What Types of Research Should NIJ Fund?

Today I received this call for input from the ACJS Executive Director:

ACJS Needs Your Input

ACJS has been invited to meet with Kristina Rose, Acting Director of the National Institute of Justice, for the purpose of sharing our thoughts on the greatest research needs from the perspective of our membership and what matters to us regarding the NIJ role. To that end, we need your assistance. Janice Joseph, ACJS President, and I will represent ACJS at this meeting. We solicit your input as we prepare for this meeting.

As you are aware, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ’s mission is to provide objective, independent, evidence-based knowledge and tools to meet the challenges of crime and justice, particularly at the state and local levels.

Please reply to this message and share your thoughts by entering your responses to the questions below...

Please provide your response to any or all of the following questions by noon EST, Thursday, October 29, 2009:

1. What priorities should NIJ pursue?
2. From your perspective, what is/are the greatest research need/s in the field of criminal justice/criminology?
3. Please indicate what, if any, changes you would recommend regarding NIJ funding?
4. What are the most important innovations that could be made in funding for research?
5. What do you want us to be sure to discuss with the NIJ Acting Director that wasn’t covered in any of the previous questions?

Thoughts from my fellow bloggers or our readers? What types of research would you tell NIJ to fund? From where you sit, what are the key crime and justice research needs? I'll share my thoughts in the comments, but I'm curious to hear from others, too.

Big News About Federal Medical Marijuana Policy

Although 14 states have passed laws legalizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, marijuana is classified by the federal government as a Schedule I narcotic, and thus remains illegal at the federal level. However, today the Obama administration announced that federal officials will not target medical marijuana users who comply with their states' laws:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes...

A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law...

And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.

This is a smart, long overdue move, and hopefully is the first tiny, baby step on the path toward reclassifying (or declassifiying) marijuana, which has no business being a Schedule I drug.

P.S. I would like acknowledgment for resisting the urge to begin this post with the following taunt: "Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"

GBOC Lightning Round: Friday Morning Edition

Kick off your Friday morning with another GBOC lightning round. As always, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!

Item 1: "What is the Age of Responsibility?"
Wednesday's Talk of the Nation posed that very complex question to journalist Alan Greenblatt of Governing Magazine and Temple University professor Laurence Steinberg. The conversation came in response to Greenblatt's recent article describing the "mixed messages" young people receive from state and local laws that dictate different minimum ages for different behaviors (e.g., consenting to sex, drinking alcohol, voting, etc.). Of interest to criminologists, the experts discussed both the minimum legal drinking age and the processing of juvenile offenders as adults. In addition, Steinberg -- who appeared on NPR last year to criticize the adultification of youthful offenders -- explained how chronological age restrictions bear little correlation with developmental science regarding the maturation of adolescent brains; however, as meaningful tests for maturity are impossible to develop, chronological age is the only viable proxy for maturity we've got. Finally, the conversation touched on some of the issues we discussed here with respect to LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders. If you've got a few minutes, it's definitely worth a listen (or read).

Item 2: The High Cost of Capital Punishment
Speaking of LWOP sentences, last week the Death Penalty Information Center altered us to a recent NYT editorial encouraging states to abolish the death penalty based on economic considerations:

To the many excellent reasons to abolish the death penalty — it’s immoral, does not deter murder and affects minorities disproportionately — we can add one more. It’s an economic drain on governments with already badly depleted budgets...

According to the [DPIC], keeping inmates on death row in Florida costs taxpayers $51 million a year more than holding them for life without parole. North Carolina has put 43 people to death since 1976 at $2.16 million per execution. The eventual cost to taxpayers in Maryland for pursuing capital cases between 1978 and 1999 is estimated to be $186 million for five executions...

