortunate enough to be assaulted in late spring, the committee might not convene again until the following fall, since most faculty don't do service work over the summer. The worst penalty the accused attacker might face, if found guilty, might be dismissal from school. Not a felony conviction and all the subsequent consequences that brings with it, such as registering with local police as a sex offender.... Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous?

Not that the police always do everything perfectly, but rape investigations have come a long way over the years. Rape is a crime unlike other offenses in that it often comes down to he-said, she-said. (Or: she-said, he-said; or he-said, he-said. Not all victims are female, nor perpetrators male.) Yes, there's other evidence, but it can present problems. The presence of male fluids is evidence that sex occurred, not necessarily rape. Something like video evidence would be good, if it existed. That's not always the case. Rape victims may also delay reporting the assault, for a variety of reasons (e.g., being severely traumatized, fear of retaliation if they know the attacker). 

Historically, police and prosecutors treated rape complainants from the beginning as if they might be lying or stretching the truth. This was unlike the response for other crimes – robbery or burglary, for instance. A robbery victim could expect to file a complaint and be taken at face value, assumed to be telling the truth. By contrast, a rape victim would be assumed to not be telling the truth. Types of responses – from the police and the accused – were that it was a simple misunderstanding; that sex happened, but it was consensual; that it never happened and she made it up altogether. In the case of husbands raping wives, well… that can’t happen. Men are entitled to their wives bodies. (Wrong. Marital rape was first outlawed in South Dakota in the mid-1970s, and is now against the law in all states. Yes, ALL states.)

The result? Victims ended up feeling revictimized by the system that’s supposed to help and protect them, supposed to get them justice, supposed to get the rapist off the street before he attacks anyone else.

Things have improved over the years, largely because of the rise of the Victims Rights movement beginning in the 1970s. Rape has (mostly) come to be viewed for what it is – a crime of violence where the victim was stripped of their right to consent. It’s not passion gone awry. It causes injury and post-traumatic stress for the victim. Trouble sleeping, nightmares, suicidal thoughts, deep depression, terror at the thought of leaving the house – those are the after-effects of being raped, NOT having consensual sex.

Not that false accusations don’t happen. They do. But that shouldn’t be the default assumption when a victim reports being raped. The default response should be to believe them.

I teach a Crime Victims course at both the undergraduate and graduate level, and devote one to two classes to covering sexual assault. Even after all these years, it’s still the material that makes me the most nervous. Why? Because I assume that at least one or two (or more) students in the class have been sexually assaulted. Indeed, I’ve heard some very sad ‘confessions’ post-lecture (including about being gang-raped as a teenager).

I’ve also heard some rather dumb comments. As one student – who it seemed always liked to try and say something controversial – began, ‘So, if a man comes home after work and wants to have… you know, relations with his wife, but she’s too tired, can he—‘. At that point, I cut him off with the simple explanation that marital rape is against the law, like any other type of rape. Period. For the record, I’ve also been asked this question by a female student, although more generically. (‘What about between a husband and wife?’)

Getting back to my original point, while the police may not always do everything perfectly, they certainly have more training in handling rape victims than, say, the manager of a college bookstore so that the victim doesn’t end up feeling revictimized. Colleges should do what colleges do best: provide education. And they should let the police do what they do: investigate crime.

References:

Bogdanich, W. (2014). "Reporting rape, and wishing she hadn't." New York Times, July 12. Downloadable from  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/us/how-one-college-handled-a-sexual-assault-complaint.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article.

Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972. Downloadable from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm

Gun Owners don't hate President Obama

When President Obama was elected and then re-elected, gun owners were likely among those who voted for him.

No, not kidding.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) makes no attempt to conceal its dislike of President Obama. The NRA and its members are strong advocates of gun ownership and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (i.e., the right to bear and legally use firearms, such as for self-defense). The President likely initially incurred gun owners’ ire with his 2008 comment about how rural voters “cling to guns or religion” (Gabriel 2012). The botched 2010 gun walking operation – also known as Fast & Furious – directed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) didn’t help either (Jonsson 2011). The NRA continues to make fanatic statements about the President such as those found in its "Defeat Obama Fact Sheet". The “Fact Sheet” heading includes a sinister-looking photo of the President frowning. These facts include, “Obama will launch a regulatory war to shut down hunting and shooting” (fact #9) and “Obama will try to give the United Nations authority over your firearms” (fact #4). This anti-President Obama push is not limited to the Internet. At home I’ve been on the receiving end of membership drive phone calls from the NRA. The caller’s tone of voice had a marked urgency, essentially communicating the message, ‘Join now or all is lost! Your freedom will be taken from you!’ Yikes. To invoke famed comedian George Carlin, "Spooky language!" 

