What Causes Crime: The Strain Theory

People have always sought to discover what causes crime. Ever since the appearance of philosophy there have existed theories of what can push human beings to commit criminal acts. It was not until the appearance of sociology as a science that people have began to study crime scientifically and to design complex theories as to what may cause this behavior. Often times socio-economic status is quoted as a potential reason for crime. There are several major theories of crime but strain theory is one of the most commonly used for explaining crime with the help of a socio-economic element. There are several strain theories but the most important are Robert K. Merton’s original strain theory and Robert Agnew’s general strain theory.

Strain theory originates in Emil Durkheim’s anomie theory. In 1897 Durkheim said that as societies progressed and transition from lawlessness to enforced law, strain would appear as a result from the inadequate regulation of society (O’Connor, 1). Structural strain is caused by inadequate regulation on the society level that influences an individual to perceive his or her needs differently. Individual strain occurs when the individual searches for ways to accomplish his or her needs (Orcutt, 1).

Durkheim’s theory of anomie was the starting point for Robert K. Merton’s strain theory. Merton rejected Durkheim’s claims that strain resulted from a breakdown in societal structure, and actually theorized that present societies are stable. Instead Merton focused on the modern cultural goals in relation to the institutional means of achieving those goals. He states that the most important goal in society is to achieve wealth. In order to achieve this goal society created several institutionalized means or rules. Merton says that the problem arises when the need to achieve a goal overshadows the importance of using the institutionalized means or rules. Crime is a result of individuals being more interested in achieving the cultural goal – wealth, than in respecting the laws (Merton, 672). Merton places some of the blame on society, stating that societies place high emphasis on wealth and low emphasis on the rules by which wealth should be achieved. In his view the social class most affected by the inability to use societal norms to achieve goals is the lower class. Ever since 1938, when he first published his theory, sociologists and scholars have used Merton’s strain theory to explain crime as it relates to lower socio-economic classes and other types of minority populations.

Merton has further developed his theory to include five adaptations or types of strain. Conformity occurs when people attempt to achieve the cultural goals by using the institutionalized means. Most people are conformists according to Merton, and that is what keeps the stability of society (Merton, 673). Innovation takes place when individuals stride to achieve the higher goal, but do not respect the rules or the institutionalized means. In ritualism individuals have abandoned all hope of advancing in society and achieving the higher goal, and instead they keep what little they have by respecting the rules. Retreatism occurs when people abandon all goals and all ties to society, becoming isolated and not respecting the rules. According to Merton this is the rarest type of strain. The fifth adaptation is Rebellion and in this category individuals reject all the goals of society and the rules or means of achieving them. In this category the individuals seek to replace the goals and the norms and rules of society with their own (Merton, 674).

Merton’s strain theory works well to explain why disadvantaged classes of individuals commit crime, but however the theory cannot be applied to the general population. There have been several attempts to modify strain theory in order to generalize it and the most important of these modern strain theories is Robert Agnew’s general strain theory. Agnew argues that emotions not goals play an important part in an individual’s decision making process. He states that negative relationships with other individuals produce negative emotions such as anger, and hatred. The strain or frustration resulting from these emotions leads to crime (Agnew, 48). This theory is not a psychological attempt to define crime, rather it is an attempt to better understand strain and how the though process behind crime occurs.

Robert Agnew’s theory has modernized the general strain concept allowing scholars to apply the theory to very diverse types of crimes and socio-economic classes. In “Can general strain theory explain white-collar crime?” Lynn Langton and Nicole Piquero successfully apply the general strain theory to explain white collar crime and the motivation behind these middle class criminals (Langton et al, 1). Merton’s theory of strain was only successfully applied to minority groups such as the poor or juveniles.

Modern strain theories are very important tools to explain the mechanism that causes individuals to commit crime. Robert Merton explained crime as a result of the frustration of not being able to achieve one’s goals by using set rules. Robert Agnew modernized the theory describing crime as a result of negative emotions resulting from negative relationships with individuals. Both theories are popular in sociology and in criminal justice today and they help us better understand the crimes that occur around us, in society, every day.

References

Agnew, Robert. 1992. “Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency”. Criminology. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing. Vol 30, Pg 47-87.

Langton, Lynn, and Piquero, Nicole L. 2007. “Can general strain theory explain white-collar crime? A preliminary investigation of the relationship between strain and select white-collar offenses”. Journal of Criminal Justice.Atlanta, GA: Elsevier, Inc. Vol 35, Issue 1, Pg 1-15.

Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie”. American Sociological Review.Columbus, OH: OhioStateUniversity. Vol 3, Pg 672-682.

O’Connor, Tom. 2007. Strain Theories of Crime, MegaLinks in Criminal Justice.Fort Campbell, KY: Austin Peay StateUniversity. http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/crim/crimtheory11.htm

Orcutt, James D. 2002. The Anomie Tradition, Explaining Rates of Deviant Behavior. http://deviance.socprobs.net/Unit_3/Theory/Anomie.htm

The Mentally Insane and the Law Enforcement

During the course of my internship with a local Georgia police department I have observed in numerous times law enforcement encounters with mentally insane or demented individuals. These individuals pose a challenge for police officers and they are often a threat for the officers and their community. This is due to the fact that these individuals oftentimes do not behave rationally; they are very unpredictable and violent, thus posing a danger for themselves and the individuals around them. Society deals with the most violent of these individuals by confining them in mental institutions where they are treated for their conditions. Many violent mentally ill people end are released back in the communities or are not even committed to a mental facility. Often it is the job of police officers to deal with these individuals, but the officers are usually untrained to handle these special individuals and the result is that mentally ill individuals flood the jails and prisons of the nation, without proper treatment and care.