A Republican state senator in Kansas, Carolyn McGinn, pointed out that her state, which restored the death penalty in 1994, had not executed anybody in more than 40 years. In February, she introduced a bill to replace capital punishment with life without parole. The bill gained considerable attention but stalled. Similar arguments were made, unsuccessfully, in states such as New Hampshire and Maryland. Colorado considered a bill to end capital punishment and spend the money saved on solving cold cases. But this year, only New Mexico went all the way, abolishing executions in March.

I don't have much commentary about this, other than to add that financial considerations provide lawmakers who oppose capital punishment a more palatable platform for public opposition than, say, moral appeals. Thoughts from others?

Item 3: Say it Ain't So, Joe!
Bad news yesterday for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (he of the pink clothing policies for DUI offenders and, more importantly, the bobblehead on Velma's desk):

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff's department have had an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security since 2007 that allows his department to enforce federal immigration laws. But Arpaio says the federal agency is moving to revise the agreement to limit that power to checking the immigration status of inmates already in his Phoenix jail...

Now he faces a Justice Department investigation into allegations of civil rights abuses, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona is suing the sheriff over immigration raids conducted by his department. The class-action lawsuit alleges that Arpaio has abused the power delegated to him under his agreement with Homeland Security, known as the 287(g) program.

Hmmm. Perhaps "America's Toughest Sheriff" is about to become a little less tough? Interesting to see how this develops.

Item 4: President Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize!
And he's only the third sitting president to do so.

(I'm sure Scooby, in particular, is thrilled.)

WOW! John Laub is Obama's Pick for NIJ Director!

This is exciting news indeed! Here's the University of Maryland press release:

On Friday, October 2, 2009, President Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate John H. Laub to the position of director of the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

John Laub is the Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is also an Affiliate Faculty Member in the Department of Sociology at the University and a Visiting Scholar in the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard. He has served as the President and as a fellow of the American Society of Criminology, which awarded him the Edwin H. Sutherland Award. He was also named a Distinguished Scholar-Teacher at the University of Maryland for the 2006-2007 academic year. Dr. Laub was the Editor of the Journal of Quantitative Criminology for five years and currently serves as an Associate Editor of Criminology. From 2002 to 2008, Dr. Laub was a member of the Committee on Law and Justice of the National Academies of Science. He has published two award winning books and many research articles in the areas of crime and the life course, juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice, criminal victimization, and the history of criminology. He received his B.A. degree from the University of Illinois, Chicago, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in criminal justice from the State University of New York at Albany.

When nominating Dr. Laub and nine others to their respective positions, President Obama said, "These men and women bring with them a wealth of experience and talent, and I am grateful for their willingness to commit themselves to public service. I look forward to working with them in these important roles in the coming months and years."

Laub will be joined by former John Jay faculty member Ellen Scrivner, whom Obama recently selected as Deputy Director.

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? Discuss!

Back in Black

The U.S. Supreme Court opens a new term today, and of course there is a new face in the line-up as Justice Sonia Sotomayor begins her tenure after replacing retired justice David Souter.

There will be several cases of interest to criminologists before the Court this session:

The court is also taking on the issue of gun rights again. Last year, the court declared for the first time that the constitutional right to bear arms is an individual right that puts some limits on federal laws and regulations. Specifically, the court struck down a total ban on handguns in the District of Columbia.

This term, in a case involving a Chicago gun ban, the court examines whether the same limits apply to state and local laws.

In the criminal law field, two cases from Florida test whether it is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a minor to life in prison without parole for crimes that do not involve a death.

One case involves a 13-year-old sentenced to life in prison without parole for sexual battery. The other case involves a 17-year-old sentenced to life after violating his probation for an earlier armed robbery.

As for white-collar criminal law, the court will examine the federal law that allows business executives to be prosecuted for depriving shareholders of their honest services — and similarly allows prosecutors to bring charges against public officials for depriving citizens of their honest serves.

At least one justice, Antonin Scalia, has suggested that the expansive phrase "honest services" invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors, because it's so broad that no citizen can know what conduct is illegal.

Have a thought about the criminal law (or other) cases before the SCOTUS this term? Let us know in the comments!

