Thursday, October 18, 2012

Chicago Bullet Tax

Gun violence is a real problem in Chicago that local offiicials understandably want to solve. But is a bullet tax the right approach?
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle will submit a budget proposal Thursday that calls for a tax of a nickel for each bullet and $25 for each firearm sold in the nation's second-largest county, which encompasses Chicago.
Preckwinkle's office estimates the tax will generate about $1 million a year, money that would be used for various county services including medical care for gunshot victims.
It is difficult to conceive how this policy would do anything other than convince law-abiding handgun owners to purchase their ammunition online or from neighboring counties in order to avoid the tax. It certainly will not cause gun-toting street criminals to lay down their arms en masse because the game has suddenly become cost-prohibitive.

Right?


Labels: , ,

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Probation/Parole Oversight Problems Focus of Detroit Free Press Cover Story

The cover story of today's Detroit Free Press -- the first in a three-part series -- has this headline:

Lax controls leave Michigan's ex-cons free to kill

That'll get your attention, won't it?

In my view, this is a rather toothless report that amounts to a pretty decent hit job on the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). While supervision is a real, legitimate problem for probation and parole officers given their monstrous caseloads, here are some points to consider:
  • The story played shamelessly on public fear of violent crime. Hence the focus on unusually brutal crimes (Steak knife stabbings! Baseball bat beatings!) and all of the references to "innocent victims." Our hearts break for the kindly widows who are murdered, but we just can't bring ourselves to care when felons kill other felons, can we?
  • The article says that there have been 95 murders committed by felons on probation or parole since 2010. However, there is no reporting of the number of murders committed by unsupervised or first-time offenders during that time. I don't know the exact figure, but I can guarantee that it's higher than 95. Thus, there is no contextualization of the proportion of murders (or, for that matter, other violent crimes) committed by people under supervision compared to those committed by offenders in the general population. My guess is that, unless you live in a geographic area in which the violent crime rate is high and people with felony records are disproportionately concentrated, you are more likely to be killed by someone not under supervision than by a paroled felon.
  • I obviously do not know this for certain, but it feels to me like the comments made by Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper were taken out of context -- or, at the very least, positioned so as to appear critical of the Michigan Prisoner Re-entry Iniative (MPRI). I am reasonably certain that the "they" she referred meant MDOC and not MPRI in particular, but the way the quote is placed (after a negative observation about MPRI) gives her remark a connotation I suspect was not originally intended.
  • There is no doubt that there are careless/poorly trained/apathetic workers at MDOC….just as there are in every organization in the world. That said, stepping back to gain some perspective reveals that probation and parole officers today must work within the staggering demands the corrections system has placed on them, and on society. Thirty-plus years of catastrophic drug- and crime-control policy has wreaked havoc on the system: backlogged court cases, overcrowded prisons, unmanageable supervision caseloads, and persistently inadequate after-care and support resources for returning felons. Does that mean there are no incompetent employees or that an evaluation and review of MDOC procedures and standards is unnecessary? Of course not. But neither do I think that every new felony committed by an offender on probation or parole is the result of depraved indifference by individual case managers, whom this report seems troublingly eager to vilify.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Media Coverage of The Aurora Shootings


Media reports about the Aurora shooting have focused extensively on the shooter, with little focus on the victims. Increasingly, however, stories are emerging about the individuals who saved the lives of others by placing themselves between the victims and the shooter.

In the genocide literature, we call these people “rescuers”. Some social scientists have studied the factors related to rescuing behavior. They have suggested that rescuers act without thinking. While most of us need to take time to process events unfolding around us (particularly those that take us by surprise), rescuers act instinctively to save others. They may assess risk differently than most, and have greater confidence in the outcome of their actions.

Some of the statements made by survivors of the Aurora shooting reflect these findings from social research:
What strikes me most about this video is not the number of people who protected those they loved, but the person who protected a family he didn’t even know. Jarrell Brooks, aged 19, was shot in the leg while helping a stranger with her two children. He survived, as did they.

Media reports have focused so intently on the shooter, I fear we're ignoring the significant stories of heroism from that evening. Consider:

Five of the twelve people who were killed took action to protect others, and saved lives.

When Allie Young was shot in the neck, her friend Stephanie Davies protected her and provided first aid during the shooting rather than flee the scene.

A 13-year-old girl (her name has been withheld for privacy) attempted to save 6-year-old Veronica Moser-Sullivan, but was unable to help her. Veronica died of her wounds.

While we can criticize the news media for excessive coverage of the offender and little focus on the victims and heroes, this is not an unusual phenomenon.