Mental illnesses are defined as “any disease or condition affecting the brain that influences the way a person thinks, feels, behaves and/or relates to others and to his or her surroundings. Although the symptoms of mental illness can range from mild to severe and are different depending on the type of mental illness, a person with an untreated mental illness often is unable to cope with life’s daily routines and demands”.  Mental illnesses are a whole category of mental diseases and conditions, and books such as the “Psychologists’ Desk Reference” list dozens of mental conditions known as mental illnesses (Koocher et al, 3). Ranging from stuttering and mild delusions to schizophrenia and paranoia, this broad spectrum of mental conditions represents a challenging diagnosis, even for trained psychiatrists and psychologists. Often times the diagnosis and treatment of a condition differs from one medical doctor to the next and therefore consistent guidelines are hard to enforce, even in the medical field.

Society deals with individuals suffering from mental illnesses by usually confining them and placing them under treatment for their conditions. Patients with mild symptoms undergo therapy with psychologists, while the most severe mentally ill patients are confined to mental institutions, also known as asylums, and given constant medication. One of the problems that arise with diagnosing and treating mental illness is their prevalence. The National Institute of Mental Health states that one in four adults in the U.S. suffer from a diagnosed mental disorder any given year. This means that roughly 57 million people in this country suffer from these illnesses, although only about 6 percent of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder. These staggering numbers of individuals place a great strain on the mental health system of the nation. Sometimes mental institutions run out of room to house patients and many times they end up back on the street, unsupervised, and a potential threat for the people around them. More often, however, state governments try to reduce health spending by closing mental facilities, replacing them with cheaper community health services. Linda A. Teplin, a professor of psychiatry at Northwestern University Medical School cites other reasons for which mentally ill persons are more free to roam the streets of our communities: deinstitutionalizations in the 1960’s, cutbacks in federal funding for psychiatric programs, and changes in laws that have allowed mental patients to enjoy more rights (Teplin, 9).

Once they are back on the streets it is the job of law enforcement agencies to deal with these individuals that often cause crime and violence. Because police officers and other law enforcement personnel are not trained to diagnose or handle mentally ill persons, these individuals often end up in jails, their condition misinterpreted as purposely evil when they are in fact just suffering from a disorder. Society is not very tolerant when it comes to the type of behaviors that mentally ill persons exhibit and therefore it is very likely that the peacekeepers and guardians of society, the police, will be called on to stop mentally ill individuals from interfering with the community. When encountering a person suffering from a mental disorder a police officer has several options: to resolve the matter informally with the consent of the person, to hospitalize the individual with or without his/her consent for the purpose of a mental evaluation and treatment, or to cite and/or arrest the individual for his/her behavior just like for any other sane person. The problem arises in the fact that most police officers are not trained in mental diseases and often these illnesses exhibit violent and disorderly symptoms that can be deemed to be threatening by an officer and can result to a mentally ill person being arrested (Teplin, 9). Besides the obvious problem of diagnosis, studies conducted show that police officers are inclined not to take individuals to mental hospitals. A 1980 study showed that in 72 percent of cases involving mentally ill suspects the matter was handled informally, 16 percent of suspects were arrested, and only 12 percent were transported to a hospital (Teplin, 9). According to Paula M. Ditton, in 1998 an estimated 16 percent of inmates in the jails and the prisons of the nation were mentally ill. Also an estimated 16 percent of people on probation were mentally ill (Ditton, 1).

The fact that a large number of mentally ill individuals end up in the correctional system is concerning because prisons and jails are not equipped to efficiently diagnose and treat these individuals. Many mental patients are incorrectly labeled as criminals and have to suffer years behind bars for action they probably were not fully liable for. After these individuals serve their sentences they are set back on the streets and in communities, with little or no prior treatment, which can cause a significant danger for the community. In mental institutions these patients would not be released without prior treatment, and if their condition had not improved. Once back on the street it is up to the police to, once again, handle these persons. Therefore once they are labeled as criminals, mentally ill persons become trapped in the criminal justice system.

One solution for resolving this problem is to more effectively train police officers to recognize and handle such individuals. Law enforcement agencies need to cooperate with the mental health system to ensure proper handling of mentally ill persons. The mental health system should provide effective alternatives to mental incarceration, with community services, and other such programs. More government attention is needed in this matter, and only through increased funding and study can the issue of mental illness in our communities be resolved.

References

Ditton, Paula M. 1999. Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Koocher, Gerald P., Norcross, John C. and Hill, Sam S. 2005. Psychologists’ Desk Reference.New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

MedicineNet.com. 2012. Mental Illness Basics.San Clemente, CA: WebMD, LLC. http://www.medicinenet.com/mental_illness/article.htm

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). 2008. The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America.Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml

Teplin, Linda A. 2000. “Keeping the Peace: Police Discretion and Mentally Ill Persons”. National Institute of Justice Journal.Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. 07/2000: Pg. 8-15.

Youth and Crime: Incarceration and Trends

Juveniles are a class of individuals that are privileged both legally and socially and economically. Since they are not fully developed physically and mentally, they are protected by society and guided to a morally correct way of life. Juveniles also represent a special category of criminals: there are special laws that deal with juveniles, and they even have special juvenile correctional facilities, created to deal with immature individuals. Law enforcement and correctional agencies are facing different challenges in the spectrum of youth delinquency, and I seek to analyse the scope of the task in the paragraphs below.

Young individuals, also known as juveniles, are a very privileged class of people in our society. Because they are young and not fully developed mentally and physically it is the job of parents and society (both informally and legally) to raise, educate, and defend these individuals until they become adults. The state takes it upon it the job of administering the education and protection of juveniles. As such, if the state deems that a parent is not providing the basic necessities for a child, food, shelter, access to medical and educational resources, the state will take that child into its care. That shows how important juveniles are for the government and for the well-being of a nation. Today there are approximately 70 million juveniles (age under 18) in the United States, about a fourth of the population of the country. That represents a major segment in the United States population which adds to the importance of juveniles, if merely because of their numbers.