P.S. Like the post title? Here's a little AC/DC to kick off your Monday!

Bringing New Meaning to "Doing Shots"

"Guns Allowed in Arizona Bars Starting Wednesday"

[Arizona bartender Randy] Shields [is worried] about a new Arizona law that goes into effect Wednesday that will allow guns into Arizona bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

Under the law, backed by the National Rifle Association, the 138,350 people with concealed-weapons permits in Arizona will be allowed to bring their guns into bars and restaurants that haven't posted signs banning them.

Those carrying the weapons aren't allowed to drink alcohol.

The new law has Shields and other bar owners and workers wondering: What's going to happen when guns are allowed in an atmosphere filled with booze and people with impaired judgment?

P.S. Thanks to Kristy for the heads-up!

Answer: Yes

Question: Does life without parole for minors who didn't kill constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

There. I've just saved the U.S. Supreme Court the trouble of deliberating about whether the practice -- which is singularly American, by the way -- of sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole (LWOP) for non-lethal crimes violates the 8th amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

At the risk of sounding flippant, it is genuinely inconceivable to me that this is even a debatable issue, let alone one that must be heard by the Supreme Court. What is more, not only will the constitutionality of juvenile LWOP sentences be debated by the High Court, this issue is already being heralded as an important test for newly-appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

[Juvenile LWOP is] an American phenomenon, one the Supreme Court is set to reconsider in the fall term that opens Oct. 5. At issue is whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to imprison a minor until he or she dies when the crime does not involve murder....

The question will be an early test of whether Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a former prosecutor, will align herself with the court's tough-on-crime conservatives or join with its liberals to strike down prison policies perceived as going too far.

It is difficult for me to articulate how angry that last passage -- and its logical implications -- makes me. I often talk in my classes about how politically poisonous the "soft-on-crime" label is, and about the extent to which it is disproportionately applied to liberal and/or Democratic politicians, though I rarely have a concrete example of such alignment. Yet here we have the LA Times coming right out and equating conservatism with "tough-on-crime" measures and inferring that liberalism encompasses the opposite perspective (read: "soft-on-crime"). What infuriates me most about that false dichotomy is that we know based on sound empirical evidence that "tough-on-crime" measures (e.g., juvenile transfer, mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes, et al.) often are woefully ineffective (not to mention expensive and, in some cases, actually increase recidivism risk). But liberal (or any other) opposition to these policies is not labeled "sensible-about-crime," but instead gets hit with that deadly "soft-on-crime" label, so that what should be a serious debate about very serious policies devolves into a "good guys/bad guys" battle over who is actually for, you know, safer streets. (Hint: it's not the candy-ass, pinko lefties.)

Just when I thought my anger had reached its crescendo, I kept reading:

Florida leads the nation in sending teenagers to prison for life with no possible parole for crimes such as burglary, assault or rape. It has at least 77 such inmates. California and six other states also have at least one.

"This is a hidden group. They don't get a lot of attention because there was no homicide," said Paolo Annino, a law professor at Florida State University who has compiled national data on these prisoners....

In defense of its life-in-prison policy, Florida's lawyers have pointed to several deadly attacks on European visitors carried out by young criminals.

These violent incidents were "threatening the state's bedrock tourism industry," Florida's lawyers said in the opening paragraph of their brief to the Supreme Court in the Graham case.

That's right. Screw kids' constitutional rights -- we want our tourism dollars.

P.S. I want to be clear about one thing: I don't mean that the LA Times writer personally is equating conservatism with the "tough-on-crime" stance, but rather is reporting about that relationship as if it is commonly accepted, which I believe it is. Obviously the writer says nothing about liberalism being "soft-on-crime" -- in fact, he states that liberal opposition stems from policies that are perceived to "go to far" -- but the problem is that this is how the debate plays out in public discourse.

Dubious (and Disheartening) CJ Quote of the Day

"Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit." ~ Gil Kerlikowske, Director of ONDCP (a.k.a. the nation's "Drug Czar").

