Insert Your Own Joke Here!

In the spirit of Patch's annual criminology limerick contest and last year's "caption this photo" contest, I'm offering up an "insert your own joke" contest for this hilarious headline:

"Man accused of smuggling 15 pounds of cocaine in candy"

Not just any candy, mind you, but Ferrero Rocher -- one of Pap's faves!

Here's CNN's anemic attempt:

"Being a drug mule isn't usually such a sweet deal."

Bah! GBOCers can do better, I know it! I'll go first:

That's taking the term "nose candy" a bit literally, don't you think?

Your turn!

MAJOR Development in Federal Cocaine Sentencing Policy

For a couple of years now I have been lecturing in my drug policy class about the 100:1 ratio in federal cocaine sentence laws. Each time I teach the class, we discuss the likelihood (heretofore rather remote, I think) of the ratio being reduced.

But slow changes have been occuring.

First came news in December 2007 that the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to retroactively apply an amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines reducing sentences for crack cocaine offenses.

Then this past Thursday, the Senate passed a bill to reduce the federal cocaine sentencing ratio from 100:1 to 18:1. This is astonishing news:

In unusually quick action, the U.S. Senate passed a bill to change the punishment for possession of crack cocaine just a week after the Senate Judiciary Committee approved it. For 24 years, the law has punished crack users 100 times more heavily than powder cocaine users, the new Senate bill brings the 100-to-1 ratio down to 18-to-1. Julie Stewart of Families Against Mandatory Minimums says it was the the first time since the Nixon administration that the Senate voted to repeal a mandatory minimum sentence.

Here's more analysis from NPR:

After more than a decade of debates, hearings and lobbying, the Senate has passed a bill to change the punishment for possession of crack cocaine.

The bill had strong support from both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. While the current law punishes crack users 100 times more heavily than powder cocaine users, the new Senate bill brings the 100-to-1 ratio down to 18-to-1...

Now the House must decide what to do. A House committee has already approved a bill that treats crack and powder identically. The full House could adopt the Senate's 18-to-1 sentencing ratio or push for the House bill with a 1-to-1 ratio.

It is difficult for me to contain my excitement over this news. I am anxiously awaiting the House's response.

Stay tuned...

P.S. Yesterday I e-mailed the students in my current drug policy class with an update about the Senate bill. This morning I received a response from one student describing "what a rush" it was for her to be learning about these issues in class and then be poised to witness actual legislative change of the type we've been discussing all semester. I have to say, it made my day to know that even one student is paying attention to -- let alone excited about! -- crime policy. What more can a crim prof ask for?!

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!"

A Teaching Moment

About 18 months ago, several high school and middle school teachers in Haslett, Michigan decided to celebrate the end of the school year. They went to a popular East Lansing sports bar, then went back to a private residence for more drinking and some marijuana. Fun, fun.

When one of the young female teachers passed out after a little too much fun, several male teachers at the party drew on her body in permanent marker. Known as drunk shaming, they covered her body (and face) with vulgarities and sexual imagery (by the way, searching for the term "drunk shaming" in Google results in a significant number of hits on this story).

When this teacher regained consciousness, she went to the police and reported this as a crime. She honestly couldn't remember what had happened and feared that she had been sexually assualted (in fact, there is evidence that she had sex with a man at the party. He claims it was consensual, she can't remember).

The most detailed article I've seen is here, along with pictures provided by the victim. The men claim it was all in fun, and drew on her body because "they love her".

And did this make the victim feel loved?

[The victim] has other words for how the drawings made her feel: “degraded, defiled, lifeless, treated like an object, treated like, frankly, a bathroom stall.”

So, what have we learned? Some men show women love by degrading them.

I hope the students in Haslett can learn from this shameful behavior by their teachers. Here are a couple of take-aways:

First, a note to potential offenders: this is not an appropriate way to treat someone you "love". It's not even an appropriate way to treat someone you don't like.

Second, a note to potential victims: if you lose control of yourself through excessive alcohol and drug use, bad things can happen. Even when you're with people you trust.

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)

SCOTUS: AZ Strip Search was Illegal

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the strip search of a 13-year-old Arizona girl in a (futile) attempt to find concealed ibuprofen -- which, if found, would have violated the school's drug policy -- was unconstitutional:

The court ruled 8-1 that such an intrusive search without the threat of a clear danger to other students violated the Constitution's protections against unreasonable search or seizure.