The federal government considers juveniles to be individuals aged between 0 and 18 years of age, but each state has different laws that set the adulthood limit at different ages. In Georgia juveniles are considered to be individuals less than 17 years of age for law application purposes but they are still under the state’s protection until they reach the age of 18 (O.C.G.A., 15-11-2). Punishments and fines for juveniles are significantly lower than those for adults, because it is generally considered that they do not have the capability of having a “mens rea” or guilty mind, the knowledge that what they did was wrong. Juveniles are tried by juvenile courts, and there is an entire juvenile correctional system dedicated to the incarceration or rehabilitation of young individuals. Sometimes juveniles can be under trial as adults, when their act was a very violent, planned out one and when the prosecution can demonstrate that the defenders have the mental ability to understand that what they did was wrong. In Georgia juveniles aged 13 to 17 can be tried as adults for murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual battery and armed robbery (O.C.G.A., 15-11-28). Juveniles convicted for those offenses can serve up to life in prison, just as adults, but the number of these cases is very limited.

Because of their high numbers juveniles represent an important segment of criminal offenders in the US. To understand the extent of juvenile delinquency it is necessary to look at the numbers of juveniles arrested each year. In the year 2000 2,220,300 juvenile arrests were recorded. The highest number of offenses were thefts, while simple assaults, disorderly conducts, and drug abuse were also numerous. Violent crimes only consisted of 4 percent, or 92,300, of the juvenile arrests made in the U.S. that year. Out of all the arrests performed in the United States in 2003, 15 percent of males arrested were juveniles, while 20 percent of females arrested were under 18. Although the numbers of juveniles arrested seems high, the rates are actually declining, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) states that from 1999 to 2009 the number of juveniles arrested fell 12 percent. This is significant when compared to the adult arrest rate which actually increased 1 percent from 1999 to 2004. The number of violent crimes arrests for juveniles also decreased substantially (almost 50 percent) from 1994 to 2003, which is encouraging and is further evidence that juvenile delinquency is on the decline in the United States.

Juveniles are a very important segment of the population and they represent the future of our nation. They are the future work force, policy makers, law enforcers and they will shape the way in which the future of our nation will look like. It is therefore very important to educate these young people and to raise them to become productive members of society. Recent trends in juvenile delinquency are encouraging as they show a significant decrease in this type of crime, and it is evidence, in part, that the juvenile correctional system is functioning. The state needs to do more to ensure the reduction of juvenile delinquency and more resources need to be focused on this age group, the future of America depends on it.

References

Georgia General Assembly. 2013. O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2. Atlanta, GA: Georgia General Assembly. http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). 2013. Juvenile Population Characteristics.Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/population/overview.html

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). 2009. Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 2009.Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/239081.pdf

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/index.html

Methamphetamine: the Threat

Methamphetamine is a common drug that is very prevalent across the territory of the United States. Easily manufactured in improvised laboratories located in garages and barns all over the country, methamphetamine presents a problem not just to law enforcement but to society as a whole. Methamphetamine is easy to produce, hard to detect, and its consumption has severe negative consequences on the consumer.

Methamphetamine is a powerful stimulant drug that is manufactured wholly in a laboratory unlike other illegal drugs which may be extracted from natural sources, such as plants. This psychoactive drug appears in its most common form as a white powder that is odorless and bitter-tasting, with a crystalline appearance, hence the street name “crystal meth”. Other popular names under which this drug is known are “meth ice”, “crystal”, “glass”, and “tik”. Methamphetamine is manufactured from amphetamine, an over-the-counter medication that is used to treat common colds. Methamphetamine is a much more concentrated substance that causes the user to experience a “high”, with symptoms of increased activity and a general sense of “well-being”. The long term consequences of using this drug are addiction, psychosis, changes in brain structure, memory loss, violent behavior, and weight loss. The most significant fact is that addiction to methamphetamine can lead to severe permanent damage to the brain, specifically in areas that control motor and cognitive functions, effectively retarding an individual after heavy use. In addition to these long term effects methamphetamine also restricts blood flow in the body, inhibiting the body’s ability to repair itself, which leads “meth” addicts to have an aged appearance with wrinkles, and acne all over their body, coupled with severe teeth damage.

The horrible effects of methamphetamine addiction come into perspective as the drug use spreads across the country. To put things into perspective it is useful to look at treatment admission rates in specialized facilities. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse in 1992 there were approximately 21000 treatment admissions for methamphetamine abuse. By 2004 the number increased to approximately 150000 admissions, roughly 8 percent of all admissions. That represents an increase of over 700 percent in meth abuses in just over 12 years, which is a significant increase, and which shows that this drug’s use has risen drastically. Also in 1992 only 5 states reported high rates of treatment admissions for methamphetamine, today 21 states report high rates of admissions, which is another substantial increase. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2005 approximately 10 million adult Americans, aged 12 and up, reported that they had used methamphetamine sometime in their lifetime (SAMHSA, 1). Although it is hard to quantify current Methamphetamine usage in the U.S., several factors indicate that the drug is becoming even more prevalent. First, the street price of the drug has fallen sharply since 2007, while the purity has increased concurrently. Second, the number of drug seizures by law enforcement has increased dramatically over the last decade, reaching 8,699 kilograms of the drug in 2010. Compared to 5,578 kilograms seized in 2006, the scope of the issue quickly becomes evident.

