Thursday, January 17, 2013
Gun homicide data does not support more gun control.
The latest data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Report on weapons used in homicide (2011) do not support the need for new gun control laws. The data shows that both the number and rate of gun homicides have decreased since at least 2007. This includes handguns, rifle and shotguns. "Assault weapons," which are the prime targets, are included in the "rifles" count. Use of rifles has declined, and in 2011 stood at 323 homicides. Unfortunately, there is no good data available on Assault Wepons alone. (The UCR data on homicides is probably the UCR's best crime data) Whatever "causes" firearms homicides, or prevents it, is causing a decrease. It is fairly obvious that gun control laws are not causing it. In fact, the number of guns in society and the number of people license to carry have increased markedly in recent years. Further, there is no credible evidence that guns cause crime or that gun control works. A series of tragic mass murders with guns has fueled an emotional cry for more gun control. Emotion is not a good basis for policy. Why don't people take a look at the data and the research? However, emotion is a good basis for propaganda. Politicans of all-stripes are always looking for emotional ammunition to support their views. The propaganda campaign for and against new gun controls is well underway. I'm sick of it already.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Effectiveness of the federal assault wepon ban.
There is no credible evidence that the federal 1994-2004 ban on assault weapons (FAWB 1994 assault weapons) had any effect on crime. For insance:
according to Wikipedia:
"Expiration and effect on crime
Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."[6][She cited no credible source for her claim]
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."[7] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[8]
In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[9] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[10]
Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[11] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[12] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[13] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."[14] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.[15]"
according to Wikipedia:
"Expiration and effect on crime
Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."[6][She cited no credible source for her claim]
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."[7] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[8]
In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[9] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[10]
Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[11] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[12] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[13] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."[14] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.[15]"
I'm as guilty as many others in sloppy use of the terms "assault rifle, "assault weapon" etc. We need to tighten up our discussion. At the current time, one of hotly debated issues is re-instatement of the 1994 federal ban on "assault weapons."
In more casual usage, the term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle". An assault rifle is a military rifle that utilizes an intermediate-power cartridge, and that generally is capable of full-automatic fire, where multiple rounds are fired continuously when the trigger is pulled one time — that is, a machine gun — or burst capable, where a burst of several rounds is fired when the trigger is pulled one time.[6] In the United States, full-automatic firearms are heavily restricted, and regulated by federal laws such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, as well as some state and local laws.
The use of the term "assault weapon" is also highly controversial, as critics assert that the term is a media invention,[7] or a term that is intended to cause confusion among the public by intentionally misleading the public to believe that assault weapons (as defined in legislation) are full automatic firearms when they are not.[8]
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but no bill has reached the House floor for a vote.
The term, assault weapon, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.[2]
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine."
[In essence, it is a semi-automatic rifle with a detatchable magazine with certain cosmetic features. Semi-automatic rifles with detatchable magazines without these features were not affected]
The National Rifle Association has referred to the features affected by the ban as cosmetic,[3] as has the gun-hating Violence Policy Center.[4]
In addition, in March 2004, Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, criticized the soon-to-expire ban by stating, "The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, Uzis, AR-15s and other 'assault weapons'. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994."[5]
Bottom-line: It was a symbolic gesture.
The specific sections were in Title XI, subtitle A, formally known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, but commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban. I will try to consistently refer to such weapons as "FAWB 1994" assault weapons. If anyone knows of a better, widely used term, please share.
Source Wikipedia, various articles, incl.(some editing by blogger.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act
In more casual usage, the term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle". An assault rifle is a military rifle that utilizes an intermediate-power cartridge, and that generally is capable of full-automatic fire, where multiple rounds are fired continuously when the trigger is pulled one time — that is, a machine gun — or burst capable, where a burst of several rounds is fired when the trigger is pulled one time.[6] In the United States, full-automatic firearms are heavily restricted, and regulated by federal laws such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, as well as some state and local laws.
The use of the term "assault weapon" is also highly controversial, as critics assert that the term is a media invention,[7] or a term that is intended to cause confusion among the public by intentionally misleading the public to believe that assault weapons (as defined in legislation) are full automatic firearms when they are not.[8]
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but no bill has reached the House floor for a vote.
