I like this strategy because it overcomes one of the fundamental flaws with the economic premise behind crime and punishment that make incarceration a failed approach for eradicating drug crime, particularly open air drug markets.The initiative, run by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, targets violent crime and open-air drug markets that are the scourge of some communities. The program is potentially controversial because it involves not prosecuting known offenders if they agree to quit their criminal activities. ...
Developed by David Kennedy, a criminologist at John Jay College in New York, the crime program combines elements of initiatives run in the 1990s in Boston and in High Point (North Carolina) in 2004 that were credited by authorities with helping reduce youth gang and drug violence. Boston authorities say their program cut youth homicides by two-thirds and homicides citywide by half. The High Point plan eliminated drug markets citywide, the city says.
Under the project, law-enforcement officials and prosecutors in the cities identify individuals operating in violent-crime areas who haven't yet committed serious violent crimes, and build cases against them, including undercover operations and surveillance. The culmination is a "call in" when the case is presented to the would-be suspect in front of law enforcement, community leaders, ex-offenders and friends and family.
"The prosecutor talks to them and lets them know: 'we could arrest you now but we won't because the drug dealing stops today, the violence stops today,'" said Jeremy Travis, president of John Jay. "If you continue, you now know the consequences and you've seen the case against you but we don't want to send you to prison."
Meanwhile, violent criminals who are identified will be arrested. In the High Point project, drug dealers weren't included in the program if they had a history of violence; had gun violations that were considered dangerous; or had pending cases against them.
The strategy makes even more sense when you realize, as the authors of Freakonomics demonstrated, that most drug dealers live with their mothers and thus are probably more susceptible to community influence than antisocial stereotypes give them credit for.
The economic premise behind most criminal laws is that the punishment is the "price" for illegal activity, which offenders should presumably not participate in unless they're willing to "pay." However, this conception of punishment as "price" ignores the dramatic real-world uncertainty about outcomes and what economists call "free rider" problems. Most people involved in most illegal drug transactions are not arrested or incarcerated, so participants in drug markets do not perceive they'll necessarily pay a "price" for their offenses, and certainly not for the next marginal offense where odds of capture are statistically pretty low.
That uncertainty makes it much less likely criminal laws influence behavior because most rational risk assessors do not assume they'll pay a "price" for any given offense. But if you inform somebody (and the people around them) that the Sword of Damocles is looming directly over their head so that they perceive incarceration as an immediate risk, that "price" becomes much more real and likely to influence behavior, particularly among callow youth who aren't yet so deep in the game.
For more details on what's become known as the "High Point" strategy (named for the town in North Carolina where it was popularized), see past Grits coverage and also these resources on the topic:
- Wall Street Journal: "Novel police tactic puts drug markets out of business," Sept. 27, 2006
- David Kennedy: "Drugs, Race and Common Ground: Reflections on the High Point intervention," based on remarks at a 2008 NIJ conference
- YouTube video (11 minutes): "Innovators' Focus: Overt Drug Market Strategy Curbs Crime"
.jpg)
29 comments:
An interesting theory. However, it was my observation that many would just adopt the attitude of "See? Nothing really bad happens to you if you get caught. Heck, they let me go since it was my first time."
If you will remember, they tried this approach with DWIs back in the 60's and 70's. You could always buy or negotiate your way out of your first one.
It is interesting that the police chief that spearheaded the project in High Point, NC was a narcotics officer in Austin for 25 years.
I could not find a list of the 30 cities slated to take part in similar projects across the US.
I wonder if any in Texas signed on.
And dirty harry, despite what you think might happen, the articles referenced by Grits clearly show that the communities reduced crime and made their streets safer. And had the added benefit of forging alliances between law enforcement and the community without spending wasted tax dollars on needless incarceration.
I thought that was the point after all.
What a BS concept. Go to the trouble of making a case only to present it to the perp!
Thats like saying "you guys are going to have to change things up, we are on to you"
Liberals!!
Anonymous 6/14/2009 11:42:00 AM
said:
"And dirty harry, despite what you think might happen, the articles referenced by Grits clearly show that the communities reduced crime and made their streets safer. And had the added benefit of forging alliances between law enforcement and the community without spending wasted tax dollars on needless incarceration.
I thought that was the point after all."
If this is such a great idea, then why don't we try it with rapists and child molesters?
I this idea might work, not because they let the perp go on his first offense, but because they can pressure him into giving up bigger fish. Of course, this idea is nothing new.
