Blog #5 - The Citizen

The topic of controlling crime cannot be fully discussed without the topic of the “everyday” citizen being delved into. Guns, death penalty, and funding are all well and good when it comes to controlling crime, but all these “good” actions begin with the people. The support or refusal of the people determines what proposals, programs, etc. get put into action. We, the people, have already noticed and complained about the crime problem. Yet, it seems we are relying on the politicians to fix the crime problem for us. Obviously, relying on politicians has not helped our crime problem.  Thus, it is my belief that we as a people begin to take a real interest in our surroundings and economy. We cannot rely on other people to clean-up our streets if we ourselves do not care enough to help in our own neighborhoods. The rest of this post is devoted to techniques that all of us can put into practice to help control the crime in our neighborhoods.

Let us begin with the individual. The most basic premise that I want to stress to everyone is that, no one else is going to do your work for you. If you want to make changes, start with yourself. Take one step at a time. Whether you live in in a multi-million dollar neighborhood or in the ghetto, a person should know how to protect themself. One of the basic ways to protect yourself is to know a few simple defense moves. Anyone, anywhere can be attacked; so it is better to be prepared than to become a statistic. You can take self-defense, kick-boxing, or other types of “protective” classes at a local community center. I even know of an apartment complex that offers free kick-boxing lessons on the grounds. Also, sometimes dojos offer one day classes on self-defense. If you take the time to look around you will be surprised at how many inexpensive ways there are for you to learn how to defend yourself. I am not saying that you need to get multiple black belts (though I am sure that would help) and spend money that you do not necessarily have. But, with a few simple defense moves you can delay your attacker long enough to run away and get help. Remember, you as a person are more important than a reputation as a “kick-ass fighter” or than your pride. There is no shame in running away from a bad situation. With a quick search on www.youtube.com, which is free to the public, I found a multitude of self-defense videos. While not all of them are good, there are a few legitimate videos out there that can give anyone a couple pointers. I have embedded what I believe to be one of those legitimate videos.

         

           The next aspect to talk about is house and property. We cannot prevent all burglaries from happening, but we can extremely impede them. Burglaries can happen to anyone and anywhere. It is common knowledge in the law enforcement community that most crime is opportunistic in nature. Thus, if we lower the ease and number of opportunities of crimes presented to criminals, it stands to reason that we can lower certain types of crimes, specifically burglaries of our homes. From my own personal experiences, what my parents taught me growing up, and internet research (please click on my sources at the bottom of this post to learn more), the following is a list of ways to help impede burglaries. The list is longer than want is listed here, and the effects of the suggestions will vary depending where you live.

·         Make sure you have strong locks on all doors and windows

·         Do not leave windows or doors unlocked/opened when you leave for vacation

·         Put a piece of wood in the tracks of your doors and windows so that they cannot be forced opened

·         Keep your grass cut and your property up-kept so that it shows everyone that you care and are watchful of your property

·         Keep your hedges low so you can see your yard and prevent people from hiding

·         When you go on vacation, get someone to cut your grass, pick-up newspapers and mail, and watch the house for you so that your house does not look empty

·         Set-up automatic timers on lights and radio so that your house looks lived in at night

·         Install automatic lights around your house, which makes it harder for someone to sneak up during the night

·         Do not hide house keys in “obvious” places, think about leaving a key with a trusted neighbor

·         Do not leave valuables where they can be seen, such as in front of a window or in the car where a criminal could easily break in and grab your valuables

·         Do not put your home address on your luggage tags (put your work address) as this tells criminals which house is empty

·         Have an alarm system installed in your house. You should not rely on the alarm system, but they can be a big help.

·         If you are a home owner, take gun safety classes, and feel comfortable protecting yourself, your family, and possessions with a gun

·         Have a place in the house where you can go to quickly arm yourself.

The last aspect that I would like to touch on is the neighborhood. After you have equipped yourself, and fortified your house and property, it is time to get to know your neighbors and begin to work together. Granted, not all neighborhoods will work together, as some people in your neighborhood may need to be avoided, but if at all possible you should work with your neighbors to create a safer environment with and for everyone. The more people there are committed to watching out for others, presumably, there will be less crime. Additionally, your neighborhood can join a Neighborhood Watch, www.i-neighbors.org, which links the neighborhood together. With a Neighborhood Watch, everyone can be kept up-to-date on neighborhood crime meetings, ideas to protect the home, etc. Among the many, a Neighborhood Watch is just one more idea to keep everyone safer

            In conclusion, there are many ways to help create a safer environment for ourselves. Think about the possibilities and outcomes if most of the neighborhoods in the United States decided to implement just a few of the above ideas. It could prove to be extremely beneficial in the fight against crimes. I stress again, nobody is going to fix our neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, economy, society, or country for us. We need to get up and take life by the horns and show our leaders we are serious about bettering our country at every level. WE CAN DO IT!