The term, assault weapon, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.[2]
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine."
[In essence, it is a semi-automatic rifle with a detatchable magazine with certain cosmetic features. Semi-automatic rifles with detatchable magazines without these features were not affected]
The National Rifle Association has referred to the features affected by the ban as cosmetic,[3] as has the gun-hating Violence Policy Center.[4]
In addition, in March 2004, Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, criticized the soon-to-expire ban by stating, "The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, Uzis, AR-15s and other 'assault weapons'. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994."[5]
Bottom-line: It was a symbolic gesture.
The specific sections were in Title XI, subtitle A, formally known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, but commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban. I will try to consistently refer to such weapons as "FAWB 1994" assault weapons. If anyone knows of a better, widely used term, please share.
Source Wikipedia, various articles, incl.(some editing by blogger.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act
Self-defense, large capacity magazines, Second Amendment
Gun crimes make big headlines. However, when someone uses a gun to successfully defend themselves, it barely makes a media ripple. See this example. It also makes the point that large-capacity magazines should not be banned as they assist with self-defense. This intruder was shot five times and stilll got away (temporarily) What if the victim is so scared they have trouble-shooting straight and/or there are numberous intruders? A large capacity magazine may mean the difference between life and death for the homeowner. In full-size large-bore semi-automatics the stock double-stack magazines typically hold around 15-17 at most. Given that the attacker probably has such a handgun with such a magazine, the law should not require the defender to be outmatched. I'm not advocating 100 round pistol magazines. They would be too unwieldy and the user would shortly be unable to control the weapon after firing a lot of shots. Because of the dangerous muzzle climb of AR-15 bump-fire stocks, a good case could be made that they are unsafe and not suited for home defense and can be banned. I'm not advocating that everyone keep a gun for self-defense. I'm not advocating that everyone keep a large-capacity semi-automatic pistol for defense. I'm not advocating that people keep weapons they cannot safely handle. I'm advocating a realisitc approach that respects constitutional rights.
The essence of the Second Amendment is to allow people to have commonly used firearms for self-defense. The right is not absolute, but government should not have unlimited power to control the instrument of exercising Second Amendment rights.
The essence of the Second Amendment is to allow people to have commonly used firearms for self-defense. The right is not absolute, but government should not have unlimited power to control the instrument of exercising Second Amendment rights.
Guns are Not the Problem
More wisdom from Walter Williams. However, liberals/progressives aren't the only ones to blame. Lots of conservatives make $ marketing video games, movies, and other materials that contribute to the problem. Some day I'm going to write something on capitalism and social change.
NYC Mayor Bloomerg's Pros and Cons
I'm a frequent critic of Nanny York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. This article catalogs some of the good and bad. Unfortuanately, as regard NYPD, most of it is bad. Something about Mike reminds me of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Perhaps it's the ego, self-righteousness, or getting the law changed so he doesn't have to face the old term limits.
Massive Civil Disobedience on the Way?
Whether strict new gun controls come from Obama's executive orders or Congress, it could trigger massive civil disobedience and, perhaps ultimately, active resistance based on perceived government violation of the Second Amendment. Civil disobedience has a long history in the U.S., and around the world (e.g. India, China) For instance, it was used before to the American Revolution (Boston Tea Party) and was used by Dr. Martin Luther King during the 1960's to secure equal rights for black people. This is just an example. See also for another perspective. If the Left pushes through strict new gun controls, this could be the beginning of serious, violent challenges to government authority. The Second Amendment is not an absolute right so let's hope sanity prevails and there are no extreme measures (e.g. banning possession and sale of "assault rifles." )Let's hope government respects the Second Amendment and we don't start down that road. Stay tuned!
Monday, January 14, 2013
Homicide epidemic in Chicago despite of Draconian Gun laws
The Black and Hispanic communities suffer the most from the homicide epidemic in Chicago. The nation's strictest gun laws are not working. Most of the weapons are obtained illegally.
British military moving to Glock 17 (9 mm)
The old Browning is history. The Glock 17 will be the new standard sidearm. Welcome to the 21st Century!
TIH: 2004, 2005
2004
Former Enron finance chief Andrew Fastow pleaded guilty to conspiracy as he accepted a 10-year prison sentence.