Yes dirty harry I see your point, although I have been struggling to find one.
I think it might be that since this idea does not involve punishment, just accountability for the offender than it cannnot possibly be effective.
Although, I am hard pressed to come up with examples where the tough penalties have turned the tide in the war on drugs.
It might be okay with you that everyone who is involved in any way shape or form in drugs be sent to prison. But, if there is another way, I'd like to try it.
Personally, I'm tired of paying for it. And I really don't want to see my children and my children's children paying for it.
And I won't even dignify the child molester/ rapist remark with a response. Really, is that the best you can do?
I can say one thing good about this, it subjects criminals to an intensive humiliating meeting, without the expense of incarceration. However I doubt this will lead to a lowering of crime if adopted nationwide.
The problem with this approach is that it emboldens those who have never been caught. As Dirty Harry pointed out, if you have not been warned yet, you know you can probably get away with continuing your behavior.
Grits points out that criminals are often not deterred because there is uncertainty in their punishment. But this approach will give many criminals certainty that they won't be punished, which is even worse.
"this approach will give many criminals certainty that they won't be punished"
Only if they stop committing crimes, of course!
Anonymous 6/14/2009 05:57:00 PM said:
"I think it might be that since this idea does not involve punishment, just accountability for the offender than it cannnot possibly be effective."
What "accountability?" Does he do any jailtime? Does he do any community service? Does he have to wear an ankle-monitor and stay confined at home? Well, of course not! He's free to go back out on the street unimpeded and buy/sell more drugs, and commit whatever crimes he might need to support his drug activities after he gives the police a sob story as to why he does what he does. Yeah, that's some accountability.
Anonymous 6/14/2009 05:57:00 PM said:
"Personally, I'm tired of paying for it. And I really don't want to see my children and my children's children paying for it."
Then stop coddling criminals.
Anonymous 6/14/2009 05:57:00 PM said:
"And I won't even dignify the child molester/ rapist remark with a response. Really, is that the best you can do?"
It seems to be good enough to have put a stop to your pie in the sky rant, since you obviously don't have a response to this reality.
Dirty, an important goal of the justice system is to provide incentives for people who commit crimes to change their behavior. This tactic arguably does a better job of that, if the data can be believed (and replicated), that just spinning them through a revolving door of punishment in ways that don't alter the root behavior.
Get a dictionary. "Accountability" and "punishment" are not synonyms.
How much money, effort and time has been wasted on things that were not crimes until a bunch of Nervous Nellies made them into crimes? I'm talking the drug laws, of course.
As usual, when you involve government in the process, it gets messed up. And that's what happened with drug prohibition, same as what happened with alcohol Prohibition. Prior to 1914 we didn't have anywhere near the drug problems we have today, largely because the matter was kept between physician and patient. With the drug laws came government intervention, and the mess has been growing in size ever since. And now we can't afford to pay for it, anymore.
It's time to say enough's enough. We have better things to spend the money on than this failed drug war.
Prohibition and punishment are both ineffective approaches to drug control. If there were any hope that these strategies would ever be effective in reducing the drug use, distribution or drug related crime we would know by now -- we have been trying to prohibit drugs since 1875.
Simply stated these strategies have failed to achieve any of the policy goals advanced to support the War on Drugs.
It is time to seriously consider legalization and regulation (think repeal of alcohol prohibition and regulating legal access).
This is all interesting reading and it certainly sounds like there are some decent folks at work trying to actually come up with some sort of common sense rationale to deal with this travesty of political thinking.
The war on drugs is about money, it’s certainly not about justice.
Prohibition of alcohol only served to create violence and corruption.
The war on drugs has created a worldwide black market enterprise and the only way to stop it is to take the money out of it. Until this happens and our resources are channeled solely into the education of drug abuse we will continue to be the enablers of violence and corruption in a market place that will continue to thrive like no other.
Government statistics do not provide anything remotely close to accurate information on substance abuse or the overwhelming criminal activities associated with drugs. Government statists always serve to serve government and the allocations of tax payer money to help pay for their worthy cause.
While I applaud any effort to change our way of thinking it’s incredibly naive to think that placing a bucket under a downpour of rain will stop the river from rising.
The so called open air drug market blankets our cities, our states, our country, and far beyond. Any attempt of any kind to stop this market place short of actually stopping it is just more of the same, so by all means find the money, beef up the program, and publish the statistics because that’s what it’s all about anyway.
