Thoughts on Philly Police Video?

Some of you may have seen the recent video of more than a dozen (white) Philadelphia police officers using extreme, and most likely excessive, force against three (Black) shooting suspects:



This situation is being described by many as an instance of police brutality. To help understand why, here is some important contextual information:

According to the Ground Report,

The grim event took place in the Huntington Park section of one of the United States' biggest cities (by population). Recently, in the close-by Port Richmond part of town, 12-year law enforcement veteran Sergeant Stephen Liczbinski, 39 years of age, was gunned down, making him the third Philly law enforcement member killed while on duty in the last two years...

According to police officers on the scene, the three men are all suspects in a drug-dealing ring and possibly in the killing of the police officer and they were observed firing guns from their car, shots which resulted in the injury of at least three citizens on a street corner. There was a fourth suspect but he ran away from the scene on foot, according to observers.

And, from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

The video shows as many as 15 officers, all of them white, rushing the vehicle of the three black suspects, yanking them from the car, and kicking and beating them after they were prone....

The news of sanctions against seven more officers came just hours after police captured Eric DeShawn Floyd, 33, the last of three men suspected in Saturday's slaying of Police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski - and shortly before the beginning of last evening's viewing for the 12-year police veteran in Northeast Philadelphia....

Among other developments yesterday, D. Scott Perrine, the attorney for Dawayne Dyches, one of the three men beaten and arrested Monday night, said police had pursued Dyches because they believed he was Floyd....

Police have said the three men - Dyches, 24, of the 2000 block of North Marshall Street in North Philadelphia; Brian Hall, 23, of the 1900 block of North Marshall Street; and Pete Hopkins, 19, of the 2000 block of East Firth Street in Kensington - were arrested after they drove from Fourth and Annsbury Streets, the scene of the shooting in North Philadelphia's Feltonville section, shortly after 10 p.m. Monday.

Police say a fourth man had arrived with the three suspects and fled on foot after firing into a crowd. Police said that 15 spent 9mm casings had been found at the scene, but that no weapon had been recovered from the vehicle, which was stopped about two miles away in the 3700 block of North Second Street.

At that point, the video shows officers charging to the suspects' vehicle with guns drawn. In the next minute, the officers pull the three from the car, beating them after they have been forced to the street. The beatings take up about one minute of the video.

So, Philadelphia officers' emotions were understandably running high after the tragic death of Sgt. Liczbinski, and the three men shown being beaten in the video -- who allegedly had fired shots from their moving vehicle, injuring several people -- were believed to be connected to Sgt. Liczbinski's slaying. Add to this the racial implications of yet another instance of white police officers using extreme force against Black suspects, and it is easy to see why this situation has garnered so much media attention.

Not being a policing or use of force expert, I'm curious to hear from Scoob, Cranks, or the NY Kid -- have you been following this case? What are criminologists who study use of force saying about this incident?

Teenage Girls, Physical Violence, YouTube, and our Culture

So...I'm sure by now you all have heard the news story and seen the attendant video of the cheerleader in Lakeland, Florida who was lured into a "friend's" home and then severely beaten by that friend and other cheerleaders. All of this for basically talking smack over MySpace (cyberbullying?) about those friends. So what we have is a vivid depiction of six girls who carefully coordinated (with two male lookouts and everything) a vicious attack (to where she suffered a concussion and fell unconscious) on an unsuspecting girl at a home where no parents were around...and where she was detained with no freedom to leave...and where the violence was recorded for the purposes of uploading it to YouTube and MySpace.... Then she was taken in a car, dropped off at some random location, and threatened with more beatings if she went to the authorities.
Points to consider:
1. What is the deal with these girls being so horrifically violent? Is this not out of the ordinary, but seems so because the recording has so starkly shown us the hostility and aggression of which some girls are capable? Is it possible that girls are actually *just as prone to violence* as boys (not withstanding testosterone and so forth) but have been constrained by social acceptability...but perhaps those standards are eroding or fading or being diluted as the years go by?
2. Is our culture being desensitized to female violence? For example, you turn on The Real World on MTV and we are seeing more frequently verbal violence and even physical violence among girls.
3. Were the girls playing to the camera...performing, if you will? Were they, to some degree, looking for their 15 minutes of fame by recording themselves in this video?
4. What were the girls thinking, in terms of escaping identification, apprehension, and punishment, with the recording of the criminal assault?
5. Are the parents at fault?
6. Has anyone seen the MySpace postings, as I'd like to consider their contents?
7. Has anyone figured out how to download flash video, because I'd like to archive those videos linked from that site to show others?