2005
Army Specialist Charles Graner Jr., the reputed ringleader of a band of rogue guards at the Abu Ghraib prison, was convicted at Fort Hood, Texas, of abusing Iraqi detainees. (He was later sentenced to 10 years in prison.)
Sunday, January 13, 2013
First Amend & gov't enforced political correctness
This is a great, short collection of First Amendment U.S. Supreme Court quotes on government attempts to restrict First Amendment rights.
1963: A Year of Tumult
The 1963 was a transformative year in America. Pres. Kennedy assassinated, civil rights demanded, feminism, and youth rebellion, etc. Some of us still remember the '60's. Those who were not there have difficulty understanding how it was a transformative decade.
Civilians Arm to Protect 2 Mexican towns
When government is unable to provide protection to the people, some arm and take action. An example of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms at work in another country (Mexico). The term "vigilante" has negative connotations, and abuses are inevitable, but they are also inevitable when government is in charge.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
New international study on homicide
New study from the UN on worldwide homicide. Chapter 3 deals with firearms. First, if you expect an objective assessment from the UN, forget it. They are obsessed with arms contol and don't believe there is a human right to self-defense. The chapter on firearms shows a naivete about inferring causation from correlation. (Naivete or propaganda--you be the judge) None of the data it cites meets serious scientific standards about showing causation. For more on this see Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_and_correlation
Thanks to Bennet Jones for the link
Thanks to Bennet Jones for the link
Ending the Debate on Gun Control?
very good and thought-provoking article from the UK. I esp. like the call to get serious about the real casues and get organized to deal with those. However, finding and getting after the "real causes," is not any easy task. Further, designing reasonably effective programs to deal with these that we can afford and that respect constitutional rights is not easy. The divisiveness and distraction of the debate over gun control only gets in the way of doing what really needs to be done. In countries that already have millions of guns and a respect for constitutional rights, gun control cannot possible work. There is no credible evidence to support the gun control case. Of course, at bottom, the gun control crusade in the U.S. is not really about crime. Perhaps if we addressed that issue, it might be anoter way to end the debate.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Expansion of GPS monitoring
EXPANSION OF GPS ELECTRONIC MONITORING: WHERE DOES IT STOP? (2)
First used in U.S. courts in 1983 electronic monitoring is currently going viral in the criminal justice system. While in the early days, radio frequency technology dominated, most current systems are GPS-based, allowing near real time tracking. [Early electronic monitoring only indicated if the person went out of range of their electronic box, usually connected to their telephone. Use of these systems is rare today. GPS is the current norm]
Originally what practitioners often call “EM” applied primarily to people guilty of petty crimes or those` with sex offenses. But today prison overcrowding and state budget crises have made electronic monitoring an alternative of choice. On a normal day some 200,000 people wake up with a black plastic box strapped to their leg and the number is growing. In the past week alone, San Francisco County announced plans to triple the number of people on EM while legislators in Louisiana, which has the nation’s highest per capita incarceration rate, considered initiatives to put legions of people onto the streets using the electronic tether.
GPS monitoring as a condition of parole or probation is becoming more common, especially for high-risk clients. Currently, there are nearly five million people in the U.S. under some form of post-conviction supervision. Less than 50,000 are on electronic monitoring, but the number is growing rapidly
On one level all this EM is a good thing. For more than three decades we’ve been locking people up at a furious rate. Our prison and jail population has quintupled since 1980, now standing around 2.3 million. Electronic monitoring does offer opportunities for people other than the rich and famous to avoid being behind bars. Currently, the most common application of electronic monitoring is pre-trial release. Every day individuals awaiting judgment on relatively minor offenses go about their daily business on an ankle bracelet as a condition of bail. Cook County in Illinois has already run 250,000 people through electronic monitoring regimes, 85% of them pre-trial. This is a step in the right direction-trying to ensure that a minor brush with the law doesn’t cost a person their job, their housing, or access to medical treatment and education. But at the same time, there are concerns about how the use of this technology will evolve. It all gets a little more complicated when we move beyond probationers, parolees and people out on bail.