Justice David H. Souter, writing perhaps his final opinion for the court, said that in the search of Savana Redding, now a 19-year-old college student, school officials overreacted to vague accusations that Redding was violating school policy by possessing the ibuprofen, equivalent to two Advils.

Justice Thomas was the lone dissent; he argued that "Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment."

Recall that this case was one that Justice Ginsburg referenced in her condemnation of the current gender imbalance on the Court:

Her status as the court's lone woman was especially poignant during a recent case involving a 13-year-old girl who had been strip-searched by Arizona school officials looking for drugs. During oral arguments, some other justices minimized the girl's lasting humiliation, but Ginsburg stood out in her concern for the teenager.

"They have never been a 13-year-old girl," she told USA TODAY later when asked about her colleagues' comments during the arguments. "It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."

I have to say that I think this is a pretty unsurprising ruling; honestly, can anyone (besides Justice Thomas) say with a straight face that school officials were justified in forcing a 13-year old girl to strip down to her underwear because they heard that she might have been carrying the equivalent of two Motrin? It's absurd. The school officials used absolutely no discretion (or common sense) with this girl, and I'm pleased to see that the high court recognized that the girl's constitutional rights were violated.

P.S. Thanks to the Trailing Spouse for providing a link to the ruling, which you can read in PDF format here.

Good News/Bad News Crime Story of the Day

First, the good news:

"Pregnant Briton to escape death penalty in Laos"

A British woman facing possible execution in Laos will escape the death sentence because she is pregnant, a spokesman for the Laotian Foreign Ministry said Tue

Samantha Orobator, 20, was facing death by firing squad for drug trafficking, said Clare Algar, the executive director of Reprieve, a London-based human rights group...

Orobator was alleged to have been carrying just over half a kilogram (about 1lb) of heroin, Reprieve lawyer Anna Morris told CNN by phone from Vientiane, the Laotian capital. Those found guilty of carrying that amount normally face the death penalty, she said.

But now for the bad news:

Reprieve has said Orobator became pregnant in prison, possibly as a result of rape, and that she is due to give birth in September.

That's horrible to hear, but at least she's not being put to death while she is pregnant.

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.

The Meaning of Marijuana

It is unlikely that we will ever know the full extent of drug use amongst athletes, but anecdotal evidence suggests that marijuana is often their drug of choice. While there are currently 14 states that have medical marijuana laws on the books*, the Drug Enforcement Administration (and the Federal government in general) consider marijuana to be a Schedule I controlled substance. Therefore, it is a violation of federal law to possess or distribute marijuana, although in practice the DEA rarely comes down on "small-time" individual offenders. But what about athletes? Two recent stories regarding marijuana usage allow us to take a (small sample) look at how the public and others respond to athletes who have gotten into trouble with drugs.

In October 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Santonio Holmes was suspended for 1 game after he was arrested for marijuana possession. The Steelers season continued, however, and they made it all the way to the Superbowl against the Arizona Cardinals last night. In the media frenzy that accompanies the Superbowl Holmes was asked several times about his arrest for drug possession and whether he had learned anything from it. Surprisingly, Holmes chose to divulge something even more potentially damaging - that he sold drugs when he was growing up poor in a crime-ridden part of Florida. Holmes dealt with the issue straight on, stating unequivocally that his arrest for possession had made him reconsider the impact of his actions as a youth, and that he wished to become a more positive image for children across the United States. Last night Holmes caught the game-winning touchdown pass with 35 seconds on the clock, giving him 131 yards total, and was awarded the Superbowl MVP trophy. The redemption was complete with the traditional MVP endorsement which always follows the game, as Santonio Holmes announced that he was "going to Disneyland" - an endorsement with which the family-friendly company was clearly comfortable.

In the midst of the sports world's obsession with the Superbowl, another story leaked of a prominent athlete using marijuana. Britain's tabloid News of the World reported that they had obtained a photo of an Olympic athlete smoking marijuana using a large water pipe. The immediate assumption was that the culprit was swimmer (and Olympic record-holder) Michael Phelps, who was previously alleged to have been a part of "Hash Bash" while at the University of Michigan. Phelps soon confirmed that: (1) it was him in the photo; and (2) he was smoking marijuana. For someone who already had an underage DUI on his record and was projected to make $100 million from endorsements, this is potentially a colossal mistake. As Darren Rovell notes, Phelps' most significant problem is that he is only in the public eye for his athletic prowess every 4 years and he will not have a chance to redeem himself in competition until 2012. So will he be denied the redemption that Santonio Holmes seemed to earn so easily last night?