"No medicinal benefit"? How can he say that with a straight face?

(h/t the Daily Dish)

Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearing

Today is day two of Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing. (I have purposely avoided blogging about the whole "wise Latina" controversy; perhaps I will at a later date.)

If you'd like to read about Sotomayor's criminal justice decisions, you can do so by reading the reports filed under the "Criminal" heading here. (See especially this report from the Majority Staff of the Senate Judicicary Committee on her criminal justice record.)

You can also follow a liveblog of the hearing by the good folks at SCOTUSblog here.

Update: Day Three liveblog here.

GBOC Lightning Round: Looooong Overdue Edition

Hello, loyal readers. Please enjoy another GBOC lightning round. As always, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!

Item 1: Rick Rosenfeld on the Economy & Crime
In several prior posts we've considered what effect (if any) the recession will have on patterns and rates of offending, especially violent crime. Recently, ASC President-elect (and Velma's colleague) Rick Rosenfeld spoke to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about this very topic:

Reports of crime were down across the nation last year — especially in the Midwest — but the St. Louis area saw a mixed bag, according to figures released by the FBI on Monday and other available data.

The national crime rate continued a downward trend started in 2007. But an expert who tracks local and national crime statistics said the data provide few clues about how the global recession might have influenced crime rates.

"If one were going to see crime increases, one would have expected to see them later in the year last year and into the first part of 2009," said Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist with the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and president-elect of the American Society of [Criminology].

I don't have much to add, other than that I appreciate Rosenfeld's clear, consice discussions of crime statistics. For more of his media commentaries, see here and here.

Item 2: "AG Holder Vows Science-Based Crime Policy"
I saw this headline about Holder's remarks to the NIJ in my Ted Gest e-mail a few weeks ago and was ecstatic! Here's an excerpt:

President Obama has renewed our nation’s commitment to rely on science in the development of public policy. He understands, as do I, that sound judgment derives from solid evidence. Moreover, we understand that the production of such evidence requires resources. As a result of this understanding, the President’s 2010 budget calls for increased investment in scientific research, including criminology.

Woo hoo! The word "criminology" appeared in a description of President Obama's proposed budget! How exciting is that? Finally, I thought, there might be some recognition at the federal level that criminal justice policy is often divorced from empirical research, especially where drug policy is concerned. But then I wondered if my excitement wasn't a bit misplaced; after all, isn't this step just a necessary corrective? More importantly, what does it say about the state of contemporary U.S. crime policy that we are celebrating the announcement that policy decisions will now be based on actual research? It sort of begs the question: what are these decisions based on now? Intuition? Fear? Personal beliefs? A giant Magic 8-Ball?

Item 3: Chris Brown Sentenced
Chris Brown struck a deal with prosecutors earlier this week just hours before the hearing in his assault case was set to begin. Brown avoided prison time for assaulting then-girlfriend and fellow pop star Rihanna back in February. However, in exchange for pleading guilty to felony assault he was sentenced to five years' probation, a year-long domestic violence class, and six months of "community labor" . He also was ordered to stay at least 50 yards away from Rihanna for the next five years (though the restriction was lessened to 10 yards for industry events at which both singers are present).

It will be interesting to see whether or how this story develops: will the two reuinte? Will there be a lot of publicity during his community service? (I'm thinking TMZ cameras at his trash-pickup sessions or something). Stay tuned, I guess.

Breaking News: Obama's "Drug Czar" Announced

As regular readers know, I've been eagerly awaiting news of President Obama's selection for Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (a.k.a. the "Drug Czar"). Today, courtesy of Ted Gest, comes news that Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske has been appointed to the position:

Kerlikowske came to Seattle in 2000 after serving as deputy director in the Justice Department, overseeing the Community Oriented Policing Services grant program. A military veteran with 36 years in law enforcement, he spent four years as Buffalo's police commissioner after starting his career in Florida.