Gritsforbreakfast said:
"Get adictionary. "Accountability" and "punishment" are not synonyms."
But, "accountability" and "responsibility" are. Perhaps, you should invest in a dictionary.
Dirty, if you'd been talking about "responsibility" your retort at 1:09 would be relevant, instead of increasingly pathetic. Here's what you wrote that my comment reacted to:
"What 'accountability?' Does he do any jailtime? Does he do any community service? Does he have to wear an ankle-monitor and stay confined at home?"
You clearly equate accountability with PUNISHMENT. By contrast, "responsibility" - heeding the pleas of the community and changing bad behavior is EXACTLY what this program is about. It's just not what YOU are about.
Maybe along with that dictionary you need some ADD medication to help you stay focused on your points.
Oh, so now the only response you have is to degrade the mentally handicapped in this country? Personally, I am quite focused. I just don't let my political leanings or my emotions cloud my good judgment. To try and bolster your argument, you assume that I equate punishment with accountability and responsibility. Not true. Taking responsibility is the same as being accountable for your actions. Taking responsibility also requires you to remit any damages you may have caused for your actions. Fines and community service fall under the category of remitting damages. Since not all transgressors are inclined to voluntarily make remittance for their damages to society, it would be unfair to just let them off the hook without any remittance whatsoever. That's just one of the functions incarceration serves.
I fully realize you think the cure for jail overcrowding is just to decriminalize certain actions, or in this case, turn a blind eye to first offenders. This may work on a few, but certainly not most. History has already shown this with the way we used to approach the DWI problem, and other criminal activity.
Any good shrink worth their salt will tell you that immediate negative consequence is the best way to stop unwanted behavior. However, where we drop the ball, is that we don't follow-up with a more positive approach on showing the perp how to succeed in life without engaging in unwanted behavior. In general, letting first offenders off the hook won't work. What works, is showing them there are definite consequences for their actions, which can be either good or bad, and showing them they have a choice.
Grits tends to resort to shrill, Bill O'Reilly-esqe insults when the thread doesn't go his way. It's really sad.
All I can say is, if I thought that I would not get a speeding ticket until I had a call-in, I would feel much more comfortable speeding. So this tactic could encourage crime.
Dirty, I didn't insult "the mentally handicapped in this country," I insulted YOU for bouncing from false argument to false argument, which is something I'm also fed up with on the TYC strings. And I didn't assume anything about your views. I quoted you directly and responded to exactly what you said - statements you don't defend and instead want to change the subject.
The shrinks you're listening to must be working off of incomplete information, because society has been issuing "negative consequences" in the war on drugs for decades and it hasn't stopped drugs' availability at all. If that strategy is such a great success, why are drug use/sales still such a problem? In this instance, addiction and profit seem to trump your assumptions.
Ironically, you seem to understand that "where we drop the ball, is that we don't follow-up with a more positive approach on showing the perp how to succeed in life without engaging in unwanted behavior." But to judge by your comments on this string, you don't want that ball picked up!!! You'd rather wallow in failure just so nothing will disturb your Punishment = Accountability ideology.
Finally, there's nothing in this piece about jail overcrowding and it's a red herring for you to bring it up. (Changing the subject again.) The goal of this program is crime reduction. You don't like the evidence so you pretend the program is some stereotypical liberal soft on crime proposal instead of something cops are pursuing BECAUSE IT WORKS.
11:35 - your comment is silly: they aren't using this tactic on traffic enforcement but for drug sales. Pay attention.
Shocker - No Texas jurisdictions were listed.
NATIONAL NETWORK FOR SAFE COMMUNITIES: CURRENT MEMBERSHIP BY JURISDICTION
1. Boston, MA
2. Canton, OH
3. Chicago, IL
4. Cincinnati, OH
5. Cleveland, OH
6. Columbus, OH
7. Dayton, OH
8. Greensboro, NC
9. Greenville, NC
10. Hempstead, NY
11. High Point, NC
12. Hillsborough, NC
13. Los Angeles, CA
14. Mesa, AZ
15. Milwaukee, WI
16. Mineola, NY
17. Mount Vernon, NY
18. Ocala, FL
19. Peoria, IL
20. Pittsburgh, PA
21. Providence, RI
22. Rockford, IL
23. Sacramento, CA
24. Seattle, WA
25. Shelby, NC
26. Stockton, CA
27. White Plains, NY
28. Yonkers, NY
- - - -
For More Information Call:
Chris Godek, 212-237-8628
Doreen Vinas, 212-237-8645
http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20090615.125821&time=14%2004%20PDT&year=2009&public=1
Hey Dirty Harry - here are a few questions for you to consider.