So what with all the vitriol and calls to action floating around, wouldn’t gun owners have wanted to steer clear of the President’s name on the ballot come Election Day? Not necessarily.

Study Methodology and Sample

In March-April of 2012, seven months before the President's re-election, 605 U.S. residents – participants registered with the Utica, NY-based StudyResponse Project – were randomly sampled to take part in an online survey about social media and the Second Amendment debate. Some of the findings from that survey – specifically voting behavior – are discussed in this blog post. Respondents were asked about whom they voted for in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, and who they were planning to vote for in the upcoming 2012 election. Granted, at the time the survey was administered the Republican nominee was not yet determined. (Rick Santorum and Ron Paul were still in the running.) However, some evidence on the lifetime stability of political ideology (Sears & Funk 1999) suggests that individuals that have decided who they will vote for are unlikely to change their minds.

            The 605 participants were spread out over a variety of states, including both strict- and not-strict gun law states.i These included Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The mean age was nearly 42 years old, with respondents ranging in age from 21 to 85 years old.

The sample was split between 52 percent males and 48 percent females. Eighty percent of respondents indicated that they were Caucasian. Additionally, six percent were African American, five percent were Hispanic, nine percent were Native American, and five percent were Asian/Pacific Islander. The race/ethnicity categories are not mutually exclusive. For instance, small percentages of respondents indicated that they were both Caucasian and African American, or both Caucasian and Hispanic. In terms of education, nine percent of respondents had only a high school education; 25 percent had some college or an associates degree; 40 percent were college graduates; and 25 percent had post-graduate study including having obtained a terminal degree (4.7%). Respondents listed a variety of occupations.

Gun Ownership and Voting

            More than half of the sample (56%) either currently owned a gun, had owned one in the past, or lived with a partner or spouse who owned a firearm but did not personally own a gun. Just under 42 percent of respondents said they did not presently own a firearm nor would they ever own one. Nearly 17 percent of respondents were currently or previously active in a pro-Second Amendment capacity such as being a member of the NRA or a local hunting or sportsmen’s club.

Table 1: Gun Ownership and Presidential Election Votingii

	Current or past firearm ownership, or live in a gun-owning household?
	No	Yes
Who voted for in 2008 Presidential election
-Obama	72.7% (n=133)	72.9% (n=167)
-McCain	27.3% (n=50)	27.1% (n=62)
Who will vote for in 2012 Presidential election
-Obama	39.1% (n=99)	37.5% (n=128)
-Romney or other earlier Republican	14.6% (n=37)	12.6% (n=43)
-Not sure	46.2% (n=117)	49.9% (n=170)

Table 1 above examines gun ownership/residing in a gun-owning household, by 2008 and intended 2012 voting. In 2008, nearly 73 percent of ‘pro’ gun individuals voted for President Obama rather than Republican candidate John McCain. The result was not significantly different from the voting preferences of non-‘pro’ gun individuals, 73 percent of whom also voted for Obama. As for the then-upcoming election, nearly 38 percent of current/past firearm owners (and those who cohabitate with gun owners) indicated that they would vote for President Obama in the 2012 election. This percentage is not far off from those who did not/would not own a firearm, who also indicated that they would vote for Obama (39%). This suggests that voting preference is not primarily driven by one’s personal connection to firearms.

Table 2: Stability of ‘Pro’-Gun Respondents’ Voting, 2008 to 2012iii

	Who voted for in 2008
	Obama	McCain
Who will vote for in 2012
- Obama	68.3% (n=114)	4.8% (n=3)
-Not Obama	31.7% (n=53)	95.2% (n=59)

Chi square: 72.79, df=1, p=.00

As seen above in Table 2, 68 percent of ‘pro’-gun respondents who voted for President Obama in 2008 planned to vote for him again in 2012; and 95 percent of ‘pro’-gun individuals who voted for Senator McCain in 2008 indicated that they would not vote for President Obama in the 2012 election. In other words, respondents’ voting preferences remained stable, and more than two-thirds of ‘pro’-gun individuals liked and continue to like President Obama.