Rumors have persisted that Kerlikowske, a progressive police chief with connections in Washington, D.C., would likely be chosen for a post in a Democratic administration.

As president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, he frequently speaks out on issues such as gun control and has testified before Congress several times....

Hired by Mayor Paul Schell to replace Norm Stamper, Kerlikowske stepped into a department still reeling from the WTO protests in 1999 as the agency was becoming one of the first departments in the country to adopt civilian oversight in police accountability.

He leaves Seattle with the city's crime rate at a historical 40-year low, despite resurgences in youth and gang violence, especially in the city's South End. Kerlikowske has maintained a national profile, with his interests especially focused on issues such as gun control, immigration and electronic data mining of private records...

Kerlikowske, a proponent of community-oriented policing, is credited with pushing for the use of less-lethal weapons, such as Taser stun guns, and improving police relationships with minority communities. In 2002, he worked with business leaders to launch the Seattle Police Foundation, a nonprofit that raises money for police equipment and programs....

In 2007, he came under fire from social justice groups who accused him of whitewashing an investigation into a controversial drug arrest downtown. The controversy prompted changes to the police oversight system as recommended by a blue-ribbon panel.

Hmm. So, looks like my hopes that the new Drug Czar would be a criminologist/social scientist/drug policy researcher have been dashed. I'm not sure how I feel about a police chief -- whose expertise seems to involve mainly law enforcement issues like gun control, community-oriented policing, and immigration -- taking over as the nation's top drug policy official. Hopefully Kerlikowske will follow the lead of fellow law enforcement expert and former ONDCP Director Lee Brown.

As a refresher, here is what Peter Reuter, University of Maryland professor and founder of RAND's Drug Policy Research Center, suggested back in November was necessary for a successful Drug Czar:

The major challenge for the new director is to tame the enforcement machine, initially at the federal level but then at the state level. This requires someone whose credentials will not be challenged by law enforcement but who has enough knowledge of the rest of the field to make a good case for what can be accomplished through other programs."

Regardless of whether Kerlikowske fits that description, one thing is certain: given the monumental failure of the War on Drugs, he has his work cut out for him.

MLK, Obama, and Criminal Justice Reform

Amid all of the hoopla yesterday appeared a Detroit Free Press editorial calling for the twin celebrations of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and President Obama's inauguration to prompt reform of the criminal justice system. I was pleasantly surprised to see the phrase "criminal justice system" among the inauguration-themed headlines, and thought others might be interested to read the editorial, too. A few excerpts:

A nation where millions of African Americans couldn't vote 50 years ago has elected its first black president and embraced the change he represents. Still, King's dream of racial equality remains unfulfilled. The world's most powerful democracy is also its leading incarcerator. African Americans -- 13% of the population -- make up nearly half of all those in jail or prison. The nation that elected its first black president also has 1 million black men behind bars....

No doubt, we need prisons. But when too many young men grow up in neighborhoods where most of their peers go to prison or jail, it's time to consider where the get-tough policies of the last 35 years have taken us.

Getting the number of incarcerated to a rational level will take more than re-entry and training programs. It will take serious reforms in sentencing. Figuring out who should go to prison -- and for how long -- and who should not, must become part of a new urban and civil rights agenda, backed by the nation's leader.

Flint update

Some will recall last summer's discussion of the "no baggy pants" crack-down by the Flint (MI) PD under the leadership of David Dicks.

Dicks is now on leave and facing federal charges that he received money from a security firm but did not actually do any work. You can read more from this morning's Freep.