I would hypothesize that our general knowledge about mass violence is usually focused on the offender(s) rather than the victims. Returning to the topic of genocide, most people can probably name the leaders responsible for these genocidal events:
  1. The Holocaust
  2. The Bosnian Genocide
  3. The Cambodian Genocide
However, what about notable rescuers from genocides? Can you name any of those? How about:
  1. The people who sheltered Anne Frank, her family, and several others during the Holocaust?
  2. The French teenager who pretended to lead Boy Scout campers through hikes in the Alps, but was actually sneaking Jewish children into Switzerland (again, during the Holocaust)?
  3. The man who hid Tutsis in his hotel in Rwanda?
Don’t feel badly if you don’t recall these names—most people probably can’t. The media (and our educational system, come to think of it) focuses more on the offender—on the person who committed the violence. That’s why most of us can rattle off (1) Adolph Hitler, (2) Slobodan Milosevic, and (3) Pol Pot pretty easily.

It’s a little harder to come up with the names of the rescuers. People like (1) Jan and Miep Gies (2) Marcel Marceau (yes, THAT Marcel Marceau—his father died in Auschwitz, but he and his brother helped to rescue many children), and (3) Paul Rusesabagina.

When I shared my hypothesis with Dr. Huginkiss, she suggested this video. The father of one of the Aurora victims challenges the news media to focus on the victims of the shooting:


(Unfortunately, the video was cut off at the end. He asks how many people can name anyone other than Gabby Giffords who was killed or injured in the Arizona shootings last year. I wonder, however, how many can name the shooter. I certainly can, but as a CJ professor I've read about the case extensively.)

I have intentionally not mentioned the name of the Aurora shooter in this article. In an attempt to spread knowledge about the victims of this tragedy, I encourage people to learn about the victims. They are:
  • Jonathan Blunk, 26 years old, U.S. Navy. Covered his girlfriend to protect her.
  • Alexander J (AJ) Boik, 18 years old, recent HG graduate.
  • Jesse Childress, 29 years old, U.S. Air Force. Sheilded a friend from gunfire, and saved her life.
  • Gordon Cowden, 51, attended with his two teenaged children. Shouted 'I love you!' to them as they raced from the theater.
  • Jessica Ghawi, sports journalist. She counted herself lucky to have narrowly missed a public shooting in Toronto just one month prior to Aurora.
  • John Larimer, 27 years old, U.S. Navy. Jumped over his seat to protect his girlfriend.
  • Matt McQuinn, 27 years old, shielded his girlfriend and her brother from gunfire.
  • Micayla Medek, 23 years old, college student.
  • Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 6 years old, attended with her mother.
  • Alex Sullivan, 27 years old, was celebrating his birthday and first wedding anniversary. Tweeted "Best Birthday Ever" earlier that evening.
  • Alex Teves, 24, just completed his graduate degree. He protected his girlfriend from gunfire.
  • Rebecca Wingo, 32 years old, mother of two.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Journal Rankings in Google

[Update: journal listing updated to include policing journals: 4/17/12]

Some of you may have discovered the new features introduced in Google Scholar that allow researchers to display their research and citation counts graphically, and quite professionally (see my profile here). I've been working on a post discussing the issue of citation counts, but was distracted by the announcement that Google is now publishing their own journal rankings.

These rankings are based on the H5-Index, which is defined as:
"h5-index is the h-index for articles published in the last 5 complete years. It is the largest number h such that h articles published in 2007-2011 have at least h citations each."
(A definition only a statistician could love.)

I thought it would be interesting to create a list of relevant CJ journals. To do so, I searched for any journal title that included the words "criminal", "justice", "crime", "police" or "violence", and rank ordered them below by H5-Index:

Google Ranking TITLE H5-INDEX
1 Criminal Justice and Behavior 30
2 Criminology 28
3 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26
4 Violence Against Women 25
5 British Journal of Criminology 24
6 Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 24
7 Criminology & Public Policy 22
8 Journal of Family Violence 21
9 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21
10 Crime & Delinquency 20
11 Intl J of Offender Therapy and Comp Crim 20
12 Journal of Criminal Justice 20
13 Violence and Victims 20
14 Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19
15 Justice Quarterly 18
16 Social Justice Research 18
17 Theoretical Criminology 18
18 Legal and Criminological Psychology 17
19 Psychology, Crime & Law 17
20 Criminology and Criminal Justice 16
21 European Journal of Criminology 16
22 Journal of International Criminal Justice 16
23 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 15
24 Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 14
25 Terrorism and Political Violence 14
26 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14
27 Criminal Justice Policy Review 13
28 International Journal of Transitional Justice 13
29 Police Quarterly 13
30 Policing: AIJPSM 13
31 Policing & Society 13
32 Criminal Justice Review 12
33 Journal of Experimental Criminology 12
34 Canadian J of Crim and CJ 11
35 Crime, Law and Social Change 11
36 Crime, Media, Culture 11
37 Journal of Criminal Justice Education 11
38 Youth Justice 11
39 Police Practice & Research 11
40 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 10
41 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 10
42 Journal of School Violence 10
43 Science & Justice 10
44 The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 10
45 Contemporary Justice Review 9
46 Global Crime 9
47 International Criminal Justice Review 9
48 Criminal Justice 8
49 Critical Criminology 8
50 Journal of Financial Crime 8
51 Intl J of Police Sciences & Mgt 8
52 Crime Prevention & Community Safety 7
53 Crime, Histoire & Sociétés/Crime, History & Societies 2