Accessed: April 28, 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2gYVG8_sxY

Accessed: April 28, 2011.

http://www.selfdefensepsa.com/10_ways_to_crime-proof_your_home.pdf

Updated: September 5, 2009. Accessed: April 28, 2011.

http://www.duhaime.org/CrimeandSafety/LawArticle-52/Crime-Proofing-Your-Home.aspx

Accessed: April 28, 2011.

http://www.i-neighbors.org/index.php?gclid=CK-_0qTuv6gCFRFOgwodN2MFrw

Blog #4 - Guns

As the title of this blog, states, this post is about guns. As many of the other topics on this blog, guns are a topic that is usually controversial. The 2^nd Amendment and gun control seem to spark heated debate unless spoken among sympathizers of the same position. My personal opinion, which will undoubtedly come out in my writing, is that I consider the 2^nd Amendment – a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed – a right for every law-abiding citizen. I also believe in some forms of gun control. It is a common sentiment that you can be pro 2^nd Amendment and pro gun control, but I beg to differ. The following paragraphs will present a few facts, but mostly arguments for and against guns.

            The New York Times wrote, “The Supreme Court in 2008 embraced the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense…On June 28, 2010, the court ruled in another 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit ‘the right to keep and bear arms.’ Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right ‘applies equally to the federal government and the states.’” At this point in time, it seems that our nation is more “pro 2^nd Amendment” than “pro gun control.” The National Rifle Association – Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) states that as of 2009, the number of privately owned guns rises about 4.5 million a year.

Even with the Court’s decisions and other legislation that has been passed, there are many arguments against guns. Some of the more common arguments are that guns kill people, many children are killed by accidentally getting ahold of their parent’s gun, and that guns are dangerous. First, guns do not kill people. Yes, the bullet that ends a person’s life may be shot out of a gun, but guns do not shoot to kill – a person must aim the gun and pull the trigger. Second, any person can pick up a gun and accidentally shoot themselves. It is more tragic that a child does it, but a person is a person. The fact that a child has access to a gun should lead to a pointing of the finger at the adult who left that gun out in the open than a pointing of a finger to an inanimate object. The NRA-ILA states, “The firearm accident death rate is at an all-time annual low, 0.2 per 100,000 [people], down 94% since the all-time high in 1904. Since 1930, the annual number of such deaths has decreased 80%, to an all-time low, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 90% since 1975. Today, the odds are more than a million to one, against a child in the U.S. dying in a firearm accident.” Thirdly, any object that can kill is “dangerous.” If a person takes the time to learn how to handle a gun safely and develops a respect for the power a gun contains, that gun becomes a tool to protect oneself and not an object to fear.

            Another idea we should keep in mind, is that as good of an intention gun control laws may have, there is a huge flaw in their rationale – laws are for law-abiding citizens, not criminals. A country could pass every gun control law possible and completely restrict its citizens, but the criminals will not obey the laws. As criminals, by definition, they do not care about laws passed to stop the usage of certain guns. The following video may offend some people, but I ask that everyone watch it with an open mind. (Please keep in mind that this video is a parody – I am no responsible for any other videos this author posts or their personal views)

            Even though I am pro 2^nd Amendment, I am still in support of certain aspects of gun control laws. I am in favor of the background check citizens need to go through before they can be eligible to own a personal firearm. I am in favor of registering firearms, so in the case that they are stolen we can identify the gun when it is found. However, I do not believe registering your firearm should be mandatory or government regulated/controlled. If an owner would like to register their gun to monitor their own property, they would be free to do so. Ideas I would like to see implemented are the following: a gun safety class should be mandatory before a person is eligible to purchase a firearm, this gun safety class should also have to be renewed at least once a year, a class on teaching someone to shoot should also be mandatory, this shooting class should also be renewed at least once a year, and starting at an early age gun safety should be taught to young children. There are many nuances with gun control laws that need to be examined, so that safety and a citizen’s rights can go hand-in-hand without one or their other being put on the back burner.