*Yes, I used Wikipedia. You'll get over it.

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."

Friday CJ Funnies: Up in Smoke

With the recent passage of Proposal 1 in Michigan allowing use of medical marijuana, I thought this clip would be an appropriate Friday CJ Funny for today. Please enjoy another installment of the "Nailed 'Em" series from the Colbert Report...and do try not to let your Friday go up in smoke!




P.S. "Tokemaster Backache" -- LOL!

More on the Candidates' Crime Positions

In addition to the information we've already posted about the presidential candidates' positions on crime issues, the International Association of Chiefs of Police has just published a report detailing Senator Obama and Senator McCain's responses to six questions about issues related to crime, terrorism, and homeland security that were posed to them by the IACP. This Q-and-A with the candidates is a potentially important step in helping to correct the absence of crime issues in the national political discourse, as we have already noted.

Friday CJ Funnies: D-U-M Spells Dumb

Many thanks to my sis for directing me to this hilarious blog from TruTV (formerly known as CourtTV) that salutes dumb criminals. "Dumb as a Blog," a self-described "daily digest of the dumbest stuff people do," devotes many of its posts to dumb criminals, like the good folks featured in the most recent entry:

New Hampshire police stopped Luis Aponte to discuss an outstanding arrest warrant against the 46-year-old. He tried to oblige, but words didn't come easy to Aponte, what with having 19 bags of cocaine and heroin in his mouth, according to the cops....

[Check out another] case in Georgia featuring a similarly stupid suspect who attempted to get chatty with a cop even though his mouth was full of marijuana....

Question: What ever happened to hiding drugs in holes that one doesn't talk through? 

LOL!  Be sure to check out the full post to see video clips of the encounters.  Thanks for the heads up, Megs -- I have a suspicion this might become one of my favorite blogs!

The Absence of Crime Issues in the National Political Discourse

Via Ted Gest:

Neal Peirce of the National League of Cities has a column in the current issue of Nation's Cities Weekly bemoaning the absence of issues related to drugs, crime, and prison in the national political discourse:

Will America’s ill-starred “war on drugs” and its expanding prison culture make it into the presidential campaign?

Standard wisdom says “no way.”

We may have the world’s highest rate of incarceration — with only 5 percent of global population, 25 percent of prisoners worldwide. We may be throwing hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders, many barely of age, behind bars — one reason a stunning one out of every 100 Americans is now imprisoned. We may have created a huge “prison-industrial complex” of prison builders, contractors and swollen criminal justice bureaucracies.

Federal, state and local outlays for law enforcement and incarceration are costing, according to a Senate committee estimate, a stunning $200 billion annually, siphoning off funds from enterprises that actually build our future: universities, schools, health, infrastructure.

We are reaping the whirlwind of “get tough” on crime statutes ranging from “three strikes you’re in” to mandatory sentences to reincarcerating recent prisoners for minor parole violations. And every year we’re seeing hundreds of thousands of convicts leave prison with scant chances of being employed, no right to vote, no access to public housing, high levels of addiction, illiteracy and mental illness. Overwhelmed by the odds against them, at least 50 percent get rearrested within two years.

A serious set of problems, a shadow over our national future? No doubt. But do our politicians talk much about alternatives? No way — they typically find it too risky to be attacked as “soft on crime.”

Peirce's reading of the candidates' crime platforms suggests that chances for reform would be "much brighter" in an Obama administration than a McCain administration, especially in light of Obama's more nuanced approach to drug offenders (i.e., supporting diversion programs, drug courts, etc.) relative to McCain's more "hawkish" position (i.e., supporting "get tough" policies like death penalty eligibilty for drug kingpins). Still, Peirce concedes that a discussion of either candidates' views is not likely occur during the remainder of the campaign, noting that "it's been 20 years since drugs and prisons have even been mentioned in the televised presidential debates."

What do you think? Why aren't crime issues featured more prominently in the national political discourse, especially during a presidential election season? Is it because crime issues seem less-than-consequential relative to hugely important topics like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the struggling economy? Or are candidates of either party loath to discuss these issues for fear of being labeled "soft on crime"? Or perhaps it is a supply-and-demand issue, in which the press and public don't push candidates to share their views about crime, so they don't? I'm not sure, but I do wish that the "crime conversation" was a bigger part of the national political discourse, especially in the run-up to a presidential election.