Why should gun owners approve of President Obama? As suggested by some of their open-ended comments describing the President’s position on the Second Amendment, ‘pro’-gun respondents offered a variety of remarks, a number of which were positive or neutral in tone: “a good president”; “a great president”; “fair and partial”; “clever”; “fairly neutral… he has other far more pressing priorities”; “he agrees with the right to bear arms”; “he believes people have the right to bear arms, but that there should be tighter controls on the process of buying firearms”; “flexible”; “friendly”; “he supports it”; and “he is in favor of gun ownership, but with some restrictions.” As one respondent wrote, it’s “hard to say in an election year. He has generally ignored gun legislation during his first term; if/when he enters a second term and has nothing to lose he might be more open to gun control bills. He’s certainly the least anti-gun Democratic president in recent memory.”

‘Pro’-gun respondents also wrote a number of anti-Obama comments with regards to his Second Amendment stance: “against but pretending to be weakly for”; “he is anti-Second Amendment”; “he’s against it”; “he doesn’t want regular citizens to own guns”; and “he gives it lip service to maintain some votes in pro-gun states but he would abolish the amendment if he could.”

Conclusion

            So what’s the bottom line? Data from this study show that gun owners appear to favor President Obama as much as non-gun owners do. The NRA was perhaps wasting its effort by trying to scare members into voting for Mitt Romney. As one respondent (and gun owner) wrote, there are more important things to worry about.

References

Defeat obama fact sheet: Ten things every gun owner must know about barack obama. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.gunbanobama.com/media/9506581/pvf_204_obamafactsheet_insert.pdf.  

Gabriel, T.  (2012). Obama and Romney Do Not Change Course Over Outcry on Gun Violence. New York Times, July 23^rd. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/politics/obama-and-romney-dont-heed-new-call-for-gun-laws.html?_r=0.

Jonsson, P. (2011). How Mexican killers got US guns from 'Fast and Furious' operation. The Christian Science Monitor, July 26^th.  Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0726/How-Mexican-killers-got-US-guns-from-Fast-and-Furious-operation

Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1999). Evidence of the long term persistence of adults' political predispositions. The Journal of Politics, 61(1), 1-28.

i Initially, the sampling plan was for one hundred (100) participants each to be randomly sampled by StudyResponse from three (3) stricter gun-law states (i.e., New York, New Jersey, and California); and from three (3) non-strict gun-law states (i.e., Florida, Colorado, and Virginia), for a total sample size of approximately 600 individuals. Target states to sample were selected by the Investigator based on ratings from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which scores states on various factors like gun dealer regulations, limits on bulk purchases, crime gun ID, reporting of lost or stolen guns, universal background checks, permit required to purchase, assault weapon bans, closed gun show loopholes, and large capacity magazine restrictions. Higher scores = stricter state gun laws. New Jersey scores a 72 out of 100, NY a 62 out of 100, and California an 80 out of 100. By comparison, Virginia scores a 16 out of 100, Colorado scores a 15, and Florida scores a 5.

ii Notes about Table 1: The total sample size for the 2008 data is n=412 respondents.  The 2008 data were filtered for those individuals who voted for either Obama or McCain in 2008. Non-voters in 2008 were excluded (n=173), as were 12 individuals who voted for a candidate other than Obama or McCain. Also, 11 individuals who did not answer the survey question about their current or past gun ownership were filtered out.  The total sample size for the 2012 data is 594. The 11 individuals who did not answer the survey question about their current or past firearm ownership were excluded from the analyses of the 2012 data. The chi square statistics for both years were non-statistically significant, indicating no difference in voting behavior by gun ownership status.

iii Notes about Table 2: The sample size for this analysis is n=229. The data were filtered for individuals with current or past gun ownership, or who live in a gun-owning household; as well as or those individuals who voted for either Obama or McCain in 2008.  Non-voters in 2008 were excluded (n=173), as were 12 individuals who voted for a candidate other than Obama or McCain in 2008.

Children in the Justice System

Two recent NY Times stories highlight the problem of kids committing crime, ending up behind bars, and their treatment thereafter. One is about a 12 year old boy stabbing a 9 year old boy, on a playground. The other is about the report on Riker's Island jail's culture of violence, particularly against children. (The link to the U.S. attorney's report about the Riker's climate can be found here.)

A few issues come to mind. First off, as my police officer students have reminded me more than once, corrections officers receive less training that police officers. Perhaps better training could prevent pervasive, problematic climates of violence like the one happening at Rikers. Not that police don't get in trouble, but how often do we hear about police "too frequently" punching adolescents in the head and face such that serious injuries result? (What the Hell is wrong with the Rikers' guards??)