Article and unedited video here.

Tragedy at Northern Illinois University

In a tragic scenario eerily reminiscent of the mass shooting at Virginia Tech University last April, a gunman earlier today opened fire at Northern Illinois University, leaving 18 people injured and 5 people -- including the gunman -- dead.

This is such a profound loss for a university community to sustain, and will no doubt rekindle the conversations begun after the Virginia Tech massacre about campus security measures and how (or whether) universities can protect students and faculty from such horrific acts of violence.

I will post more about this story as information becomes available. In the meantime -- as with all of you, I'm sure -- my thoughts and prayers are with the students, faculty, and staff of NIU.

UPDATE: Turns out the tragedy at NIU hits particularly close to home for those of us in criminology/criminal justice. The man responsible for the shooting deaths at NIU is Steven Kazmierczak, who had studied corrections as a sociology graduate student at NIU. (Though the Chicago Tribune reports that at the time of the shootings Kazmierczak was a graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, having presumably left NIU.) He co-authored a reaction essay in the February 2006 issue of Criminology & Public Policy entitled, "Self-injury in correctional settings: "Pathology" of prisons or of prisoners?". His author biography accompanying that article reads:

Steve Kazmierczak is beginning graduate work at Northern Illinois University. In addition to his interests in corrections, political violence, and peace and social justice, he is co-authoring a manuscript on the role of religion in the formation ofearly prisons in the United States with Jim Thomas and Josh Stone. He is also develops [sic] content for online education and is an executive board member of the NIU student chapter of the American Correctional Association.

Finally, an additional victim has died, bringing the total number of deaths to 6, including Kazmierczak.

"Undone by its Own Metaphor": The Failure of America's War on Drugs

About two weeks ago, NPR's Talk of the Nation took up the issue of America's War on Drugs. Featured in this discussion was Ben Wallace-Wells, a contributing editor for Rolling Stone who recently authored a damning account of U.S. drug policy entitled "How America Lost the War on Drugs".

I don't typically consider Rolling Stone to be a source of hard-hitting investigative journalism, but listening to Mr. Wallace-Wells' interview I was impressed and intrigued by the extent of his knowledge about the War on Drugs. When I finally sat down to read his article (linked above), I found it to be a fascinating and fairly comprehensive analysis of contemporary American drug policy. I know some of you may balk at this, but I would totally consider assigning this article in class, so impressive is its scope. (It's very lengthy; divided into twelve chapters, it took me over an hour to read.)

What I appreciated most about this article is that it recognizes, and sharply criticizes, the utter disconnect between contemporary American drug policy, on the one hand, and the findings of empirical drug policy evaluation research on the other:

Thanks to new research, U.S. policy-makers knew with increasing certainty what would work and what wouldn't. The tragedy of the War on Drugs is that this knowledge hasn't been heeded. We continue to treat marijuana as a major threat to public health, even though we know it isn't. We continue to lock up generations of teenage drug dealers, even though we know imprisonment does little to reduce the amount of drugs sold on the street. And we continue to spend billions to fight drugs abroad, even though we know that military efforts are an ineffective way to cut the supply of narcotics in America or raise the price.