At the root of the complexity is the reality that electronic monitoring is not only a policy device, but an industry. Not surprisingly the biggest force in the world of EM is also one of the giants of the private prisons sector, the GEO Group. This Florida-based firm pulled in earnings of just over $1.6 billion in 2011. Early last year GEO took over the EM sector’s largest player, BI Incorporated of Colorado. BI is both a producer of the devices and a provider of backup services, including direct monitoring of individuals on ankle bracelets through a network of community-based offices. BI controls some 30% of the U.S. EM market.
GEO’s investment in BI dovetails neatly with the company’s most rapidly expanding market niche: immigration detention. While private providers only hold 8% of prison beds nationwide, in immigration the figure is 49%. The advent of harsher immigration laws and the increasing implementation of Secure Communities promises even bigger profits for private sector liberty deprivers. For those captured by the immigration dragnet but not put behind bars, BI has the perfect solution- intensive supervision. In a $372 million contract signed with ICE in 2009, BI agreed to “intensively supervise” 27,000 people awaiting litigation for deportation or political asylum. For most of these 27,000 that intensive supervision will include a BI ankle bracelet.
The introduction of this technology into the immigration sphere raises questions of who’s next. If the GEO Group and other major players in the electronic monitoring sector such as Omnilink, iSecure Trac, Secure Alert, and Pro Tech are to maintain their bottom lines, they need to expand their revenue either by tethering more ankles, lobbying for longer terms for those who are under EM, or increasing service charges. A second untapped market niche is school pupils. In Texas a number of high schools with primarily African American and Latino student bodies are placing pupils with records of excessive truancy on ankle bracelets. In Dallas’ Bryan Adams High School, local EM provider iISecureTrac kicked in $26,000 to fund a pilot program. The principal was a former employee of the Bureau of Prisons.
While there is little evidence that EM reduces recidivism, expect the private providers, led by BI, to use an army of lobbyists to pitch their product with a heavy dose of the gospel of ensuring public safety and the need for tighter restrictions for those on GPS systems.
In terms of service charges, many existing EM programs have already initiated user fees on bracelet wearers of $5 to $15 a day plus startup charges which run as high as $200. Denver even has a website where people can pay their EM user fees online. Such miniscule tariffs don’t pose a problem for the Martha Stewarts and Paris Hiltons of the EM realm, but for the generally impoverished population that ends up in jail relatively small amounts can break the bank.
Slate reporter William Saletan:
“As GPS gets cheaper, politicians will be tempted to order it not just for people who would otherwise be jailed, but for those who wouldn’t.” “No matter which of these voices you’re listening to, if your history includes mental health problems, receiving state assistance, seriously overdue student loan repayments or getting caught smoking in the high school bathroom-watch your ankle. {“Widening the Net”:Big brother keeps getting more powerful with the new technology]
SOURCE (some editing): http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/30/the-rise-of-electronic-monitoring-in-criminal-justice/
Using services or technology on people who, without the technology or service, wouldn’t have become clients in the first place is called “widening the net”
“NET WIDENING
Within . . . criminology this term is used to describe the effects of providing alternatives to incarceration or diversion programs to direct offenders away from court. While all of these programs developed since the late 1960's were intended to reduce the numbers of offenders in prison or reduce the numbers going to court, it has been found that what has happened instead is that the total numbers of offenders under the control of the state have increased while the population targeted for reduction has not been reduced. In short, the net of social control has been thrown more widely (or some might say the mesh has been made smaller)."
SOURCE (some editing) http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl?term=NET%20WIDENING
Perhaps gun owners and/or those with concealed carry will be next. It used to be said that "the only things you can be sure of in life are death and taxes." I thkink we can add the disturbing and dangerous growth of "Big Brother" to that list.
First used in U.S. courts in 1983 electronic monitoring is currently going viral in the criminal justice system. While in the early days, radio frequency technology dominated, most current systems are GPS-based, allowing near real time tracking. [Early electronic monitoring only indicated if the person went out of range of their electronic box, usually connected to their telephone. Use of these systems is rare today. GPS is the current norm]
Originally what practitioners often call “EM” applied primarily to people guilty of petty crimes or those` with sex offenses. But today prison overcrowding and state budget crises have made electronic monitoring an alternative of choice. On a normal day some 200,000 people wake up with a black plastic box strapped to their leg and the number is growing. In the past week alone, San Francisco County announced plans to triple the number of people on EM while legislators in Louisiana, which has the nation’s highest per capita incarceration rate, considered initiatives to put legions of people onto the streets using the electronic tether.