Nathaniel Abraham Sentenced

Speaking of the treatment of juvenile offenders, it's time for an update on the Nathaniel Abraham case. Earlier today Abraham -- who "became something of an experiment in juvenile rehabilitation" after being tried and convicted as an adult for a murder he committed at the age of 11 -- received four to 20 years in prison for drug trafficking. Though tried and convicted as an adult in 1999, Abraham was sentenced as a juvenile in 2000. He was incarcerated in a maximum-security juvenile detention facility until he turned 21 in January 2007; upon his release he received many unprecedented social supports including state-funded rent and college tuition. However, this past summer he was arrested on drug charges after officers discovered 254 ecstasy pills in his possession:

An obviously frustrated judge this morning sent Nathaniel Abraham to prison for four to 20 years for drug trafficking, telling the 22-year-old that he had betrayed his family’s trust and squandered the opportunities society had given him.

“Quit destroying what other people built for you,” said Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Daniel O’Brien. “Quit it!” The sentence was a year longer than the minimum guidelines.

Obama's Drug Czar

Each new day seems to bring another Obama cabinet announcement -- yesterday physicist Steven Chu was named Energy Secretary and other energy/environment team leaders were selected; today Chicago Public Schools director Arne Duncan was named Secretary of Education. Still, though, I have yet to hear anything official about the one cabinet appointment I am most eagerly anticipating: drug czar.

I've been doing Internet research trying to figure out whether the Obama team has a person, or persons, in mind for Director of ONDCP. So far the name that has popped up over and over again is Republican MN Congressman Jim Ramstad. Politico.com identified Ramstad as a possible drug czar candidate back in November, noting that he is a "longtime proponent of treatment for drug abuse" and an "advocate for mental health parity," but that he also "has consistently voted against medical marijuana in Congress." More recently, Maia Szalavitz at The Huffington Post criticized Ramstad's rumored candidacy on the grounds that the congressman reportedly endorses Christian anti-addiction programs* and opposes needle-exchange programs for intravenous drug users. However, Join Together, a treatment-oriented advocacy agency affiliated with the Boston University School of Public Health, calls Ramstad a "strong advocate for addiction treatment and recovery."

Of course, all of this is speculation at this point. Indeed, Join Together reports that several other names have been bandied about the blogosphere as well, including LAPD Chief (and Broken Windows enthusiast) William Bratton. No matter who is eventually selected, though, there are some important qualifications the nominee must possess:

Peter Reuter, professor of the School of Public Policy and Department of Criminology at the University of Maryland and founder of RAND's Drug Policy Research Center, sees two key qualification for an effective drug czar under Obama: stature and substantive balance.

"The office has lacked prestige since William Bennett; though General McCaffrey was a visible public figure he did not have much standing in the senior levels of government," Reuter told Join Together. "If the new director is to be taken seriously by cabinet agencies, he or she must be sufficiently well known and respected to get phone calls returned. Without that, the director reverts to a minor budget and operational coordinator."

Added Reuter: "The major challenge for the new director is to tame the enforcement machine, initially at the federal level but then at the state level. This requires someone whose credentials will not be challenged by law enforcement but who has enough knowledge of the rest of the field to make a good case for what can be accomplished through other programs."

This is all I've been able to find so far. I've stated before how much I hope the eventual candidate is a drug policy researcher and not a displaced government official or military person. I will be sure to post about the drug czar selection once a nominee is confirmed; in the meantime, perhaps I will contact the presidential Transition Team to emphasize how crucial it is for the ONDCP Director to be a drug policy expert who acknowledges, rather than denies or defends, the colossal failure of the U.S. War on Drugs to date.

*I should be more precise: Ms. Szalavitz's issue is not just that he endorses Christian anti-addiction programs, but that he sponsored an earmark for one controversial evangelical Christian program in particular, Teen Challenge, that "believes that recruiting people into the Assemblies of God ministry will cure their addiction" (because addiction is viewed as a sin, not a disease) and "tries to 'complete' Jews."

GBOC Lightning Round, Episode Four

This week brings a shortened work week and a nice, long holiday weekend -- what a perfect time for another GBOC Lightning Round! (See previous rounds here, here, and here.)

Item 1: Office of Urban Policy

Recently, Obama transition team leader Valerie Jarrett discussed with NPR one of the new positions being created by the incoming administration: a federal Office of Urban Policy:

Jarrett said Obama will create an Office of Urban Policy that will be charged with focusing on cities and "have a comprehensive approach to urban development."