1. If punishment is so effective in changing behavior why does psychological research consistently reveal the positive reinforcement works far better.
2. If punishment is so effective in reducing crime why is it that the states (and nations) with the highest incarceration rates also have the highest crime rates.
3. If punishment is so effective in reducing crime why is it that the states with capital punishment have much higher homicide rates than states without capital punishment; and, those states that use it the most high higher homicide rates than those that use it least.
There is little support for punishment as an effective response to crime. Yet, there is considerable research suggesting proactive prevention strategies (restorative and community justice) may be much more effective and less costly.
With regard to drug use -- users rarely consider the odds of punishment when they use drugs. Drug use is a health problem, not a criminal justice problem. Criminal justice responses cannot and will not lead to lower drug use or less drug related crime but just the opposite.
Grits is right -- your arguments demonstrate a profound lack of understanding about the basic facts of these problems. You might want to go to a university or city library and doing some research to fill in the gaps.
Tough on crime "44 Calibre" policy may sound good and feel good but is often counterproductive -- making problems worse. Have you ever thought that "tough" policies may be the real "soft on crime" approach because they are symbolic and deal with symptoms rather than the disease.
We all want safer, higher quality of life and lower drug use. The debate should not be over ideological beliefs -- the kind of arguments you make -- but over which evidence based practices are likely to produce the outcomes we seek.
anon 8:28
Thank you! Let reason reign!
Vox Populi
Anonymous 6/16/2009 08:28:00 PM said:
"Hey Dirty Harry - here are a few questions for you to consider.
1. If punishment is so effective in changing behavior why does psychological research consistently reveal the positive reinforcement works far better."
But, it doesn't work as swiftly at stopping unwanted bahavior. Postitve reinforcement is a gradual approach at stopping unwanted behavior. Immediate negative consequence is just that - immediate. Assuming you are of sound mind, how many times as a child did you have to stick your finger is an electrical outlet before you learned not to do it again?
Anonymous 6/16/2009 08:28:00 PM said:
"2. If punishment is so effective in reducing crime why is it that the states (and nations) with the highest incarceration rates also have the highest crime rates."
Because those places (like us) only make token attempts at providing immediate negative consequences. Here are some stats on drug offenses for you to ponder:
United States: 560.1 per 100,000 people
Singapore: 46.8 per 100,000 people
Hong Kong: 34 per 100,000 people
South Korea: 9.9 per 100,000 people
China: 3.9 per 100,000 people
In case you wondering, I wouldn't reccommend travel to any of the above foreign countries and committing a drug crime. That is, if you ever want to see home again. That's assuming you even survive the ordeal.
Anonymous 6/16/2009 08:28:00 PM said:
"3. If punishment is so effective in reducing crime why is it that the states with capital punishment have much higher homicide rates than states without capital punishment; and, those states that use it the most high higher homicide rates than those that use it least."
Because homicide is usually a crime of passion.
Anonymous 6/16/2009 08:28:00 PM said:
"There is little support for punishment as an effective response to crime. Yet, there is considerable research suggesting proactive prevention strategies (restorative and community justice) may be much more effective and less costly.
With regard to drug use -- users rarely consider the odds of punishment when they use drugs. Drug use is a health problem, not a criminal justice problem. Criminal justice responses cannot and will not lead to lower drug use or less drug related crime but just the opposite."
In your post above, you're just ignoring ALL the facts, and only paying attention to those that support your contention. I prefer taking resonsibility for yout actions over punishment for crime. But, as I stated, doing something to stop drime has to be an immediate negative response before it will work. Then, you can start to incorporate the positive reinforcement to support the positive behavior. But, you have to immediately stop the bad behavior first. Our criminal justice system doesn't do that, and that is why it fails. If immediate negative consequence doesn't work, then tell my why I can live in a redneck, pistol-packing town and can leave my vehicles unlocked at all the local store parking lots, and haven't locked my home since I lived here. This is a no-brainer. I have worked with both juvenile and adult offenders for years. Our criminal justice system is the last thing they fear. However, it's their victims that they fear the most, because they know that if the victims do get a chance to react, that reaction can be immediate and severe.
Dirty Harry - your arguments boil down to one argument - swift vengeance in which might makes right.