Guns are an important variable when it comes to the topic of the control of crime. Police officers, federal officers, and other government agencies use guns in defense of United States citizens. Criminals also use guns against other criminals and to intimidate the citizens they are taking advantage of. The media gives powerful presentations of gun. Watching the news or listening to the radio spreads the news of a gun-related death, mugging, assault, etc. which tends to paint a negative view of guns. Films show action and violence with guns all around, whether the bad guy is about to kill the good guy with a gun or the good guy wrestles the gun away at the last minute and is able to kill the bad guy.  It seems that whoever has the gun is the victor, and while that may not always be true, it is an important idea. This idea leads me to my ending statement; the statement that I want my audience to remember, even if they do not remember anything else of what I have written here. Just like if the good guy has the gun or the bad guy has the gun - guns do not make the decision to the pull the trigger, people do.

Published: March 6, 2011. Accessed: April 14, 2011.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

Published: January 14, 2011. Accessed: April 14, 2011.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/gun_control/index.html

Accessed: April 14, 2011.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=120

Blog #3 - Death Penalty

The topic of crime control cannot be fully discussed without the subject of the death penalty as a means of punishment being explored. Punishment for crimes committed is seen as one form of controlling crime; and the death penalty is the ultimate punishment a government can enforce. The death penalty “debate” does not really fit the definition of a “debate” anymore, considering how heated people get over the topic. However, this is natural considering that the death penalty is just that, death as punishment for a violent crime. The remainder of this blog will discuss a few arguments in favor of the death penalty, against the death penalty, and a possible middle ground concerning the death penalty.

There are many arguments “against” the death penalty. A few of which are the following: the possibility that innocent people is put to death, the increased cost for everyone involved in the process when the death penalty is in effect, and the possibility that the death penalty is racially discriminate. First, let us discuss the possibility that an innocent person could be wrongly killed by the death penalty. This remains a major issue wherever the death penalty is in effect. Our criminal justice system is run by humans, and as humans we make mistakes. It should be noted that these mistakes are not relegated to people sentenced to death row, but in every aspect of punishment. People sitting in jails and prisons have been found to be sentenced and serving time for a crime they did not commit. With the inability to undo death, the media focuses on the innocent people who were sentenced to death row. If a person is wrongfully convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, they can be released and exonerated because they are still alive. As of March 17, 2011, 267 people have been exonerated by the Innocent Project. According to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ there are nine people that have been killed, but there is strong evidence that they were innocent. Second, it costs more money to allow the death penalty as a punishment option. Once a person is sentenced to death row, their case is automatically appealed and if they do not have the money to pay for a lawyer, the costs of the appeals fall on the government which inherently falls on the taxpayers. Financial statistics from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ relay the fact that research done in 2005 shows that California spends $114 million dollars more per year above the cost that would keep inmates in prison for life. Research done in 2000 shows that Florida was paying $51 million dollars more per year above the cost that would keep inmates in prison for life. As of 2011, it is reasonable to assume that, in the United States, these costs have increased, just as the cost of living has increased. Finally, the death penalty is used to discriminate against people with a skin color other than “white.” http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ reported statistics, that were updated March 10, 2011, that shows the race of the victim and the race of the people on death row, tallied since 1976. The race of the people on death row, in percentages since 1976 are as follows: 56.06% White, 34.93% Black, 7.15% Latino, and 1.85% Other. The race of the victims, in percentages since 1976 are as follows: 77.86% White, 14.51% Black, 5.41% Latino, and 2.22%. The same report additionally notes the race of the victim who was executed in a biracial murder. For a White defendant and a Black victim, 15 of the White defendants were killed. For a Black defendant and a White victim, 249 Black defendants were killed. In, February of 1990, a quote from the United States General Accounting Office, on death penalty sentencing, states "In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks." People against the death penalty site these statistics, and many more like it, to prove their point that the death penalty is not used equally as a punishment against “whites” and people with different skin colors.

In contradiction, there are also many arguments “for” the death penalty. Some of the most common arguments are as follows: the death penalty serves as a deterrent to would-be violent criminals and/or murderers, the death penalty permanently rids our society of violent criminals and follows the concept of “eye for an eye,” and the death penalty costs taxpayers less than paying for a criminal’s life in prison.

First, there is the idea that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to would-be violent criminals and/or murderers. At first glance, this statement would seem plausible. It seems rational that if a violent criminal and/or murderer were scared of being put to death, they would not commit that crime or murder. However, there are really no reliable statistics recognizing the death penalty as being a deterrent. With that said, the lack of statistics on this particular aspect of the death penalty are direct results of the lack of funds and time, and/or the notion that no deterrent affect has yet to be seen.