GPS monitoring as a condition of parole or probation is becoming more common, especially for high-risk clients. Currently, there are nearly five million people in the U.S. under some form of post-conviction supervision. Less than 50,000 are on electronic monitoring, but the number is growing rapidly
On one level all this EM is a good thing. For more than three decades we’ve been locking people up at a furious rate. Our prison and jail population has quintupled since 1980, now standing around 2.3 million. Electronic monitoring does offer opportunities for people other than the rich and famous to avoid being behind bars. Currently, the most common application of electronic monitoring is pre-trial release. Every day individuals awaiting judgment on relatively minor offenses go about their daily business on an ankle bracelet as a condition of bail. Cook County in Illinois has already run 250,000 people through electronic monitoring regimes, 85% of them pre-trial. This is a step in the right direction-trying to ensure that a minor brush with the law doesn’t cost a person their job, their housing, or access to medical treatment and education. But at the same time, there are concerns about how the use of this technology will evolve. It all gets a little more complicated when we move beyond probationers, parolees and people out on bail.
At the root of the complexity is the reality that electronic monitoring is not only a policy device, but an industry. Not surprisingly the biggest force in the world of EM is also one of the giants of the private prisons sector, the GEO Group. This Florida-based firm pulled in earnings of just over $1.6 billion in 2011. Early last year GEO took over the EM sector’s largest player, BI Incorporated of Colorado. BI is both a producer of the devices and a provider of backup services, including direct monitoring of individuals on ankle bracelets through a network of community-based offices. BI controls some 30% of the U.S. EM market.
GEO’s investment in BI dovetails neatly with the company’s most rapidly expanding market niche: immigration detention. While private providers only hold 8% of prison beds nationwide, in immigration the figure is 49%. The advent of harsher immigration laws and the increasing implementation of Secure Communities promises even bigger profits for private sector liberty deprivers. For those captured by the immigration dragnet but not put behind bars, BI has the perfect solution- intensive supervision. In a $372 million contract signed with ICE in 2009, BI agreed to “intensively supervise” 27,000 people awaiting litigation for deportation or political asylum. For most of these 27,000 that intensive supervision will include a BI ankle bracelet.
The introduction of this technology into the immigration sphere raises questions of who’s next. If the GEO Group and other major players in the electronic monitoring sector such as Omnilink, iSecure Trac, Secure Alert, and Pro Tech are to maintain their bottom lines, they need to expand their revenue either by tethering more ankles, lobbying for longer terms for those who are under EM, or increasing service charges. A second untapped market niche is school pupils. In Texas a number of high schools with primarily African American and Latino student bodies are placing pupils with records of excessive truancy on ankle bracelets. In Dallas’ Bryan Adams High School, local EM provider iISecureTrac kicked in $26,000 to fund a pilot program. The principal was a former employee of the Bureau of Prisons.
While there is little evidence that EM reduces recidivism, expect the private providers, led by BI, to use an army of lobbyists to pitch their product with a heavy dose of the gospel of ensuring public safety and the need for tighter restrictions for those on GPS systems.
In terms of service charges, many existing EM programs have already initiated user fees on bracelet wearers of $5 to $15 a day plus startup charges which run as high as $200. Denver even has a website where people can pay their EM user fees online. Such miniscule tariffs don’t pose a problem for the Martha Stewarts and Paris Hiltons of the EM realm, but for the generally impoverished population that ends up in jail relatively small amounts can break the bank.