(On the other hand, perhaps I should be careful what I wish for.)

The High Point Initiative on Primetime!

Last night after watching Project Runway (good riddance, Daniel!) I was flipping through the channels and stopped at ABC, where an episode of Primetime:Crime caught my eye. The episode featured a story about implementation of The High Point Initiative in chronically drug-plagued Hempstead, NY. The High Point Initiative is an innovative strategy designed to reduce drug crime that was piloted in High Point, NC by law enforcement officials and John Jay criminologist David Kennedy.

The story was quite compelling. Primetime cameras documented the implementation of the program in Hempstead over an eight-month period. (NPR also did a story a few months ago about the efforts in Hempstead, which you can listen to here.) First, drug dealers were caught on camera selling drugs. Then an assistant DA along with members of the community knocked on the doors of these folks, telling them that rather than arresting them the prosecutor's office had decided to give them a pass. To avoid jail time, all they would have to do is show up to a community meeting, keep a job, attend a support group, and avoid getting arrested for any crime.

You can read the print article and watch video clips of the story to see how well the Initiative worked in Hempstead -- and worked it did! Perhaps the most important component of the program is that participants are provided jobs. It is one thing to stress to dealers how much their actions are harming the community; it is quite another to offer them legal, viable alternatives for earning income.

I'm sure that there is much to discuss about this program (and others like it), but I am not familiar enough with the research to offer much of an analysis. I will say, though, how pleased I was to see a true-crime TV show focus on an innovative, community-based crime prevention strategy rather than the usual, bloody "whodunits".

More on NPR Prison Series

Last week I wrote about the first of a three-part NPR series on the U.S. prison population. That initial segment profiled incarcerated women who are mothers.

The second entry in the series examines the substantial number of inmates who are mentally ill. (Listen to the story here.) An excerpt from the print story:

Until the 1970s, the mentally ill were usually treated in public psychiatric hospitals, more commonly known as insane asylums.

Then, a social movement aimed at freeing patients from big, overcrowded and often squalid state hospitals succeeded. Rather than leading to quality treatment in small, community settings, however, it often resulted in no treatment at all.

As a consequence, thousands of mentally ill ended up on the streets, where they became involved in criminal activity. Their crimes, though frequently minor, led them in droves to jails such as Twin Towers, says Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca.

"Incarcerating the mentally ill is not the right thing to do," he says....

"They're here, and they're going to be cared for, but is this what we want in the way of a policy? Are we saying the legal system is the solution for the mentally ill in L.A. County? I don't think so. I'm saying criminals belong in jail, not the mentally ill."

The third entry in the series covers first-time offenders, especially drug and alcohol offenders processed in Dallas' "DIVERT Court". (Listen here.) An excerpt:

[DIVERT Court Judge John] Creuzot says what's different about DIVERT Court is the intense judicial oversight. "A person who relapses on drugs needs further treatment. Our responses are research-driven," he says.

The statistics back him up. Two studies by Southern Methodist University show that DIVERT Court cuts the recidivism rate by 68 percent over the regular Texas criminal justice courts. For every dollar spent on the court, $9 are saved in future criminal justice costs....

The courts have been so successful that even the tough-on-crime, Republican-dominated Texas Legislature approves.

Rep. Jerry Madden (R-Plano), chairman of the corrections committee, says that instead of worrying about the expanding outflow from prison, he wants to choke off the inflow with DIVERT-type courts...

State officials estimate that unless changes are made, Texas will need 17,000 more prison beds just four years from now. Releasing prisoners on parole is politically untenable — which makes "diversion" an increasingly appealing way to avoid what's looking like a $2 billion invoice.

These are short but informative pieces, and would be very suitable for kicking off lectures or classroom discussions about special needs populations in the CJ system or alternatives to traditional crime control policies. Good stuff!

Another True Crime TV Obsession in the Making

I've written before about my obsession with the A&E program The First 48. (It's a really, really good show, and you should totally watch it.) But now I'm afraid that another true crime show might be slowly working its way into our DVR queue: Locked Up Abroad on the National Geographic Channel. This show -- which uses a combination of documentary-style interviews and dramatizations of real events -- features the stories of people who for one reason or another ended up incarcerated in foreign prisons.