Second, the death penalty permanently rids our society of violent criminals and is a form of an “eye for an eye.” This is an intellectual argument. If a person is executed, they will not be murdering or hurting anyone else ever again. It is a common human thought/emotion/instinct to believe that if someone murders someone else, they should suffer the same penalty. Obviously, not everyone believes this or thinks this way, however, from the beginning of time, an “eye for an eye” has been identified as the ruling form of justice. Our justice system of today has toned down this form of action as there are trials, evidence, lawyers, judges, juries, etc. Yet, the end result is the same, the person executed will no longer cause harm.

Finally, the death penalty costs taxpayers less than paying for a criminal’s life in prison. The above statistics would seem to prove this statement wrong, but statistics can be seen from different viewpoints. All the costs of appeals, lawyers, time, etc. invested to reverse a capital sentence is what makes the money add up. People “for” the death penalty believe that if the execution of a person sentenced to death row actually took place soon after the conviction, the costs to the state and thus to the taxpayers would decrease. The average cost of an inmate, per year of incarceration is roughly $47,000. If a person was to spend part of their lifetime, say on average 30 years, the total spent on that prisoner comes to $1,410,000. While these numbers are staggering, it is without question that additional research is needed to determine how much money is actually spent on death row inmates.

The middle ground is that our country keeps the death penalty but take the time to reform it. Maybe more steps need to be established to keep unethical people from getting an innocent person convicted by way of double-checking everyone else. Maybe the cost of housing an inmate should be reduced, so that the people feel an inmate is being punished with more than just imprisonment. Maybe money spent should be watched more carefully, because with the amount that is being spent there is sure to be waste somewhere that can be cut down on. For proving whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent, there cannot be a true cause and effect unless more of the variables are controlled.

There are many issues that need to be discussed and fixed if the death penalty is to stay as a punishment in our society. Everyone seems to have their own opinion about the death penalty. However, everyone’s main concern should be that our course of action be just and that actions be able to stand up scrutiny.

Published: March 17, 2011. Accessed: March 17, 2011.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Published: Updated Constantly. Accessed: March 17, 2011.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/home

Accessed March 17, 2011.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

Blog #2 - Funding

One of the biggest issues that the United States faces today, and one that affects every single aspect of our society, is the budget. The budget deficit is forecasted to keep rising, at least for the next year. The deficit for 2011 should reach just below $1.5 trillion. The Washington Post quotes CBO (Congressional Budget Office) director Douglas Elmendorf saying, “Without ‘significant’ changes in spending patterns, tax policy or both…the nation will probably have to borrow an additional $12 trillion through 2021, pushing the total debt held by outside investors to nearly 100 percent of the economy and leaving the country deeper in debt than at any time since 1946.” These numbers are staggering, and we, the people, are the ones that are paying into the endless tax hole. It seems that both the Republicans and Democrats seem to argue more about what should be done than how to actually deal with the deficit. There are deficit-reducing plans out there that have been suggested but the people have not heard about them because one of the two parties struck it down before it could be discussed. Not to be completely negative, there is a ray of hope in the form of a committee that includes Republicans and Democrats working together to try and stop the spending that is putting the United States into a deeper deficit. Another ray of hope, according to the Washington Post, is a balanced-budget amendment being purposed by Republican Senators Orrin G. Hatch and John Cornyn that would “cap federal spending at 20 percent of the economy, significantly lower than the current 25 percent of gross domestic product. It would also prohibit tax increases unless approved by two-thirds of lawmakers in both the House and Senate.” The deadline for the proposal of United States’ spending plan is March 4th, so the people will see what our representatives come up with.

            The above discussion lays the foundation for how funding affects crime control, specifically in regards to law enforcement agencies. The basic line of thought being that without funding, local law enforcement agencies cannot pay all of their officers nor hire new people, and if the agency knows they cannot pay their officers they will let them go. When officers are let go, there are fewer officers to guard our communities, cities, counties, states, and our country. If there are fewer officers to guard the people, more criminals will take advantage of the lapse in authority and be able to get away with more crimes. Thus, the more crimes that take place, the more victims there are. As Senator Bob Casey said, "You do the math, in any particular community. Loosing one officer, or 2 or 3, or 5 can have a devastating impact on the ability of the community to keep order and protect the people from criminals on the street." This lack of funding applies to the federal law enforcement agencies as well, only their influence has more impact on the national and global front. If federal agents are laid off, the overall affect is that more “destructive forces” have a bigger window in which to adversely affect the people of the United States of America. It must not be forgotten that if these officers and agents are laid-off, they no longer have a job with which to support themselves and their families.