This article also examines many criminal justice policies and initiatives that developed as a consequence of the War on Drugs: The Boston Gun Project and Operation Ceasefire, community policing efforts in Boston, High Point, NC, and elsewhere, drug courts, mandatory minimums, and so on. It also offers a cogent political analysis, deftly illustrating how thoroughly efforts to appear "tough on crime"-- by Republicans and Democrats alike -- have influenced and shaped contemporary drug policy, even while academic research has been largely ignored:

The federal budget that [former Clinton-era drug czar Lee] Brown's office submitted in 1994 remains a kind of fetish object for certain liberals in the field, the moment when their own ideas came close to making it into law. The budget sought to cut overseas interdiction, beef up community policing, funnel low-level drug criminals into treatment programs instead of prison, and devote $355 million to treating hardcore addicts, the drug users responsible for much of the illegal-drug market and most of the crime associated with it. White House political handlers, wary of appearing soft on crime, were skeptical of even this limited commitment, but Brown persuaded the president to offer his support, and the plan stayed. Still, the politics of the issue were difficult. Convincing Congress to dramatically alter the direction of America's drug war required a brilliant sales job. "And Lee Brown," says Bergman, his former legislative liaison, "was not an effective salesman."

...But in the early days of the Bush administration, police departments were in no hurry to experiment with an approach that focused on drug-related murders and mostly ignored users who weren't committing violence. [Criminologist and pioneer of the Boston Gun Project David] Kennedy's efforts proved to be yet another missed opportunity in the War on Drugs - an experience that made clear how difficult it is for science to influence the nation's drug policy.

Indeed, from an academic perspective, this is perhaps the most dispiriting observation of this article: that U.S. drug policy has been, and continues to be, woefully uninformed by criminological and governmental research and instead is shaped largely by political concerns:

But despite their evident success, the most forward-looking programs remain buried at the fringes of drug policy, featured not in the president's budgets but in academic journals and water-cooler talk in cities like High Point....Thirty-five years after Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs, the most promising ­programs continue to be shunted aside by Washington's unswerving emphasis on law and order.

I would love to hear others' thoughts on this article, given that I am not a drug researcher. What do you make of the author's conclusions? How can his research be used to inform discussions about the extent to which academic research matters to policy-makers? What does that mean for us as criminologists? I am left with many questions...not the least of which is: would I lose all credibility if I assigned a Rolling Stone article for my students?

Totally Unshocking Crime Headlines, Vol. 6

"Woman accuses Pacman of punching woman in club"

'nuff said.

Totally Unshocking Crime Headlines, Vol. 5

"Murdered Marine Had Protection Order"

This is not a surprising headline. We have all been inundated by the media about the story of the missing pregnant marine and the man who allegedly killed her (currently on the loose). The female marine (Maria Lauterbach) had taken out a protection order on the male marine (Cesar Laurean), after she accused him of raping her.

However, the story is not that simple--which is no big surprise to anyone who studies domestic violence. He is married, but was in a relationship with Lauterbach. She accused him of rape and took out a protection order, but it's unclear in what order those events occurred. After the rape was reported, they continued some kind of relationship--when asked why Laurean was not arrested after the claim of rape, authorities replied:

Military officials have said Laurean was not taken into custody after Lauterbach reported the rape allegation because there was information the two carried on "some sort of friendly relationship" after she filed the complaint. (from CNN)

Ugh. Add this to the fact that her own mother called her a "compulsive liar," and you have a huge mess for law enforcement.

Finally, I have one question: In the same story, the local Sheriff stated:

Brown said the military protection order was not shared with civilian law enforcement.

"We had no reason to be on his trail," Brown said of Laurean. "This has nothing to do with the civilian world. Nothing about this had anything to do with the civilian world."

Riiiiight... because domestic violence between two military officers cannot take place off base. Wasn't VAWA designed to overcome this specific problem? Dr. HnK, any thoughts? Perhaps military bases don't count?

(I have now met my blogging obligations for the week. You get what you ask for, Velma.)

Happy Gilmore, Crimefighter!

An article in today's New York Times discussed a recent study that yielded sure-to-be controversial findings: Rather than affirming the conventional wisdom that violent movies, TV shows, music, and video games promote violent behavior, the study -- conducted by two economists and presented at the American Economics Association annual meeting this weekend -- suggests that violent movies actually reduce violent crime:

[The authors concluded] that violent films prevent violent crime by attracting would-be assailants and keeping them cloistered in darkened, alcohol-free environs. Instead of fueling up at bars and then roaming around looking for trouble, potential criminals pass the prime hours for mayhem eating popcorn and watching celluloid villains slay in their stead.