This is not justice -- justice is about truth, fairness and balance. It is about dealing with issues as they really are not about reactive vengeance based on assumptions about you think things are based on annecdotal information.
The area you cite are not models of justice but injustice. You noted that yourself in your comment.
You advocate increasing the swiftness of punishment - so I suppose you would not be opposed to lynching before conviction. Is that justice? I suppose you would be for summary execution without appeal immediately after conviction -- it would be cheap and quick but would I doubt many would consider it justice.
Now put yourself in this scenario -- you have just been convicted of a capital crime you did not commit. That is your factually innocent but legally guilty. Would consider swift summary execution without appeal justice?
I suppose you would advocate the elimination all appeals for those convicted of crimes -- particularly capital crimes - to maximize swiftness. Would you OK with if that if your were factually innocent but legally guilty and facing a long prison sentence or the death penalty? I suspect you would want all your appeals.
Slow justice is an attempt to get it right and prevent getting it wrong. That said we still it get it wrong far too often. The Innocence Project has been associated with the release of over 200 factually innocent prisoners in the last decade or so and each year about 30% of those sentenced to death are removed from death row because of factual and legal error and some have been released because we discovered they were factually innocent.
You seem to assume that the standards you espouse won't be applied to you but are good for everyone else. From many ethical and faith systems that would be recognized quickly as hypocritical and highly unethical.
The juvenile justice system has been doing this for years. Most of the drug offenders sent to TYC are sent for probation violations not for the drug offense itself. We had a kid a couple of years ago that came in on a three year sentence. He had a picture of himself with a fist full of Benjamins and bling everywhere he could put it. He was 15. Up until the day he was released he told me he was going back to the good life and had a friend that was going to front him a start-up package (dope and cash). The organized distribution groups will use this to their advantage, each of their members can be utilized until they have to use their get out of jail free card.
Punishment refers to efforts to stop unwanted behavior. Reinforcement refers to efforts to promote wanted behavior. Both are most effective when administered in close proximity to the target behavior.
Punishment and threat of punishment tend to be ineffective with many juvenile and young adult offenders. Look at how many violate conditions of probation and parole.
I do think the threat of punishment model may be helpful for some and will give those whose brains have developed adequately, to have the ability to think abstractly, an opportunity to change their ways without unnecessary incarceration. It will likely reduce some crime, cause some crime simply to move, but unfortunately will fall far short in solving the problem.
To follow up: something like 60 percent of those in federal prisons are there for drug crimes. Many of these people need to be in prison.
How many people are in county jail for 6 to 9 months for minor drug offenses and lose their jobs, homes, cars, and families in that time. We have to do something and something fast. I know Oklahoma had a treatment model with residential treatment at night. THose in the program slept at a nonsecure facility and went to work during the day but had to be in the door by 6 for drug treatment and other rehabilitative programming. Seemed to work there.
Anonymous 6/17/2009 10:52:00 AM said:
"Dirty Harry - your arguments boil down to one argument - swift vengeance in which might makes right.
This is not justice -- justice is about truth, fairness and balance. It is about dealing with issues as they really are not about reactive vengeance based on assumptions about you think things are based on annecdotal information."
I know I haven't been posting in a foreign language, so let me try this again. I'm not talking about vengeance. I'm talking about real and swift ACCOUNTABILITY for committing crimes. That's what I call justice, for both the actor and the victim.
Anonymous 6/17/2009 10:52:00 AM said:
"The area you cite are not models of justice but injustice. You noted that yourself in your comment."
Why are they injustice? If you are guilty, then you are guilty. Just because you aren't coddled or let of the hook, you think you have been treated unjustly? No, what I indicated in my comment was that you better not go to those countries and commit a drug crime because if you do, you WILL be dealt with harshly. That's why not many people commit drug crimes in those countries as compared to the U.S.
Anonymous 6/17/2009 10:52:00 AM said:
"You advocate increasing the swiftness of punishment - so I suppose you would not be opposed to lynching before conviction. Is that justice? I suppose you would be for summary execution without appeal immediately after conviction -- it would be cheap and quick but would I doubt many would consider it justice."
No, I just advocate swift and sure accountability. Not ten years worth of appeals. Not a free pass for the first offense. If you did it, then you are guilty - no excuses.
Anonymous 6/17/2009 10:52:00 AM said:
"Now put yourself in this scenario -- you have just been convicted of a capital crime you did not commit. That is your factually innocent but legally guilty. Would consider swift summary execution without appeal justice?