Some of these folks got locked up after making colossally stupid decisions while overseas. Like the couple from the UK who agreed to smuggle a few kilos of marijuana out of Costa Rica and into Amsterdam in exchange for a nice sum of money. Turns out that the heavier-than-expected briefcases they were given by the Costa Rican drug lords actually contained -- whoopsy! -- seventeen kilos of pure Colombian cocaine. Or the dude who swallowed sixty-seven cocaine-filled condoms, duct-taped the rest of his stash to his torso, and waltzed into Sydney Airport hoping to smuggle the drugs back into the UK. (Spoiler alert: He got caught, and was subsequently rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery to remove the condoms, some of which had begun to rupture. In his words, getting caught literally saved his life.)

Other folks, though, were kidnapped by various guerrilla or rebel forces while working overseas and were detained, incarcerated, and -- at times -- tortured.

It remains to be seen whether this show will become a full-fledged addiction for me like the First 48...but I have a sneaking suspicion that it might!

Totally Unshocking Crime Headlines, Vol. 10

"[Nathaniel] Abraham arraigned on drug charges"

A refresher: In 1997, 11-year old Nathaniel Abraham shot and killed 18-year old Ronnie Greene, Jr. Two years later, at the age of 13, Abraham became one of the youngest people ever tried and convicted as an adult in the U.S. -- and the youngest ever in Michigan. Though tried as an adult, Abraham received a juvenile sentence in January 2000: he was incarcerated in a maximum-security juvenile detention facility until his 21st birthday, after which he was released in January of last year.

Naturally, at the time of his trial Abraham gained national (and international) notoriety, propelled in no small part by defense counsel Geoffrey Feiger. (Who can forget the image of an avuncular Feiger leading a cardigan-clad Abraham into court by hand? A stroke of theatrical brilliance if ever I saw one.) However, Abraham caused an equally big media stir last year for the outlandish outfit he wore upon his release, which many observers interpreted as a tasteless (and egomanical) taunt to the public. As if to underscore Abraham's prominence in the public consciousness, he was personally summoned by Oprah Winfrey to a private meeting with Greene's relatives, during which Winfrey convinced Abraham to apologize to the Greene family. Needless to say, this young man was under far more public scrutiny than the average recently-released offender.

However, Abraham also received far more benefits than the average recently-released offender as well -- namely, state-funded rent and college tuition:

[Abraham] is being given free services through a Foster Care Demonstration Project. The pilot program is designed to help Wayne County foster care children who are phased out of the system at age 18 but still need the support of the state....

Under the program, Abraham will be eligible for two years of free rent, full college tuition paid by Michigan Rehabilitation Services through age 25 and food stamps, which he has applied for. He must live in Michigan and attend college in the state to remain eligible in the program.

And yet. And yet. And yet last week he was picked up on drug charges -- specifically, possession with intent to distribute ecstasy:

Undercover officers were working surveillance at about 1 a.m. in the neighborhood where there had been three separate armed robberies recently, when one of them witnessed what appeared to be a drug sale between Abraham and a man on a bicycle.

Abraham, 22, had parked a red 1970 Cadillac convertible in the parking lot of a Sunoco station on North Perry Street just south of Pontiac Northern High School. After the officers witnessed the exchange, they called for additional officers and moved in on Abraham, who was standing behind the vehicle with the trunk open. As the officers approached, they asked to see Abraham’s hand, and he said he was just changing a tire.

“He didn’t see the guys coming up behind him, and he threw away a bag,” said Pontiac police Sgt. Kevin Braddock.

When officers recovered a purple Crown Royal liquor bag, they found inside 254 individual tablets of the street drug ecstasy. Police said the pills typically sell on the street for between $10 and $30 each. Abraham was arrested without incident, and the vehicle, which did have a flat, was impounded.

Since his release, the Michigan Department of Human Services has spent $1,200 on Abraham – money that helped him set up an apartment and paid his rent, said DHS spokeswoman Maureen Sorbet.

And really, how many people expected any other outcome? Though his mentors and supporters are "shocked and devastated" that Abraham failed to make good on his promise to stay clean (by -- what else? -- becoming a famous rapper), he exhibited many warning signs of failure:

Looking back on the year, Abraham says he tried college, one semester at Wayne State University last fall, but chose not to reapply to focus on his music. He is also writing stories that he hopes to put into a book.

Abraham has his own apartment in Oakland County and has worked a series of odd jobs, but has not taken any full-time employment.