Besides the immediate dangers to the drug user, there is a larger risk associated with methamphetamine, and that is the production of this drug which places our communities in danger. The majority of laboratories seized by law enforcement authorities are home labs, home-made factories on a small scale, usually located in homes or garages. These labs are very dangerous places, because through the production of methamphetamine, a number of deadly chemicals are released in the air that can potentially asphyxiate a person or cause an explosion. Many times the impromptu meth makers live in the same residence where they produce the drug together with their families, which places a very high risk of death and injury on them. Because these laboratories are hidden inside residences it is very difficult for Law Enforcement authorities to locate and disable these facilities. Unlike marijuana production which requires a large space, plant heaters and sophisticated equipment, meth labs use relatively easily available technology, and are often sealed from the inside to prevent any chemicals from escaping into the surrounding areas. The most successful way for Law Enforcement to combat this problem has been to control the sale of amphetamine and pseudo ephedrine, the substances that are used in the manufacturing of meth. Often times however, officers are called to meth labs when the workers or family members become severely ill or when laboratories explode (Booth et al, 854).

It is very important to understand methamphetamine to determine why it has been so successful and why it has spread so fast across the United States. It is necessary to study what makes individuals addicted to this substance to try and create programs to help them in the clinical environment. Only through careful research and examination can the government develop successful social programs to discourage the use of methamphetamine, and powerful legislation to discourage the production of the drug. Ultimately it is up to the American people to express their desire to stop this epidemic and to convince Congress and their local legislative assemblies to pass stronger legislation against it.

References

Australian Drug Foundation (ADF). 2012. Drug facts. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Drug Foundation.  http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/drug-facts/ice

Booth, Brenda M., Carlson, Robert G., Leukefeld, Carl G. and Sexton, Rocky L. 2006. “Patterns of illicit methamphetamine production (“cooking”) and associated risks in the rural South: An ethnographic exploration”. Journal of Drug Issues. Tallahassee, FL: FloridaStateUniversity. Vol. 36 Issue 4, p853-876, 24p

National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC). 2011. National Drug Threat Assessment 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs44/44849/44849p.pdf

National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2006. Research Report Series – Methamphetamine Abuse and Addiction.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/RRMetham.pdf

Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 2013. Frontline: the Meth Epidemic. Washington, D.C.: Public Broadcasting Service. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). 2006. Results from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. NSDUH Series H-30. DHHS Pub No. SMA 06-4194, Rockville, MD: DHHS.

Identity Theft: Modus Operandus, Prevalence, and Solutions

Identity theft is a common occurrence in the United States today. It is a new type of crime that has been helped by the spread of the internet and the age of technology. In the county where in intern, there are many cases of identity theft each year. I have witnessed several cases personally and I have been a victim of this type of crime, so I have personal experience with this offense. The prevalence and the ease of committing this crime means that many cases of identity theft go uninvestigated, unless they involve large amounts of stolen funds. It is very important to understand how this type of crime is committed, and how often it occurs in order to discover a way to stop it.

Identity theft can be defined as the unauthorized use or attempted use of credit cards, debit cards, bank accounts, and the misuse of personal information to obtain accounts or loans (NCJRS, 1). It usually involves the theft of personal information for the purpose of obtaining funds by theft and misinformation. Often the theft of personal information, such as social security numbers, constitutes a crime in itself, besides the theft of funds. Identity theft differs from most fraud and physical theft by the means in which it is performed. In most cases the perpetrator of identity theft never comes close to the victim, most of the work is done by computer through the internet. Sometimes perpetrators will use physical means to gain personal information about the victim such as looking through the victim’s trash, but even then rarely does the victim come into contact with the perpetrator. Most of this crime is “stranger to stranger”, where the perpetrator and the victim have no prior knowledge of the other. The National Criminal Justice Reference Service identifies several other modus operandus for gaining personal information: the theft of mail, the theft of wallets, the use of skimming devices that steal credit card numbers as they are used, the hacking of business computers and other means for getting a customer’s information, etc (NCJRS, 1). The impersonal means by which this crime is committed means that victims often do not feel emotionally and psychologically affected such as by physical crime. This in turn means that many victims do not report this type of theft because their banks and financial institutions help them recover their funds. Even though victims often get their money back, a crime has still been committed and financial institutions and businesses are still prejudiced a great amount of money each year.

The prevalence of identity theft can be discovered by looking at the amounts of money stolen each year due to this type of crime. In 2004 about 3.6 million households (representing 3 percent of all households in the nation) were victimized by identity theft as reported by the NCJRS. The Federal Trade commission stated that in 2003 10.1 million Americans were the victims of this type of crime, while in 2004, identity theft affected 9.1 million individuals according to the same agency (MSNBC, 1). The difference in number may be due to different methods of counting and to the fact that the NCJRS got their results from interviews, which is a method that is known for under reporting. Which ever the case, millions of Americans are affected by this type of crime every year. The NCJRS stated that the average amount of money stolen was $1290 per household, and while only two thirds of households reported monetary loss, that total amount is staggering: over $3 billion stolen in 2004 alone (NCJRS, 1).

The fact that this type of crime gained such a magnitude in the last years thanks to the surge in the use of the internet. Personal information, credit card numbers, account numbers and other information is exchanged every day legally on the internet. Many criminals have gained knowledge that allows them to “hack” into websites and web servers and to steal this information. More and more resources are invested into combating this problem. Major websites and servers are protected electronically with “firewalls”, programs that stop illegal intrusions. Most major police departments have units that investigate internet crimes and identity theft. Programs in the media instruct citizens to be aware of this type of problem and to protect their personal information (Federal Trade Commission, 1). As technology changes it allows criminals new ways to unlawfully gain information and money from their victims. It is up to law enforcement agencies to rise to the challenge and to create new means to combat this surging problem.