            In addition to cutting personnel, a lack of funding affects the equipment that law enforcement agencies use. The agencies cannot get new patrol cars, more effective protection gear for the officers, or invest in programs that help deter youth from committing crimes. It is hard to believe, even with how wonderful it sounds, that the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has funding for the “Safeguarding our Future: Building a Nationwide Network for First Responders.” This is committee is working on making a “…national broadband network dedicated to public safety….” said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV. As good as this initiative sounds, again, where is the funding coming from? Again, bringing this back to how funding affects crime control. With fewer officers on the street, there are fewer authority figures between citizens and criminals. It may look and feel like a hopeless situation, but there is always something that can be done. Maybe it is in the form of writing to our representatives in Congress, asking them to look elsewhere when they cutting funding, and while at it looking for a way to make less funding more effective for law enforcement agencies. Maybe it is in the form of getting people to volunteer for neighborhood watches and help the police officers wherever they can. Or maybe it is in the form of fortifying your house and learning how to protect yourself. Our country still has to go on, so funding will still go on, but changes do need to be made.

            Funding should not just mean that there is money to give to a certain cause/policy/agency, but that there is real money to give. Even if we cut spending to a “reasonable” amount, it just means that the government will be increasing the deficit at a lower rate. Yes, there is a huge budget deficit. Yes, we need to cut our unnecessary spending, and sometimes even lessen necessary funding. No, we cannot fix this problem overnight. It will take a period of time over which our government is diligent with the money we have given them. We, the people, need to hold our government accountable for the money they spend.

Published Feb. 10, 2011. Accessed Feb. 23, 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us/politics/11congress.html?scp=7&sq=budget%20cuts%20for%20law%20enforcement&st=cse

Published Jan. 27, 2011. Accessed Feb. 23, 2011.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/26/AR2011012602971.html?sid=ST2011012603161

Published Feb. 15, 2011. Accessed Feb. 23, 2011.

http://www.wicu12.com/news/index.vnss?newsid=11444&type=News

Published Feb. 17, 2001. Accessed Feb. 23, 2011.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/tv-officer-and-crime-legislation-architect-join-forces/?scp=4&sq=law%20enforcement%20funding&st=cse

Blog #1 - The Problem

Crime is a worldwide problem. It is a drain on resources. It is an injustice against its victims. It is…a problem that needs to be understood and fixed. There are many complaints that come to mind when the topic of “crime” is discussed: crime hurts people, too many inmates in our jails and prisons, the programs are not working, taxpayers’ money is being wasted, and there is just too much crime in our society.

Crime affects everyone: the victims, the criminals, the state/country, and the taxpayers. Victims are left with a troubling memory and possibly physical side effects, depending on the type of crime that was committed against them. For the most part the victims are able to move on with their lives after a substantial amount of time has passed. Other times the crime has serious implications, such as death, a sexually transmitted disease, a child, a physical or mental handicapped, etc. Crime needs to be controlled so that we can protect people from becoming victims. Criminals can be affected both positively and negatively by crime. They can be affected positively if they get away with the crime and its spoils. Or, they can be affected negatively when they are caught and receive punishment for the crime they committed. The state/country is affected because they need to provide facilities where the criminals can do their time, or complete any other punishment meted out. Finally, the taxpayers are affected because they monetarily pay for the implications of crime – they pay for services that relate to the victims, they pay for the incarceration/punishments for the criminals, and they pay the state to pay for and build everything that is needed for the victims and criminals.

On a more positive note, since taxpayers are paying, there are services available to help every type of victim. This money can also help inmates and released prisoners turn their lives around, if they are willing to put in the hard work.

There are too many inmates. There is such a high number of inmates that there is not enough space for them in the current facilities, thus the overcrowding. In 2005, there were 2.2 million inmates in the United States alone. With this many people/criminals incarcerated, shouldn’t the crime rate have gone down? Incarceration is taking petty and violent offenders off the streets, but it seems incarceration is not fixing the problem but pushing it off to be dealt with in the years to come. In a 1994 study of recidivism, the US Department of Justice found that within three years, 67.5% of the prisoners released recidivated. Recidivism, according to this study, is defined as rearrests, reconvictions, resentencing to prison, and being returned to prison with or without a new sentence. Incarceration is a temporary fix that serves a few purposes, such as making the victim feel safer, but released prisoners recidivating does more harm than incarcerating them helped.