I suppose you would advocate the elimination all appeals for those convicted of crimes -- particularly capital crimes - to maximize swiftness. Would you OK with if that if your were factually innocent but legally guilty and facing a long prison sentence or the death penalty? I suspect you would want all your appeals."
If I did it, then I did it. If not, I'm innocent. However, you will notice that the slow wheels of justice in this country still don't keep the rare innocent person from being executed. All it realy does is cost the taxpayer money and cause the vast number of families of victims to go through life without closure. (Although, I'm not a fan of the death penalty except under extreme instances.)
Anonymous 6/17/2009 10:52:00 AM said:
"Slow justice is an attempt to get it right and prevent getting it wrong."
No, it's an attempt to make YOU and others who advocate your position feel good, and ignore the pain and suffering of the real victims of crime.
Anonymous 6/17/2009 10:52:00 AM said:
"That said we still it get it wrong far too often. The Innocence Project has been associated with the release of over 200 factually innocent prisoners in the last decade or so and each year about 30% of those sentenced to death are removed from death row because of factual and legal error and some have been released because we discovered they were factually innocent."
All these mistakes, even though we take decades to finally bring some murderers to justice. And no doubt, some of them are innocent, and, no doubt some of them are guilty and get away scot free. It doesn't appear that "slow justice" really accomplishes anything positive, but it definitely keeps the victims from attaining closure.
Anonymous 6/17/2009 10:52:00 AM said:
"You seem to assume that the standards you espouse won't be applied to you but are good for everyone else. From many ethical and faith systems that would be recognized quickly as hypocritical and highly unethical."
You certainly have an active imagination.
Anonymous 6/17/2009 09:25:00 PM said:
"Punishment refers to efforts to stop unwanted behavior. Reinforcement refers to efforts to promote wanted behavior. Both are most effective when administered in close proximity to the target behavior."
Bingo! Although, I can think of more beneficial forms of accountability than plain punishment.
I was in Germany in the 70's. I learned something fast. I don't know what the situation is today, but in cities like Berlin, even with an active night life, driving late at night was a relatively safe activity because they didn't have a DWI problem. Also, the idea of a "dedicated driver" was used widespread in Germany long before it was used in this country because you did not want to be caught driving under the influence in Berlin, Germany. If you failed a sobriety test, There was no bail. You sat in a h@ll hole of a jail cell until your trial. The only way out was if you voluntarily submitted to a blood test. And, if you were found guilty, your life was over because you could lose your drivers license FOR LIFE. And on top of that, most high-end employers wouldn't touch you with a stick with a DWI on your record.
We had a joke that the safest place to be at 3am in the morning was laying in the middle of the street in front of a Berlin disco. You simply did not drive under the influence in Berlin - period.
Anonymous 6/17/2009 09:25:00 PM said:
"Punishment and threat of punishment tend to be ineffective with many juvenile and young adult offenders. Look at how many violate conditions of probation and parole."
That's because they don't see any real accountability or being held responsible with probation and parole. And, juveniles think they will eventually be given a free pass because they are juveniles.
Anonymous 6/17/2009 09:25:00 PM said:
"I do think the threat of punishment model may be helpful for some and will give those whose brains have developed adequately, to have the ability to think abstractly, an opportunity to change their ways without unnecessary incarceration. It will likely reduce some crime, cause some crime simply to move, but unfortunately will fall far short in solving the problem."
But, it certainly will make some people feel good, won't it?
9:25 - I agree with what you are saying and the High Point model as I understand it does not attempt to solve all of the drug problems this way.
They do recognize that some drug offenders need to be in prison. Especially those who are violent. And drug abusers need treatment.
It not meant as a panacea for the drug problem in general. It simple targets those where there is a likelihood of success.
It has a domino effect in the community of putting law enforcement resources where they need to be properly applied, relieving secondary crime that often accompanies these open market neighborhoods, puts tax dollars into addressing more needed social funding like drug treatment, and forms an alliance between law enforcement and those in those communities.
And yes harry - this type of model if instituted in Texas would indeed make me feel good. Another added bonus, I suppose.
I don't think that the research findings that juveniles, around the age of 17 and 18, begin to have a better understanding of future consequences for behavior (both good and bad) has anything to do with exposure to "accountability" or getting off easy. It is simply just the time when neuropsychological development starts in this area.
Post a Comment