References

Federal Trade Commission. 2008. Fighting Back Against Identity Theft: Deter, Detect and Defend. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/consumers/deter-detect-defend.html

MSNBC.com. 2006. 3 Percent of US Households Suffer ID Theft. Washington, DC: National Broadcasting Company. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12121574/

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). 2007. In the Spotlight – Identity Theft. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. http://www.ncjrs.gov/spotlight/identity_theft/Summary.html

Police Chases: Controversy and Adrenaline

Every year in the United States there are thousands of high speed police pursuits that take place.  In the course of my internship I have been involved in a high speed pursuit with the department in which I work in. The pursuit which I witnessed ended well, the suspect was detained, and no one was injured. However hundreds of pursuits end up in bodily injury or fatalities every year. This topic has become a highly debated one since the writing of a number of studies that indicate that fatalities are common in high-speed pursuits. It is very important to study and understand this police procedure because many people killed in these chases are innocent bystanders. The safety of American streets is affected by police pursuits therefore it is necessary to develop alternative methods of stopping criminals in automobiles.

The NHTSA reports that about three hundred people die each year as a result of crashes related to police pursuits. Around a hundred of these are innocent people, pedestrians or drivers uninvolved in the chase. These official statistics are thought to be understated because only ninety percent of police departments report pursuits to the NHTSA, and many times the departments record crashes separate of the pursuit itself, making it practically impossible to know the correct number of pursuit-caused crashes. One thing is certain though, on average a person dies every day as a result of a police chase (FBI Bulletin, 1). These grim statistics paint the picture of a car chase: a patrol car tries to pull over a suspect for a traffic violation; the suspect attempts to flee, the police give chase, and the suspect crashes at high speed or surrenders. According to Pursuit Watch, an organization that monitors police chases, 40 percent of those pursuits end in a crash (Pursuit Watch, 1). Most crashes occur fast: fifty percent of collisions occur in the first two minutes of a pursuit, and seventy percent occur in the first six minutes (National Institute of Justice, 1).

The causes of the crashes are the high speeds involved and the recklessness of the participants in the pursuits. Many times the parties involved develop “tunnel vision”, a phenomenon where the person only sees the road in front of him and overlooks everything else. The suspects only focus on fleeing and many times the police officers only focus on catching the suspects, overlooking the safety of the public. A study shows that seventy percent of the fleeing suspects declared that they would have slowed down or stopped if the police would have stopped pursuing or backed down (FBI Bulletin, 3). Plus, only around seventy percent of the suspects chased are serious felony offenders. The rest of eighty percent are just traffic violators or misdemeanor offenders (Norse and O’Connor, 512). This raises the question of whether or not there is sufficient basis to start a dangerous high-speed pursuit, and whether or not the police officers know when to back down and put the public safety first in their field of priorities.

There are many methods of reducing police pursuits or at least in taking some of the danger out of them. Most people agree that a total banning of police pursuits would lead to an increase in crime, and in the confidence of criminals. Most police departments have policies on pursuits, and most critics argue that these policies should either be reformed or that more care should be taken in putting the policies into practice. More training is needed for patrol officers to know when to stop a pursuit, and/or back down from it. Modern technology allows the police to follow a suspect from a distance, either through a helicopter, or through patrol cars. Studies show that the suspects would then slow down and pose a lower risk to the public, while the police would be able to apprehend the suspect once he/she is in a safe location. Other devices in development would allow patrol cars to disable a fleeing vehicle safely and fast, in the first seconds of a pursuit, through an electromagnetic pulse that would incapacitate the vehicle’s electric system. Other such systems use microwave blasts or radio technology to stop a suspect’s vehicle. Another tool that is successfully in use today is the spike strip, a strip of spikes placed along the road, in the suspect’s path, that disables the tires of the car. This tool is not a hundred percent efficient though because many suspects choose to drive on their bare rims, and keep driving for hours, sometimes.

The police department where I interned is an example of an organization that discourages police pursuits. In the general regulations manual there is a section that covers this topic and that clearly outlines that pursuits cannot be initiated and continued unless the suspect that is pursued is wanted for a serious felony (murder, rape, etc.) or represents a serious danger to the life of other individuals. This organization therefore has very few pursuits every year, and the ones that are initiated are carefully monitored by supervisors in real time. This is an example of a type of policy that can be successful in reducing the number of deaths and injuries related to police pursuits.

Police chases are increasing in number every year and with thousands occurring everywhere in the nation, it is very likely that we are going to come across one of these very dangerous incidents. Many of these pursuits end in collisions that put the lives of many people at risks and that make the roadways unsafe for everybody. The risks of these events and the danger they pose could be eliminated or drastically reduced by reforming the policies of the police departments and by training officers to back down or use technology to stop the pursuits fast and safely.

References

Hill, John. 2002. “High-speed police pursuits: dangers, dynamics, and risk reduction.” The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_7_71/ai_89973554

National Institute of Justice. 1998. Pursuit Management Task Force’s Report on Police Pursuit Practices and the Role of Technology. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/fs000225.pdf

Norse, William L. Jr., and O’Connor, Patrick, T. 2006. “Police Pursuits: A Comprehensive Look at the Broad Spectrum of Police Pursuit Liability and Law“. Mercer Law Review. Macon, GA: Mercer University. 2006: pg 11- 48. Hein Online. http://heinonline.org.proxy-remote.galib.uga.edu:2048/HOL/Print?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/mercer57&id=521

Pursuit Watch. 2008. Pursuit Watch Media Kit. Orlando, FL: Pursuit Watch. http://pursuitwatch.org/media.htm

Rivara, Frederick. 2004. “Study examines crash fatalities from police pursuits.” University of Washington School of Medicine News. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. http://depts.washington.edu/mednews/vol8/no15/police.html

 

Criminal Procedural Law: Beginnings, Application, and Importance

The base of the American justice system is the constitution and the federal and state laws that govern the day to day life in this country. Criminal law contains laws that guide the prosecution of individuals for acts that have been classified as crimes. Criminal procedure on the other hand, contains laws that govern the way in which criminal law is enforced. Therefore substantive criminal law refers to the laws that prosecute people for illegal acts while criminal procedure guides those agencies that prosecute the people. In the time I spent in my internship I have observed how criminal procedure guides the actions of the law enforcement personnel in my agency. In the county where my organization does law enforcement a set of criminal procedure laws and a local agency procedure manual guides the officers to apply the law with maximum efficiency and to guarantee that the rights of individuals are not violated.