In this country, our mindset on juvenile justice has shifted back and forth over time. Are juveniles really that different from adults? Do we need separate juvenile and adult court systems? Yes. No, wait... no. Wait... yes. That said, we still generally -- obviously not always - believe that juveniles should be handled with a bit more care than adults; that they're more malleable and likely to be rehabilitated. This is why diversionary programs or simply bringing an arrested juvenile home to face the wrath of his parents are sometimes viewed as preferable to formally processing a youth through the police and court systems, particularly for first-time offenders.

Years ago I served as a volunteer for a New Jersey county court, on a diversionary program called the Juvenile Conference Committee (JCCs). (I've also written about JCCs.) These exist around the country, but are less well-known than teen courts/youth courts/peer courts, which involve youth offenders being judged by other youth. The JCC I served on met once a month, hearing four or five cases of first-time juvenile offenders who had committed a non-violent offense. I'd heard that some JCC volunteers are lawyers, but it's not a requirement. One volunteer had seen his own daughter go through the JCC process when she was younger, and was so impressed by how she was handled, it made him want to serve on the JCC. And unlike teen courts, JCC volunteers are adults. We'd recommend a 'sentence', which they youth could accept or reject. If the sentence was rejected, then s/he had to go to court and formally enter the criminal process. If the sentence was accepted and later fulfilled, the original charges would be dropped. The harshest sentence we could recommend was 30 hours of community service, I believe.

From what I recall, we heard a number of cases pertaining to shoplifting, possessing marijuana, and bomb threats. One of these included a young man who threatened to make a bomb out of pencils to blow up his school, because he was upset that his father wouldn't give him gas money. We 'sentenced' him to make a budget to cover all his expenses, should he move out of his parents' house that day - gas, rent, food, entertainment, etc. Another young woman stole inexpensive merchandise from a local drug store because she was upset that her widow father had a new girlfriend. One young man who had been mercilessly picked on for months in the school cafeteria by a pint-size bully - with no intervening from lunch staff - finally had enough of that, and whacked his tormentor with a lunch tray. Finally standing up for oneself against a bully - good. Being arrested for simple (or aggravated) assault - bad.

Most of the kids we saw struck me as typical teens who did a stupid thing, often because they were upset in the moment of law-breaking and didn't consider the consequences. That's part of what makes youth different from adults - less long-range thinking. Most adults (hopefully) don't act on bad impulses because they quickly run through the pros and cons of doing so in their head. Most people have probably fantasized about running down the a-hole that cuts them off while driving. (Or maybe it's just me.) Road rage. As mad as I get while driving, at most it lasts 10 minutes. Intentionally committing vehicular homicide - not worth it.

Getting back to my JCC experience - only a few of the many young people we saw struck me as outright manipulative or sociopathic. One in particular stands out - a young man who got arrested for stealing some type of acid from the school's chemistry lab. When I asked him what it was for, he very calmly told me, "Just because." His calmness creeped me out. What does one need acid for? Bomb making? Torturing small animals? But cases like that were not the norm during my time on the JCC. Which is why, one evening when showing up to the courthouse for JCC duty, I was struck by what one of the court police said to me: "Oh, you're here to see the spawn of Satan." Really? Shoplifters? Pot smokers? Satan's children? Dude, where's your compassion?

That's my main point - when children enter the justice system, it's important to handle them with care. They shouldn't come out worse off than when they entered the system. A correctional officer in an English prison I visited last year said it best with regards to inmates: "It's not our job to punish them. That's what the court does. It's our job to care for them."

Gun Control and Gun Rights: The Intolerance Issue

Recently, I taught a class on gun control and showed my students two Youtube video clips: one a tribute to the Columbine High School shooting and the other from the History Channel's show Top Shot.  In the latter, contestants compete for the title of Top Shot shoot various targets using a variety of firearms (handguns, rifles). Once a target is hit, it often causes a loud, fiery explosion along with clapping and cheering from the other contestants watching nearby. Don't take my word for it - watch for yourself.

This is an undergraduate criminal justice class, half the students in which are male. Men love explosions (don't they?). I figured the clip would be a hit. I was trying to show and contrast multiple sides of the issue. Guns as instruments of violent and death. Guns as sport. Is it possible to have legal gun ownership in the country (since the 2nd Amendment isn't likely to get overturned anytime soon) AND reduce intentional assault injury? Or will having guns available, even legally, inherently keep the door open to criminals stealing them?

One student vehemently reacted to the Top Shot video, launching into a mini-rant against the evils of guns. I don't recall all of it word-for-word, but one statement was to the effect of 'No one ever, ever needs an automatic weapon. Period.'