The article describes the two competing schools of thought (i.e., violent entertainment begets violent behavior vs. violent entertainment diverts violent behavior), and offers analysis from experts on both sides.

Interested in the researchers' data and methodology? Here you go:

The study’s authors acknowledge that their research does not...address the long-term effects of exposure to violent media, an influence they view as pernicious. Rather, the research uses a decade of national crime reports, cinema ratings and movie audience data to examine what has happened to rates of violent crime during and immediately after violent films are shown.

This article leaves me with some methodological questions, most of which cannot be sufficiently answered without seeing the original study. However, this parting comment from one of the study's co-authors had me chuckling so much I forgot my methodological queries:

In other words, Professor Dahl suggested, Hollywood could help cut crime in more palatable fashion by cutting out the gore while making movies that still attract male teenagers and 20-somethings.

“We need more Adam Sandler movies,” he said. “Even though I’m not a big fan of Adam Sandler, that’s the implication.”

I tell you one thing: I am in the wrong line of work. I need to become an economist so that I can produce research with policy implications like "make more Adam Sandler movies"!

Thanks to EW.com for the heads up.

P.S. I wonder whether Bob Barker would agree with Dr. Dahl's categorization of Adam Sandler movies as non-violent? Ha Ha!

Wow - UNC Football Players Sexually Assaulted by Women

One doesn't see this kind of article too frequently:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2201154/

Help Aid the Women & Girls of the DRC

Some of you may be familiar with V-Day, the global movement (founded by Vagina Monologues author Eve Ensler) to end violence against women and girls. One of their most recent campaigns, "Stop Raping Our Greatest Resource," targets sexual violence against women and girls in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

There are several ways to get involved with this campaign, including writing to DRC President Joseph Kabila Kabange and donating to the campaign. Just in time for the holidays, though, comes another terrific way to support the women and girls of the DRC: purchasing one of these beautiful satchels, handmade by Congolese survivors of sexual assault, as a holiday gift for someone special! They're only $20 each, and proceeds from the sale of the bags helps provide economic support to Congolese sexual assault survivors.

Working to End Gender Violence

Given the frequency with which I've been posting about IPV and domestic homicide lately, I wanted to share some good news about gender violence:

The Center for Women's Global Leadership at Rutgers University has kicked off a campaign called 16 Days of Activism to End Gender Violence. Why 16 days? The campaign begins on November 25th, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and ends on December 10th, International Human Rights Day, in an effort to "symbolically link" violence against women and human rights violations.

Want to get involved? Check out the online action kit, or the violence against women bibliography, and spread the word.

Thanks to Feministing for the link.

Again with the Media

You may have heard about this story:

Emily Sander, an 18-year-old college student in Kansas went missing last Friday. Authorities believe they have found her body, and that she was murdered by a man with whom she was seen on Friday night. It seems she was also involved in Internet porn during her college studies. A headline on the main page of MSNBC.com tonight reads:

"Police: Body Likely Missing Porn Star"

Do they really need to refer to her in that way? I'm not sure why this is so upsetting to me--I suppose it is an accurate description. Maybe as a parent I'm particularly struck by this insensitivity, and how her parents have to deal with this characterization of their daughter. Given that sex workers seem to be viewed as somehow "deserving" of their victimization, this may be viewed as an attempt to dehumanize her.

We'll see what happens when they make arrests, and how the defense attorney presents the argument for the accused. Hopefully it won't end similarly to this case.

Why Does This Article Bug Me So Much?

Maybe because I am at the PSN conference.......

With shootings declining, Hub sees more stabbings
By Maria Cramer, Globe Staff September 18, 2007

Despite a much-touted reduction in shootings in Boston, police are now confronting a troubling rise in the number of stabbings, which have jumped 10 percent over the same period last year and are on track to reach their highest point in four years.