Criminal procedure has its origins in the US Constitution. The constitution contains a guarantee of equal rights for all citizens, although it does not contain any specific rights. The individual rights of citizens were added to the constitution in the first ten amendments. The amendments are based on the oppression that the first American colonists were subjected to by their British rulers. The forefathers of the American nation deemed that it is very important to create a written amendment to the constitution to guarantee that no American would be subjected to the kind of violations that the colonists had to endure. The most important of the ten amendments (also known as the Bill of Rights) in relation to criminal procedure are the fourth, fifth, sixth and eight amendments (Yates, notes). The fourth amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, and illegal arrests. The fifth one guarantees due process, indictment by grand jury, and protection from double jeopardy. The sixth amendment reserves individuals the right to an attorney at trial, the right to a speedy and public trial, to an impartial jury and to know what his/her accusations are. Finally the eight amendment protects people against unusual and cruel punishments and excessive bails or fines (Bill of Rights Website, 1).

The Bill of Rights formally applied only to the federal government at first. The fourteenth amendment, which was ratified in 1866, was the first step towards incorporating the rights guaranteed in the first ten amendments to state laws and legislatures. It extended the due process clause to the states, making sure that citizens’ rights to a fair legal proceeding were respected (NPS, 1). The further incorporation of the other amendments in state trials took place over the course of the entire 20^th century in a series of landmark trials. It is important to mention Powell v.Alabama (1932) in which the right of counsel was guaranteed by law. In Palko v.Connecticut (1937) the double jeopardy clause was introduced in state proceedings. Rochin v.California (1952) ensured the enforcement of the law against illegal searches and seizures.Duncan v.Louisiana (1968) guaranteed the right to a jury trial in serious criminal cases.

These and many other landmark cases ensured that the rights of the American citizens would be respected in the application of the law. Virtually all the major criminal justice procedures in place today are the result of major landmark cases presented before the US Supreme Court and other major state and federal courts. Arrests today have to be legal, based on probable cause and factual evidence, as defined in Dunaway v. New York(1979) (Yates, Notes). Warrants have to be based on probable cause and are only taken under oath in a criminal court of law. Searches have to be performed with search warrants and seizures can only be performed where there is evidence of illegal activities. One of the most important rights that citizens have today is the right against self-incrimination. This right was enforced in Miranda v.Arizona(1966) and it forces police officers to inform an arrested suspect about his/her Miranda rights as soon as the suspect is placed into custody. This is a very important procedural aspect because it protects individuals in the setting of an interrogation.

Individuals living in the United States today enjoy some of the most extensive rights in the world. Their freedom is protected by the criminal procedure law, which dictates how the law enforcement and the judicial personnel can enforce the law. Without these extensive protections citizens could be arrested and incarcerated at the whim of an officer. Every day many of the rights of Americans are challenged in the courts of the nation, and it is the duty of every citizen to fight for the protection of these rights. The criminal procedure law is very important because without it governments could set up tyrannical regimes such as the one early colonists confronted in the form of the British Empire.

References

Bill of Rights Website. 2008. The Amendments. http://www.billofrights.com/amendments.htm

Dunaway v.New York, 442US200 (1979).

Duncanv.Louisiana, 391US145 (1968).

Miranda v.Arizona, 384US436 (1966).

National Park Service. 1997. 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution. Washington,DC: US Department of the Interior. http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend14.htm

Palko v.Connecticut, 302US319 (1937).

Powell v.Alabama, 287US45 (1932).

Rochin v.California, 342US165 (1953).

Yates, Jeff. 2006. Notes from Criminal Procedure Class (POLS 4720).

The Importance of 911 Communication Networks

Police officers in the field rely on radio operators to dispatch them to emergency calls and to provide backup and supervision of the situation in the field. The radio operators could not do their work effectively without a telephone network that allows the citizens to report their emergencies. In the United States this telephone system is the 911 network. During my internship I was able to observe and acknowledge the importance of this system and the great influence that it has on the daily operations of law enforcement agencies and the other public safety organizations that use it. The 911 system is important because it provides a quick and reliable way for citizens to report their emergencies. The network also allows for the fast and easy transfer of these emergency calls to a dispatch center from where they can be relayed to the officers in the field.

The 911 communication network consists of locally operated communication centers. Most of these centers are operated by county governments, except in metropolitan areas where local governments can have their own 911 networks (Dispatch Monthly Magazine 2007). The 911 system allows for citizens to call a single number to report police, fire and medical emergencies to the appropriate agencies. The history of the three digits emergency number goes back to Great Britain, which adopted a 999 emergency phone number in 1937, and Canada, that followed suit in 1959 (Dispatch Monthly Magazine 2007). It wasn’t until 1968 that the 911 single number emergency system began to be adopted in the US, and the first 911 call was made in the town of Haleyville, Alabama (Federal Communications Commission 2007). Over the next decade or so the 911 emergency number was adopted all over the United States, and today an estimated five hundred thousand calls are made to 911 daily across the country (Sampson 2002).

The 911 system provides an emergency number that is easy to remember, and that can instantly connect citizens to an operator that can relay the emergency to the dispatch center. Before the three digit system was created, every public safety agency had a different seven digit phone number that citizens had to call in the case of an emergency. The existence of thousands of these agencies across the country meant that oftentimes it would take a significant amount of time for citizens to get in touch with their public safety agencies in cases of an emergency, and that meant a delayed response that could cause human lives to be lost. Today’s system allows for citizens to call a single emergency phone number – 911, after which computers identify the address of the caller through the phone company database, and connect the caller instantly to the public safety agency in their area. In the case of mobile phones, computers connect the caller to the agency which is closest to the wireless tower that picked up the phone call. When an operator answers the phone call, he or she can automatically see the address of the caller (Dispatch Monthly Magazine 2007). This means that an operator already has an address to which he/she can dispatch units immediately, even in the case where citizens are unable to speak, or clearly report their problem.