So, I have a few questions for my colleagues:

1. Does this reflect your personal opinions of journal prestige?

2. Would these rankings influence where you decide to send an article for publication?

3. How do recent accusations that some journals may be "gaming the system" play into this, if at all? (Have any of you ever received a request like this from a journal editor?)

Update:

I've added the official impact factor for journals that have them. It provides significantly different information about the rankings of journals than the Google method:

Google Ranking TITLE H5-INDEX Impact
Factor
2 Criminology 28 2.658
6 Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 24 2.6
14 Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19 2.378
10 Crime & Delinquency 20 1.7
9 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21 1.694
17 Theoretical Criminology 18 1.639
5 British Journal of Criminology 24 1.612
1 Criminal Justice and Behavior 30 1.59
3 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26 1.354
18 Legal and Criminological Psychology 17 1.306
4 Violence Against Women 25 1.215
15 Justice Quarterly 18 1.189
21 European Journal of Criminology 16 1.159
26 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14 1.132
12 Journal of Criminal Justice 20 1.076
11 Intl J of Offender Therapy and Comp Crim 20 1.071
16 Social Justice Research 18 1.042
8 Journal of Family Violence 21 0.949
29 Police Quarterly 13 0.93
43 Science & Justice 10 0.843
40 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 10 0.821
25 Terrorism and Political Violence 14 0.814
31 Policing & Society 13 0.714
36 Crime, Media, Culture 11 0.703
30 Policing: AIJPSM 13 0.48
20 Criminology and Criminal Justice 16 0.37
35 Crime, Law and Social Change 11 0.352

Labels:

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Assassination of U.S. Citizen Is Legal - Holder Announces

Attorney General Eric Holder recently defended the Obama Administration's viewpoint that the assassination of U.S. citizens is legal.  Numerous news outlets reports Holder defended the use of such a policy without any form of judicial oversight.  Apparently water boarding non-U.S. citizens is bad, but killed U.S. citizens without any form of judicial oversight is OK.  Interesting policy.  I am curious where the righteous indignation is about this in the media and among the left?

Labels: , ,

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Great Piece on Mass Incarceration from The New Yorker

This essay from the New Yorker on mass incarceration is a must-read. Choice quote:
The scale and brutality of our prisons are the moral scandal of American life.
As astute and succinct a summary of mass incarceration as fourteen words can be.

(via The DailyDish)

Thursday, January 26, 2012

This is Why We Have IRBs

A colleague at another university posted this story today, about a young boy used in a psychological experiment in the 1920s:


Many of us (criminologists) have taken psychology courses, so you may be aware of the story of Little Albert, who was conditioned to fear a white rat. The researcher--John Watson--associated a loud "clang" with the rat so that the child learned to fear the rat. He also learned to fear anything generally "fuzzy" or rat-like.

Now, 90 years later, new information has come to light about the plight of Little Albert. According to two researchers looking into this case, he was not the "normal" child presented by the researcher. Rather, he had a neurological condition that likely exaggerated his response to the stimulus (the rat). It is highly likely the researcher knew this.

There are also serious concerns about the mother's role in the experiment. Specifically:
But there may have been less humanitarian reasons for choosing Merritte ["Little Albert"]. The authors write about the baby’s mother, Arvilla, who was a wet nurse at the hospital. Because wet nurses were of low social status, and because she worked for the institution itself, she may have felt unable to turn down a request for her baby to be used in Watson’s experiment. “Voluntary consent, as we understand the term today, was not possible to give or to withhold,” they write. Presumably, most parents, if given a choice, would not allow their babies to participate in an experiment in which researchers terrify them. But Arvilla found herself in a bind. She was dependent on her employer both for her job and for the medical care of her sick baby.
And THIS is why we have informed consent and follow IRB regulations.


Additional Sources for Instructors:

Beck, H.P., Levinson, S. & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson's infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64, 605-614.

Fridlund, A.J., Beck, H.P., Goldie, W.D. & Irons, G. (2012). Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology (online 1/23/12).

Labels: , ,