Savvy criminals, aware of the tougher punishments levied for gun violations, have begun wielding blades instead, Boston law enforcement officials believe.

Gangs are instructing members to carry knives rather than risk an 18-month minimum sentence for possessing an unlawful firearm, Superintendent Daniel P. Linskey said, and more young people are carrying the weapons for protection, then using them to hurt rivals during fights.

"Carrying a knife is not going to expose anyone to a minimum of 18 months or beyond," said Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley. "And they're more easily accessible, too. You can pick up a knife at an army-navy store, or mom-and-pop variety store."

Police reported 350 stabbings from Jan. 1 to Sept. 10, which was 10 percent more than in the same period last year. Shootings, meanwhile, plunged nearly 18 percent, from 283 to 233 for the same time period. The number of stabbings through Aug. 26, the latest date for which year-to-year comparisons were available, is at the highest level since 2004.

"It's certainly a cause for concern," Conley said. "It takes a lot of inhumanity to plunge a knife into another human being. It's frightening to think it's trending upwards."

Most of the city's homicides are still caused by guns. Of the 49 homicides so far this year, 38 were shootings, and six were stabbings. And 26 percent of all 2007 stabbings occurred during domestic disputes. But with more people apparently carrying knives on the street, Linskey said, officers are worried that fights that once might have ended with a few punches and a bruised ego could become more serious.

"It's clear that minor altercations, when someone has a knife, will escalate," he said. "When you don't have a knife, you walk away, and five minutes later you realize it was just a punch in the face. Now, they have a knife, and they react very quickly."

In July, four people were stabbed, including a 15-year-old girl, during a fight after a house party in Mattapan, according to a police report. All of the victims survived. No arrests have been made, and police said they are still investigating the stabbings.

The girl, whose 18-year-old brother was stabbed in the hand during the fight, said she was in the hospital about a week and lost so much blood she is still taking iron supplements. She asked that her name be withheld because she is afraid of retribution.

The girl said she was attacked by about 10 other girls, who began kicking and punching her outside the house where the party was held on Woodruff Way. The fight was sparked when the group of girls became angry after the host of the party, held in memory of a 2006 homicide victim, tried to send everyone home.

The girl said she began fighting with the group after they assaulted her brother, who had come to pick her up.

After the attack, she staggered away to find her brother, unaware of how injured she was. A concerned neighbor told her she was bleeding heavily from the face. When the ambulance arrived, emergency workers told her she had been slashed across the face, and stabbed in her arm and under her armpit.

"I think it's crazy," she said in a telephone interview last week. "To think that people would stab people over stupid things."

In early 2006, after Boston saw its 2005 murder rate spike to a 10-year high of 75, the state toughened sentencing laws for gun charges, raising the minimum sentence for carrying an unlawful firearm from one year to 18 months. If the gun was loaded, the perpetrator could receive two more years in prison. Criminals were quick to adapt, said Jorge Martinez, executive director of Project Right, a nonprofit organization in the Grove Hall section of Roxbury.

"These guys are not stupid," he said. "Of course, you're not going to be walking around with a gun. The weapon of choice would be your knife. You get caught, you just get it taken away from you."

About six years ago, Martinez helped Conley, who was then a city councilman, draft an ordinance that would outlaw street sales of knives. Conley also introduced an ordinance making it illegal to carry knives longer than 2 1/2 inches.

But that ordinance is confusing, Linskey said. Even if officers find someone with a knife, they might not be able to confiscate it if the person using the knife says it is for hunting, fishing, or other recreation or if the person identifies himself as a chef or as involved in another trade that requires carrying a sharp object, he said.

State law bans carrying knives that can be drawn to a locked position or have a double edge. It also bans knives with an automatic spring release through which the blade is released from the handle and is over 1 1/2 inches long. The law also forbids carrying throwing stars and nunchucks, but does not regulate the size of a knife that is not a switchblade, Linskey said, adding that it might be time to update the law.

"You can carry a machete or a sword, and it's no crime," he said.