After the 911 operator makes contact with the complainant, he/she can take a quick report of the problem and send the report to a dispatcher almost instantly. In the agency where I interned the dispatch report was sent automatically to the agency that handles those kinds of emergencies. A police, fire or medical emergency radio operator gets the report, and he/she can dispatch the proper units to the scene of the emergency. This allows for a very fast reaction time from when a citizen first places a 911 call, reports the problem, and the report is passed on to the proper agency which dispatches a unit. Fast reaction times allow police, fire and ambulance units to reach the site of the call in minutes, and attend to the emergency while it is still in progress, saving lives and maintaining the safety of the public.

Emergency reporting systems have come a long way from the time when citizens had to dial the individual number of their emergency agency. Today a single national emergency phone number allows for emergencies to be reported quickly and reliably. The 911 system allows the proper emergency units to be dispatched to the site of the problem in minutes. This means that police officers, firemen, and paramedics can arrive on-scene at emergencies while there are still in progress, allowing them to effectively deal with these emergencies. Although the 911 system handles one hundred and eighty three million phone calls nationally every year (Sampson 2002), it has been a very successful network, saving lives, and maintaining the safety of American citizens for over forty years.

References

Dispatch Monthly Magazine. 2007. “911 Information.” Dispatch Monthly Magazine, RetrievedJanuary 9, 2008. http://www.911dispatch.com/911/index.html

Federal Communications Commission. 2007. “911 Consumer Information.”Washington,DC: Federal Communications Commission, RetrievedJanuary 9, 2008. http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-services/consumer.html

Sampson, Rana. 2002. Misuse and abuse of 911.Washington,DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Broken Windows Theory in the 21st Century

In the United States, law enforcement procedures and actions are taken according to scientific principles. Over the last century there were several major theories of crime that influenced law enforcement activities in the field. One of the most important of these theories is the “broken windows” theory. During the course of my internship I was able to observe police officers on the street direct their actions according to the principles of this theory. Since this is a very widely accepted theory, it is very important to define, understand and examine the effects that it has on daily law enforcement procedures.

“Broken windows” is a theory that has originated in the early eighties with an article written by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in the Atlantic Monthly magazine. In this article the authors are reviewing the law enforcement policies of the state of New Jersey from the 1970’s. During those years police departments in that state reinstated foot patrols and focused more on the communities and their fear of crime. The conclusions of authors Wilson and Kelling are that despite the fact that crime levels rose slightly in the time that they conducted their study, the fear of crime in those neighborhoods where officers had patrolled on foot had dropped. The authors concluded that the maintaining of public order in those communities was seen by citizens as an indication of crime reduction and increased safety. Wilson and Kelling use this conclusion to develop their theory, “broken windows” that states that law enforcement agents should focus on combating small community problems and on maintaining order in the streets, and that will eventually lead to less crime (Kelling and Wilson, 10). The theory focuses on the culture of different neighborhoods, and suggests that by keeping the streets clean and in order a culture of order develops in the community. Neighborhoods which are decaying and decadent lead to increased crime, according to this theory, because they create norms of social disorder and disorganization that encourage crime. The theory does not specify exact means for enforcing order and cutting down crime, allowing police agencies to adapt and shape the theory to fit their means and goals.

Ever since it was first published, the “broken windows” theory has gained considerable influence among law enforcement agencies and chiefs throughout the country. The most famous application of the theory is in the large metropolis of New York City, under police Chief William J. Bratton in the mid nineties (Bratton and Kelling, 1). Under the guidance of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Bratton imposed a series of tough policies that cracked down on street disorder and city code violations. Arrests for misdemeanors, such as failure to pay parking tickets were encouraged, and the city agencies enforced code violations harshly in an attempt to keep the neighborhoods in order (Harcourt and Ludwig, 6). Crime rates dropped significantly between 1990 and 1998 in New York City, and the Uniform Crime Reports reported an alleged 55 percent reduction in overall crime for those years. Violent crime dropped 51 percent during the same years which resulted in nationwide support for Giuliani and Bratton, and helped the “broken windows” theory gain ground in many police departments around the nation (Macallair, 1). This led to major cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles to apply some of the concepts of the theory.

Following the adoption of this theory in major city departments, scholars have begun to develop and carry out studies to better understand the effectiveness of “broken windows”. After the conclusion of these studies, many scholars have attacked the theory and claimed that it is unfounded and that it did not have a significant effect on crime. In a study conducted in 2005, Harcourt and Ludwig state that the sharp reduction of crime in New York City and other major departments in the mid nineties is a result of “mean reversion”, a natural tendency of crime to surge down after years of very high crime rates. The authors argue that the eighties were the years of the “crack epidemic”, during which drugs and street violence helped crime rates rise to astronomical highs, and that the nineties saw a severe reduction in crime rates because of a drop in drug use and trafficking in those major cities (Harcourt and Ludwig, 6). Daniel Macallair conducted a study in 2002 on New York City and San Francisco(which does not use broken windows in its law enforcement policies). By comparing these two cities Macallair concluded that San Francisco had a similar, if not more effective drop in crime rates from 1992 to 1998 than New York City, despite the fact that it had not adopted the “broken windows” principle (Macallair, 1). Violent crime rates dropped more for San Francisco than for New York City in the same years, suggesting that the Californian city’s approach to reduce arrests and cut down on incarceration times (a total opposite of “broken windows”) had been perhaps more effective than New York City’s one (Macallair, 1).