I inquired as to whether there really was nothing he appreciated about the Top Shot video. Was the skill of the marksmen not impressive? The explosions not cool, not even a little? Answer: nope.

The student's reaction reminds me of the gun control/gun rights debate in general. Each camp hears the other, but no one really listens. This is part of why nothing changes.

D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

A Federal District Court Judge has ruled that Washington, D.C.'s ban on carrying open and concealed firearms. The case is Palmer v. District of Columbia, D.C. and Cathy Lanier. Predictably, gun rights advocates are happy, and gun control supporters unhappy. If appealed, the case may eventually go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Criminal justice empirical evidence on whether law abiding citizens (i.e., potential victims) carrying weapons increases, decreases, or has no effect on violent street crime like robbery is mixed. Some (e.g., McDowall, Loftin & Wiersema, 1995; La Valle & Glover, 2012) find that RTC -- right to carry -- increases violent crime including homicide, while others (e.g., Kleck & Gertz, 1995) find that citizens carrying guns deters would-be attackers. The evidence that laws allowing citizens to carry guns will create huge reductions in street crime is weak. (For an excellent review of U.S. gun policies & evidence on effectiveness, read Cook & Ludwig's [2003] book chapter, "Pragmatic gun policy.")

The worry to gun control supporters is, of course, the domino effect: if the precedent is set in D.C., will other municipalities and states follow? In truth, day-to-day life in D.C. probably won't feel much different. Some research shows that in states that allow concealed carry, only small percentages of adults actually apply for permits. Plus some are already carrying, despite not having applied for a permit. 

Gun control and gun rights is a game of inches. Sometimes Team Control is ahead, and other times Team Rights is ahead. Nothing much really changes. 

Sources: 

Cook, P.J. & Ludwig, J. (2003). Pragmatic gun policy. In J. Ludwig & P.J. Cook (Eds.), Evaluating gun policy: Effects on crime & violence (pp.1-37). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press

Kleck, G. & Gertz, M. (1995) Armed resistance to crime: The prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 86(1), 150-187

La Valle, J.M. & Glover, T.C. (2012). Revisiting licensed handgun carrying: Personal protection or interpersonal liability? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 580-601.

McDowall, D., Loftin, C. & Wiersema, B. (1995). Easing concealed firearms laws: Effects on homicide in three states. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 86(1), 193-206

Five Thoughts on NJ’s Proposed Bail Reform Measures

Five Thoughts on NJ’s Proposed Bail Reform Measures

This posting is in response to Matt Friedman's July 21st article on proposed bail reform in the Star Ledger, "Changes to NJ bail system not a done deal, Sweeney says". (Original article is viewable here.) 

Proposed NJ constitutional amendment SCR113, along with the accompanying S946, will potentially alter bail procedures for New Jersey criminal cases. Should these amendments pass, judges would be able to deny bail to some accused individuals determined to be unlikely to show up to court, regardless of bail amount set.  S946 would allow for non-monetary alternatives to bail, which could include assigning the accused to the custody of another who agrees to supervise him or her; as well as requiring that the accused – if unemployed – look for work. (See here: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/S1000/946_S1.PDF.) As reported by the Star Ledger on June 20^th (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/leader_of_legendary_civil_rights_group_fears_nj_bail_reform_measure_is_conspiracy_against_the_poor.html), the civil rights group Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) has expressed concern about S946 in particular, indicating it could disproportionately and negatively affect African Americans and poor individuals. 

I offer the following five thoughts on the proposals and Matt Friedman's article:

(1)  The SCLC’s fears about disparities in treatment by race and (not) having money are justified. African Americans are overrepresented in nearly all criminal justice data – arrest, victimization (including homicide), and incarceration.

(2)  It’s not just a concern for Blacks – Hispanics should be mindful as well. Some research has shown that compared to Whites and Blacks, Hispanics have higher bail amounts set, and may be more likely to be denied bail. (See, for example, Turner & Johnson, 2005; and Demuth, 2003.)

(3)  One word: Overcrowding.

(4)  People are innocent until proven guilty. Being denied bail and sitting in jail until a trial, or until accepting a plea bargain and the resulting sentence, means serving time before being convicted. Imagine the indignity of being locked up when in fact you hadn’t done anything, were falsely accused, or misidentified by a witness. This happens. Individuals’ right to due process must be carefully weighed against potential danger to victims or the community at large.

(5) The poor may fare worse.  The Pretrial Services Unit to be established should be mindful of not discriminating against defendants who cannot afford a private lawyer when conducting their assessments.