However, it should be noted that the government is continually trying to reduce the recidivism rates, even if those efforts are not always successful. The Department of Justice states that on Jan. 5, 2011, the Inaugural Cabinet-Level Reentry Council, which is made up of members from numerous federal agencies, gathered to discuss reentry. It is said that, “The council will address short-term and long-term goals through enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration across federal agencies. The mission of the council is threefold: to make communities safer by reducing recidivism and victimization; to assist those returning from prison and jail in becoming productive, tax paying citizens; and to save taxpayer dollars by lowering the direct and collateral costs of incarceration.” This council has quite a task ahead of them, and their success would change many aspects of our criminal justice system. The Second Chance Act, established on April 9, 2008 is a huge step towards bettering our society and lessening crime. This Act’s purpose is to “improve outcomes for people returning to communities from prisons and jails. This first-of-its-kind legislation authorizes federal grants to government agencies and nonprofit organizations to provide employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, housing, family programming, mentoring, victims support, and other services that can help reduce recidivism.” The National Reentry Resource Center, established by the Second Chance Act, is also helping released prisoners. On the Center’s website, their goal is to provide “education, training, and technical assistance to states, tribes, territories, local government, service providers, nonprofit organizations, and corrections agencies working on prisoner reentry.”

Yet, the crime prevention programs and the crime control programs do not seem to be working. The taxpayers are paying for services that they cannot see helping our society. The taxpayers are not against paying for programs, but are against paying for programs that do not help. Programs have been tried in the past, but most seem to end in failure. According to Isabel Sawhill, “Since 1990, there have been 10 instances in which an entire federal social program has been evaluated…nine of these evaluations found weak or no positive effects…what the evaluations make clear is that much of what the deferral government funds through theses large funding stream programs is not working as intended.” Some of the evaluated programs were following: Job Corps (job training for disadvantaged youth), Upward Bound (academic preparation for at-risk high school students), and 21^st Century Community Learning Centers (after-school programs for disadvantaged youth).

The taxpayers’ complaints about their tax money not being effective seem to have reached the government’s ears. New federally funded programs will have a new way of managing funds and results. A New York Times article stated that this new “idea goes by one of two names: pay for success bonds or social impact bonds. Either way, nonprofit groups like foundations pay the initial money for a new program and also oversee it, with government approval. The government will reimburse them several years later, possibly with a bonus – but only if agreed-upon benchmarks show that the program is working. If it falls short, taxpayers owe nothing.” If this new way of managing programs works, our society will be better off because programs that work will be found and the taxpayers will not have to pay for the trial-and-error stage.

At this point, the problem of crime and trying to control it has been discussed briefly, but what should be done? From here on out, the discussion will center on different topics that relate to how our society tries to control crime. The pros and cons of these different topics will be broached and evidence will be given that supports both sides. Hopefully what the readers of this blog will come away with is a new way at looking at controlling crime. And, possibly, one of you will find a method that allows our society to control crime.

As should have been noted, the terms “crime” and “control” are used in relation to each other quite often. In this blog, when and if these words find themselves in the order of “crime control,” what is meant is the literal sense: the controlling of crime. This phrase is NOT to be confused with the Crime Control Model. This model is a theory that “places emphasis on reducing the crime in society through increased police and prosecutorial powers…[and] prioritizes the power of the government to protect society, with less emphasis on individual liberties.” A differentiation needs to be made as both sides of the issue, more individual liberties vs. more government control, will be discussed.

Sources:

Published Dec. 2006. Accessed Feb. 9, 2011 http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_newfigures.pdf

Published May 1, 2010. Accessed Feb. 9, 2011

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0501_youth_programs_sawhill.aspx

Published June 1, 2002. Accessed Feb. 9, 2011

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Accessed Feb. 10, 2011.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry/

Published Jan. 5, 2011. Accessed Feb. 10, 2011.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/January/11-ag-010.html

Accessed Feb. 10, 2011.

http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/about/second-chance-act

Accessed Feb. 10, 2011.

http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/

Published Feb. 8, 2011. Accessed Feb. 10, 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/business/economy/09leonhardt.html?_r=3&sq=crime*rate&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1297324946-nombo+1qfoAum9WKNNnS3w

Accessed Feb. 8, 2011.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/crime-control-model/