Although many modern studies disprove the effectiveness of “broken windows”, the debate is still raging in academic circles as well as in police agencies nationwide. The county agency where I intern has adopted several principles of the theory. There is a Code Enforcement unit, as well as a Quality of Life unit that both work to maintain the beauty and cleanliness of the neighborhoods of the county, combating code violation in a very strict manner. Arrests for misdemeanors, such as disorderly conduct, are encouraged and officers work hard to keep order in the communities. A Crime Prevention unit works with community leaders and neighborhood crime watches to alleviate their concerns on crime and to cut down on disorderly practices in the streets. It is unclear how successful these policies are but the police department where I intern continues to invest millions of dollars to enforce these procedures.

“Broken windows” has been at the forefront of crime reduction efforts in major US cities for the last two decades. It has made officials such as police chief Bratton famous, and allowed them to run for office in higher positions. Beyond the publicity aspect of this theory, police agencies state that reductions in crime rates have occurred following the implementation of “broken windows”. Scholars still debate the usefulness of the theory and ultimately it is up to them to conduct studies to demonstrate whether or not police departments should keep focusing on street order or whether they should move on to other means of law enforcement.

References

Bratton, William J. and Kelling, George L. 2006. There Are No Cracks in the Broken Windows.New York,NY: National Review Online. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bratton_kelling200602281015.asp

Harcourt, Bernard E. and Ludwig, Jens. 2006. Broken Windows: New Evidence from New York City and a Five-City Social Experiment.Chicago,IL:University ofChicago Law Review, Vol. 73. http://ssrn.com/abstract=743284

Kelling, George L. and Wilson, James Q. 1982. The Police and Neighborhood Safety: Broken Windows.Washington,DC: The Atlantic Monthly. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198203/broken-windows

Macallair, Daniel. 2002. Shattering “Broken Windows”: An Analysis of San Francisco’s Alternative Crime Policies. San Francisco,CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/windows/windows.html

Arrests in the United States

Criminal procedure in the US is a very well organized set of laws and procedures that guide law enforcement agencies in conducting their activities, ensuring that the rights of US citizens are not infringed. Criminal investigations are conducted according to these procedural laws. One of the most important procedures in criminal investigations is the arrest. In my experience with the agency in which I intern, I have witnessed numerous arrests and I have become aware of the importance that this procedure has in investigations and on the lives of ordinary citizens. Thousands of people are arrested and placed in police custody daily across the nation and therefore it is very important to ensure that these arrests are legal, based on factual evidence and that they respect the rights of American individuals as outlined in the Bill of Rights.

An arrest is defined by Merriam-Webster as “to take or keep in custody by authority of law”. It is the procedure by which a “person is taken into custody against his or her will for the purpose of criminal prosecution or interrogation” (Yates, Notes). An arrest is a physical and legal procedure, the arresting officer notifies the suspect that he is under arrest and then proceeds to take him into custody. On the streets officers secure the suspects after arresting them by the use of handcuffs and other such materials and then transport the suspects to a detention center or a police precinct.

There are four very important elements to every legal arrest: seizure and detention, intention to arrest, arrest authority, and the understanding by the person arrested (Watts, 1). For any arrest to take part the suspect must be located, if the law enforcement officers cannot locate a suspect than an arrest cannot be made, the warrant will remain in effect until they can find the suspect. This is the seizure and detention part of the arrest process. If the suspect cooperates with officers and is placed in custody willingly, this constitutes a constructive seizure or detention. If the arresting officer has to use physical or verbal force in the process of the seizure than that is called a physical seizure (Yates, Notes). The second element of an arrest is the intention to arrest. When an officer performs an arrest he or she should ask him/herself whether the suspect is by all means under arrest, or would a reasonable person believe that the suspect is under arrest. In other words, is the intention to arrest clear to the suspect. The third necessary element is authority to arrest, an officer needs to have the legal authority to make an arrest, and he/she must have/get an arrest warrant. If an ordinary citizen makes an arrest than the suspect can believe with reasonable rights that he is not under arrest because the person who performed the arrest is not a police officer. The fourth and final element is the understanding. A suspect must know that they are under arrest. This is usually performed by the officer informing the suspect “you are under arrest”. If a person is intoxicated or mentally challenged than it is not necessary for that person to be in full understanding that he/she is under arrest. All of these four elements must exist for an arrest to be legal.

Every year in the United States there millions of people placed under arrest. In 2004 alone 14 million Americans were arrested by law enforcement authorities (FBI, 1). It is therefore very important that arrests are legal and that they do not violate a person’s rights. The fourth amendment protects the rights of Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures, be it property or person. Often times arrests are challenged in court as being in disregard of the rights laid out in the fourth amendment. One such very important case is Dunaway v.New Yorkin which the US Supreme Court deemed that the Rochester Police illegally seized the petitioner without probable cause for an arrest, violating his fourth amendment rights to freedom from illegal seizure. The court also held that the detention of the petitioner was indistinguishable from an arrest, and that detention for interrogation purposes is an arrest (Dunaway v.New York, 214). In this the court laid out arrest procedures which were to be followed by all law enforcement agencies.

Arrests are very violating procedures, depriving an individual of his or her freedom. Therefore it is very important that an arrest is performed legally and only with factual evidence. Arrests are very important parts of the judicial process and therefore it is necessary for our courts and law enforcement agencies to guarantee their legality. This is one of the most important parts of the judicial process and guaranteeing the legitimacy of an arrest is vital for the function of our criminal justice system.

References

Dunaway v. New York, 442 US 200 (1979).

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 2006. Crime in the United States 2004, Persons Arrested.Washington,DC: US Department of Justice. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/persons_arrested/index.html

Merriam-Webster. 2008. Arrest. Merriam-Webster Online. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrest

Watts, Harrison. 2008. The Arrest.Lawton,OK:CameronUniversity. http://www.cameron.edu/~harrison/chapter4cp.ppt#1

Yates, Jeff. 2006. Notes from Criminal Procedure Class (POLS 4720).