So, all of this makes his arrest last week a complete and utter non-surprise. The only question is, who is to blame here? Is it Abraham himself, who has made incredibly poor choices even in the face of unparalleled social and economic support? Or the system itself, which treated a troubled boy (who committed a very serious crime, true) as a mature adult and incarcerated him for the bulk of his formative years? Or the news media, whose incessant coverage of his case granted an impressionable youngster instant celebrity status of the worst kind? Most likely the answer is "all of the above" -- not that attributions of blame make this case any less sad.

Spring Break and Risky Decision-Making

I just came across an article on MSNBC.COM about how students on spring break in Texas are avoiding Mexican border towns in light of increased drug-related violence.

So here's a question: how many times in your life have you looked back on past events and thought, "what in the HELL was I thinking?" (And then later, my mother would probably still kill me if she knew I ever did that....)

Anyway, when I was a sophomore at the University of Texas in1988, my roommate and I agreed to go to South Padre Island for spring break with a group of her friends that I barely knew. They seemed OK and were in the marching band, so how much trouble could we get in to? (Come on, I was in the marching band in high school, I know the score.)

At the last minute, she dropped out of the trip and I was left to travel 6.5 hours by car to SPI with a group of near strangers (Thanks a lot, Jill!!). Her friends turned out to be fine, but unfortunately the weather was not--the cold, gray skies lasted all week and nixed our beach plans. The first night, the gang wanted to go to Matamoros, across the border in Mexico. We were early arrivals and the towns were still quiet--not yet flooded with UT and A&M students on break.

So, we crossed the Rio Grande and entered the first bar we found. It was like a scene from a movie--we walk in, the music stops, and everyone turns to stare at us. We're all dressed in our 80's pastels and big hair and the room is full of local Mexican workers, probably enjoying their last night in town until it's taken over by obnoxious American students. There was even a guy in the corner--I kid you not--playing a game which entails holding on to electrodes for as long as you can. I was freaked out--my New Jersey upbringing had not prepared me for this. We ordered some Dos Equis, drank our beer quickly and crossed back immediately thereafter.

Two days later, the town was COMPLETELY different--it was a tourist trap, with loud music, cheap goods for sale, and alcohol everywhere. The gang decided they wanted to go deep, deep, DEEP into Matamoros since the beach was not going to happen, so we hailed a taxi and told him to take us into the town to a decent restaurant. We ate lunch in a place with dirt floors and live chickens running around--it was a hoot. However, 20 years later I look at the satellite picture of Matamoros above, and think--MY GOD, that city is SO BIG--who knows where we were or what might have happened. And of course, we didn't have cell phones back then--no one knew I was there (they knew I was in South Padre, but none of my family members knew I would visit Mexico on the trip).

Anyway, we ended up having a fun time and the friends-of-Jill were pretty cool. We came back to Austin and got back to our studies.

The following year (1989), I stayed in Austin for spring break and slept late every day. Watching the news one night, I caught a story about Mark Kilroy, a UT student who was reported missing in Matamoros. He was a junior, as was I, and he had wandered away from his friends to take a leak in an adjacent alley. A few minutes later, he was gone.

They searched for him and questioned over 100 known criminals for weeks, until finally, someone picked up on a routine drug sting provided evidence to the police that led to Mark. He had been abducted and murdered in a satanic worship ceremony on a ranch outside Matamoros. The description of what they did to him is not for the faint of heart.

Perhaps the saddest part of this story is that many Mexicans were also killed by this Satanic group, few of which received any attention from the Mexican government until Mark. It took the murder of a U.S. citizen for them to recognize the dozens of murders that had already taken place and seek out the offenders. The "mastermind" of the group eventually committed suicide just as he was about to be arrested.

I didn't know Mark, but I've been thinking about how to tie his story to our field's study of risk and victimization. He placed himself at risk by visiting a border town, likely drinking too much, wandering away from his friends, and pissing in an alley. Natalee Holloway similarly took risks, purportedly leaving a bar with a man she had just met. How many hundreds (or thousands) of stupid, drunk college students make similar risky decisions and are luckily to survive to the next day? How many of those students are raped or assaulted as a result of their risky behavior? How many stupid risks have I personally taken in my life, and somehow have emerged unscathed?

Food for thought. Perhaps the ShockSpouse will share his thoughts on the Kilroy incident as well.