Slate reporter William Saletan:
“As GPS gets cheaper, politicians will be tempted to order it not just for people who would otherwise be jailed, but for those who wouldn’t.” “No matter which of these voices you’re listening to, if your history includes mental health problems, receiving state assistance, seriously overdue student loan repayments or getting caught smoking in the high school bathroom-watch your ankle. {“Widening the Net”:Big brother keeps getting more powerful with the new technology]
SOURCE (some editing): http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/30/the-rise-of-electronic-monitoring-in-criminal-justice/
Using services or technology on people who, without the technology or service, wouldn’t have become clients in the first place is called “widening the net”
“NET WIDENING
Within . . . criminology this term is used to describe the effects of providing alternatives to incarceration or diversion programs to direct offenders away from court. While all of these programs developed since the late 1960's were intended to reduce the numbers of offenders in prison or reduce the numbers going to court, it has been found that what has happened instead is that the total numbers of offenders under the control of the state have increased while the population targeted for reduction has not been reduced. In short, the net of social control has been thrown more widely (or some might say the mesh has been made smaller)."
SOURCE (some editing) http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl?term=NET%20WIDENING
Perhaps gun owners and/or those with concealed carry will be next. It used to be said that "the only things you can be sure of in life are death and taxes." I thkink we can add the disturbing and dangerous growth of "Big Brother" to that list.
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Obama & Biden Want More Gun Control
As most everyone is well aware, the elementary school killings have spawned numerous calls for more gun control. Here's a short piece on what we can expect from the Obama adminstration. It will be interesting to see what Obama will attempt to do by executive order and thus bypass Congress. Stay tuned!
Judge Halts NYC stop-and-frisk Program
Not only does Nanny York City want to protect your health and help you control your weight, they will also deprive you of your 4th Amendment protections. Thanks to Bennett Jones for the link.
Jury Awards $850,000 against Chicago PD
This is a somewhat unusual case involving the department's code of silence and use of force.
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
Walter Williams on Educational Fraud
Another great article on the bankruptcy and corruption in American education. Black students are the long-term victims. He did not even mention the scandal in El Paso, TX which resulted in a prison sentence for a school administrator
Another bad S.Ct. CJ decision
The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the lower courts whom, IMHO got it right. An incompetent defendant cannot aid his lawyer in habeas corpus proceedings. The chances of winning are undermined unfairly if hte defendant is incompetent. These were both death-row cases. It looks like criminal defendants can not rely on the Court's liberals. The case is Ryan v. Gonzalez.
"This decision, in plain English:
An individual who is convicted of a crime in state court has a number of opportunities to challenge the conviction and the sentence, first in state court and, if that is unsuccessful, in a federal court. In federal court, that right is found in the ancient promise that a person being held in captivity by the government has a right to compel the government to justify that detention. That is called the right to a “writ of habeas corpus” — a Latin phrase that generally translates as “you have the body” and must justify holding it.
If lawyers for a state prisoner have taken the case into federal court, the case plays out there under a series of legal rules. Sometimes, those rules are not entirely clear, and courts have to clarify them. In two cases decided on Tuesday, the Supreme Court was asked to clarify those rules when the state prisoner involved in the case is found to have become mentally incompetent, and thus is unable to help his lawyer pursue the legal challenge to his conviction and sentence. Two federal appeals courts had ruled that, if the prisoner has in fact become incompetent, the federal case should simply be put on hold until that individual regains mental competence. Without the capacity to aid his lawyer, the prisoner’s challenge is essentially undermined, and so is his right to a lawyer, those lower courts ruled.
The Supreme Court decided unanimously that the lower courts were wrong. There is no constitutional right to have a lawyer at all during federal court review of state convictions, so any right to a lawyer, and the consequences of having access to a lawyer, must depend upon whether there is a federal law that promises legal assistance while an individual is mentally incompetent. There is no such law, the Court ruled, that assures that an individual has a right to aid his lawyer during the federal proceeding when the individual is incompetent, so there is no right to have the case put on hold until the individual might regain the mental capacity to participate.
In reaching its decision, the Court noted that it had once put a Virginia state prisoner’s case on hold for twenty-eight years, because the man was incompetent. But it concluded that the actions it took in that case did not set a precedent for delaying a federal case involving a state prisoner who had become incompetent"
"This decision, in plain English:
An individual who is convicted of a crime in state court has a number of opportunities to challenge the conviction and the sentence, first in state court and, if that is unsuccessful, in a federal court. In federal court, that right is found in the ancient promise that a person being held in captivity by the government has a right to compel the government to justify that detention. That is called the right to a “writ of habeas corpus” — a Latin phrase that generally translates as “you have the body” and must justify holding it.