It is unclear who will lead the office, which will be tasked with advocating for cities and targeting programs in a "logical and systematic way," but it is a key position, according to Jarrett.

"For those of us who have worked in city governments across the country, we recognize how invaluable that person will be," she says.

Though perhaps an unsurprising decision for a president-elect who hails from Chicago, the creation of this office has much potential for addressing crime issues at the federal level. One measure of the extent to which the Office of Urban Policy will focus on crime (as well as poverty, a key correlate of urban crime) is the background of the person selected to lead this office. I'm very curious to find out who Obama names to fill this post.

Speaking of cabinet appointments, I'm equally curious to find out who Obama selects for "Drug Czar" (a.k.a. director of ONDCP). I've got my fingers crossed that it will be a criminologist or other social scientist who actually studies drug policy, and not an ex-Secretary of Education, a state governor, an Army general, or a Department of Education official*.


Item 2: The 8-year old boy in Arizona
ShockProf recently blogged about this case, so I don't have too much to add at this point. However, Michelle at Public Criminology reminds us that a similar case unfolded in Chicago a decade ago:

the defendants in that case were two 7- and 8-year-old chicago boys. the police attained confessions from these two young boys for the muder of 11-year-old ryan harris who was killed while riding her bike in their neighborhood. the charges against the boys were finally dropped when semen was found in the victim’s underpants, and prosecutors were forced to acknowledge that it was unlikely boys so young could produce semen. so how much were those confessions really worth?

How much, indeed. This also speaks to the question raised by Michigan Family Doc in the comments to ShockProf's original post.


Item 3: Nate Silver: Stats Lovers' Biggest Crush?
I'm not sure how many of you followed FiveThirtyEight.com during the election season, but if you're are a stats lover (unlike me), you'll adore this political data-crunching site run by baseball statistician (and East Lansing native!) Nate Silver. Based on statistical analyses he performed on polling data, Silver produced shockingly accurate predictions of the 2008 presidential and congressional races. Want more? In a recent post, Silver used regression analysis to predict the winner in the undecided Franken/Coleman race in Minnesota. His forecast? Franken will win by 27 votes:

We can address this phenomenon more systematically by means of a regression analysis. In the regression, we are attempting to predict a variable I've defined as franken_net, which is the net gain by Franken per 10,000 ballots cast in that precinct. The independent variables considered in the regression are as follows:

t: the proportion of the two-way vote received by Franken in the initial count (e.g. excluding votes for third parties)

c_f: the number of challenges initiated by the Franken campaign per 10,000 ballots counted in that precinct

...Suppose that the number of challenges is zero -- as will happen once the state canvassing board finishes considering all such challenges in December. In this case, all terms in the regression equation reduce to zero, except for the constant term and t, which is Franken's share of the two-way vote in that precinct. We are thus left with the following:

franken_net = t * 8.922 - 3.622

...When we plug in a t of .499956 -- Franken was picked on just slightly very less than half of the ballots during the initial count -- we get a value for franken_net of .837. That is, Franken will gain a net of .837 votes for every 10,000 cast. With a total of 2,885,555 ballots having been recorded in the initial count, this works out to a projected gain of 242 votes for Franken statewide. Since Norm Coleman led by 215 votes in the initial count, this suggests that Franken will win by 27 votes once the recount process is complete (including specifically the adjudication of all challenged ballots).

c_c: the number of challenges initiated by the Coleman campaign per 10,000 ballots counted in that precinct

See? I told you -- totally crushworthy for folks who love statistics! It makes it even cooler that his real love is baseball statistics. You can watch him chatting up Colbert here.

OK, that's it for now: comment away!

*Though, I can't be too hard on John Walters -- he's a Spartan, after all.