If lawyers for a state prisoner have taken the case into federal court, the case plays out there under a series of legal rules. Sometimes, those rules are not entirely clear, and courts have to clarify them. In two cases decided on Tuesday, the Supreme Court was asked to clarify those rules when the state prisoner involved in the case is found to have become mentally incompetent, and thus is unable to help his lawyer pursue the legal challenge to his conviction and sentence. Two federal appeals courts had ruled that, if the prisoner has in fact become incompetent, the federal case should simply be put on hold until that individual regains mental competence. Without the capacity to aid his lawyer, the prisoner’s challenge is essentially undermined, and so is his right to a lawyer, those lower courts ruled.
The Supreme Court decided unanimously that the lower courts were wrong. There is no constitutional right to have a lawyer at all during federal court review of state convictions, so any right to a lawyer, and the consequences of having access to a lawyer, must depend upon whether there is a federal law that promises legal assistance while an individual is mentally incompetent. There is no such law, the Court ruled, that assures that an individual has a right to aid his lawyer during the federal proceeding when the individual is incompetent, so there is no right to have the case put on hold until the individual might regain the mental capacity to participate.
In reaching its decision, the Court noted that it had once put a Virginia state prisoner’s case on hold for twenty-eight years, because the man was incompetent. But it concluded that the actions it took in that case did not set a precedent for delaying a federal case involving a state prisoner who had become incompetent"
Basics of National Security Letters (NSL's)
One of the investigative tools in the federal governments anti-terrorism toolbox is the National Security Letter (NSL). Many are concerned that these letters endanger Fourth Amendment and privacy rights. This short, readable article from the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin provides the basics. Stay tuned!
Monday, January 07, 2013
"Flipping Off" Police Alone does not warrant a Traffic Stop
Giving police "the bird" does not create reasonable suspicion justifying a traffic stop. This is just a common sense application of existing law. Obviously some officers lack this.
Gay Marriage Marches On! (Maryland approves it)
A number of states have approved gay marriage. Approval in Maryland is especially noteworthy as it it is the first state south of the Mason-Dixon line to approve. The U.S. Supreme Court may make it nation-wide when it decides it decides it's gay marriage cases this term.
Sppeedy trial error may set "criminal" free
When the cj system messes up, it frequently means unjustified punishment for innocent people. Sometimes, however, it means that a guilty person may go free, as in this case. Most constitutional errors at trial only result in a new trial.* However, 6th Amendment speedy trial and5th Amendment double jeopardy violations frequently mean that the defendant is freed, never to be tried or tried again.
*Not all constitutional errors even result in a new trial. If the reviewing court finds that the error was "harmless," the conviction will be upheld. "Harmless" basically means that the error most likely did not contribute to the conviction in light of the strength of the evidence of guilt.
*Not all constitutional errors even result in a new trial. If the reviewing court finds that the error was "harmless," the conviction will be upheld. "Harmless" basically means that the error most likely did not contribute to the conviction in light of the strength of the evidence of guilt.
"Wilmington 10" Pardoned
Some of you may remember this controversial case from the 1970's. It became a cause celebre. The convictions were arguably tainted by racism, politics, and prosecutorial misconduct.
Personal names and the Nanny State (e.g, Iceland)
Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland, among others, have offical rules about what one can name their child. This mother in Iceland gave her newborn daughter a name that the government says is a masculine one and she cannot use it. She is listed as "girl" on official documents. The rationale is to protect children from the embarrassment of having an unuusal name. Welcome to the Nanny State mentality. Many on the left look to Europe as the model for government. Anyone who loves liberty would find this outrageous. Maybe they need to re-think this if they really care about human autonomy in personal matters that really harm no one.
Inmate Languishes in Prison for 30 yrs. after conviction overturned
Someone dropped the ball somewhere, and this inmate spent 3 decades in prison without getting his new trial. Shameful!
Interesting new study on gun control
Best wishes for the New Year! Lots of bad news and more gun control and crime control controversy. Let's start off with this.
FWIW: Not a very sophisitcated study, but makes some good points.
FWIW: Not a very sophisitcated study, but makes some good points.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)