Disturbing Prison News of the Day

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Larger Inmate Population is Boon to Private Prisons

An excerpt from the article:

Prison companies are preparing for a wave of new business as the economic downturn makes it increasingly difficult for federal and state government officials to build and operate their own jails.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons and several state governments have sent thousands of inmates in recent months to prisons and detention centers run by Corrections Corp. of America, Geo Group Inc. and other private operators, as a crackdown on illegal immigration, a lengthening of mandatory sentences for certain crimes and other factors have overcrowded many government facilities.

Emphasis mine.

Halloween S.O. Laws

So...It appears that not only is Dr. H. a talented criminologist, she should also dive into the world of constitutional law. Apparently, a judge in Missouri has ruled that the Halloween restrictions placed on sex offenders are unconstitutional due to vagueness and overbreadth. Makes one wonder if an MSU CJ alum became a judge in St. Louis??????

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27415169/

Good'onya Bill of Rights!

Good News Indeed

Via Feministing and the ACLU:

The Bureau of Prisons reportedly has revised its policy and now bars the practice of shackling pregnant women incarcerated in federal prisons during labor and delivery. Though this practice still may be common in various state institutions, the BOP policy change is an important victory for the humane (and common-sense) treatment of women prisoners. (I guarantee you that any woman who has experienced childbirth will confirm that laboring inmates pose absolutely zero flight risk.)

One step at a time, right?

I'm going as a baseless CJ policy for Halloween this year. You?

Apparently legislators in Maryland (in addition to those in Texas, New Jersey, Missouri, Louisiana, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and elsewhere) missed my missive last year on Halloween sex offender crackdowns. Mirroring existing policies in many other states, Maryland will require paroled sex offenders to post these somewhat grotesque-looking paper pumpkins on their doors this Halloween, and will prohibit them from leaving their homes, answering knocks at their doors, or illuminating their homes' exterior lights on Halloween night.

[sigh] Remember Don Music, the muppet on Sesame Street who would bang his head on the piano keys whenever he got frustrated? Reading about the Maryland initiative makes me feel like Don Music. I want to scream, "ON WHAT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ARE YOU BASING THIS CRACKDOWN?!?" Let's turn to the folks behind this policy for more information, shall we?

"Because Halloween is a holiday in which large numbers of children interact with strangers, the concern among parents and other community members about sexual offenders in their neighborhoods is naturally intensified during this time of year," Patrick McGee, interim director of the state's Division of Parole and Probation, wrote in the Oct. 1 letter.

OK, OK. Interaction between children and strangers -- sounds scary, but is there evidence of an actual spike in molestations on Halloween? Any reason at all to suspect that kids face a greater risk of being assaulted by a sex offender on Halloween than on any other day? Is anyone actually collecting any data on this?

Other states, including New Jersey and Texas, have begun tracking sex offenders at Halloween over the past five years.

Good! Yes! OK, data. That's good. What does the article say about what these data collection efforts have found? Let's keep reading:

Sex offenders in Maryland who do not post the signs and stay home will be taken to court and charged with a violation of parole...

What?! This is the very next sentence in the article! Nobody said anything about what the collected data show! Argh!

So, aside from being a Hawthorne-esque attempt to publicly out paroled sex offenders, nobody trumpeting these crackdowns can articulate a single data-driven reason why we might expect Halloween night to carry special risk, other than the fact that kids come into contact with strangers while trick-or-treating. This truly is a solution without a problem.

In light of this, I have decided to offer up a very special GBOC challenge: If you can find me one documented, published account that would justify these Halloween crackdowns, I will buy you a jumbo-sized package of your favorite Halloween candy. Really! I even told my students about this challenge. I don't care whether it is from a journal article, book chapter, research report, policy paper, newspaper or magazine article -- I just want to see one piece of documented evidence to suggest that Halloween night equals heightened predation of children by sex offenders. If you can do that, you'll win a big ol' package of whatever you like: Reese's peanut butter cups, Blow pops, Butterfingers, Nerds -- you name it, and I'll buy it for you.