Does Gun Control Reduce Violent Crime Criminal Justice Review

On a night of the Republican convention focused on "making America safe again," one question, strangely, went unanswered: How exactly could policymakers make America safer? Although Americans are in fact safer than they were decades ago, this seems like a pretty crucial question to reply given the kickoff twenty-four hour period of the convention's theme.

I previously reached out to criminologists and researchers across the country about this upshot. My question: What nonpartisan policies tin America use to reduce crime and gun violence without going after the guns themselves? I started with the assumption that gun control laws would not happen, since that consequence is besides politically fraught — and it'due south certainly not something Republicans seem likely to support.

Afterwards all, although there's potent testify that America'due south uniquely high levels of gun ownership cause the U.s.a. to have more violence than other developed countries, guns aren't the only cause of violence and criminal offence — in that location are other factors, from cultural bug to socioeconomic variables to even smaller issues similar alcohol consumption, that drive these problems.

What follows are six of the promising ideas I heard to reduce criminal offence and gun violence in particular. This is by no ways a comprehensive listing — there are great websites solely defended to that kind of catalog. But these policy ideas give some perspective on how many options are left to local, state, and federal lawmakers as long as they don't want to practise annihilation most guns — or possibly fifty-fifty if they do.

1) Stricter alcohol policies

Jasper Juinen/Getty Images

Alcohol has been linked to violence. According to the National Quango on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, alcohol is a factor in forty percent of trigger-happy crimes. And a 2010 study found a stiff relationship between booze stores and gun assaults. These statistics and research are one of the big reasons that possessing a gun while drunk is largely illegal.

"Information technology's a disinhibition theory," Charles Branas, i of the 2010 study'due south authors, said. "So it's not and so much aggressiveness, but that decisions and judgment that would usually be held in check are all of a sudden disinhibited nether consumption of alcohol."

This doesn't mean America should ban alcohol — prohibition in the 1920s was a disaster. Just there are other policies that America could take up to limit alcohol-related problems:

• A higher alcohol tax: A 2010 review of the research in the American Journal of Public Health came out with strong findings: "Our results suggest that doubling the alcohol tax would reduce alcohol-related mortality past an boilerplate of 35%, traffic crash deaths by 11%, sexually transmitted disease by 6%, violence by two%, and criminal offence by 1.4%."
• Reducing the number of booze outlets: A 2009 review published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine also found that limiting the number of alcohol outlets — through, for example, stricter licensing — in an surface area tin can limit problematic drinking and its dangers. But information technology also found that going likewise far can have negative results — past, for example, causing more car crashes as people take long drives to outlets and possibly drink earlier returning habitation.
• Revoking alcohol offenders' right to drink: South Dakota'southward 24/seven Sobriety program effectively revokes people's correct to beverage if a court deems it necessary after an alcohol-related offense. The program, specifically, monitors offenders through twice-a-day breathalyzer tests or a bracelet that tin runway blood alcohol level, and jails them for one or two days for each failed test. Studies from the RAND Corporation have linked the program to drops in mortality, DUI arrests, and domestic violence arrests.

Notably, the NRA, the biggest gun rights group, already agrees alcohol and guns don't mix. Its website says, "Never use booze or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting." The question, Branas said, is how to make that "operational" — and some of these policies could movement in that direction.

2) Hot-spot policing

Karl Merton Ferron/Baltimore Dominicus/TNS via Getty Images

Aye, police practices have run into increasing criticism over the past couple years — with the appearance of the Black Lives Affair motility and its protests against racial disparities in the criminal justice organisation and police force utilise of force.

But police tin can, obviously, play a huge office in reducing law-breaking, especially past adopting evidence-based tactics similar hot-spot policing.

The idea, explained to me by famed criminologist David Kennedy: In many cities, a very modest subset of places, downward to the street and block level, bulldoze virtually of the crime. Then deploying constabulary, intelligently, in these specific areas can have a large impact on fighting crime and violence.

In many cities, a very small subset of places, down to the street and cake level, drive nigh of the crime

"It tin be as simple as making sure your police presence is increased there, or it tin can be much more complicated," Kennedy said. "You can go partnerships of law, residents, families, parents, shop owners, edifice managers, and school officials." He added, "The more those interventions involve partnerships, the more effective those interventions can be."

The research strongly backs upwards the practise: Non only does information technology reduce crime, but information technology does and so without displacing information technology to other areas and generally to positive reactions from locals. And every bit Kennedy said, the inquiry suggests that bringing in customs partners and focusing on the community's needs tin can heave the law-breaking-fighting effects farther.

3) Focused deterrence policing

Specer Platt/Getty Images

One of the hot new phrases in criminal justice today is "customs policing." Simply quite honestly, nobody seems to accept whatever idea what it means. Experts and law enforcement officials will give all sorts of definitions and strategies for the practice.

But Kennedy did explain a strategy — "focused deterrence policing" — that sounds a lot similar what I would expect real community policing to look like, and it works.

Focused deterrence hones in on specific problems in a community, such equally drug dealing, by and large trigger-happy behavior, gangs, or gun violence. It then focuses on the individuals and groups who drive most of that activity, particularly those with criminal records and those involved in gang activity.

"The national annual homicide charge per unit now is betwixt 4 and 5 per 100,000," Kennedy said. "If yous're in one of these street networks, your homicide rate can easily be iii,000 per 100,000." He added, "Add in the nonfatal woundings, which can be multiples of the homicide rate, and all of a sudden you're in unimaginable risk."

"The customs itself needs to convey extremely stiff and clear standards confronting the violence"

The strategy brings together police enforcement and community groups to clearly betoken the major legal and community consequences of violence, especially in relation to an private'due south previous criminal record. And to provide alternatives to violent or criminal lifestyles, the customs should also offer social services and other forms of aid.

So if someone has a long history of drug or even tearing crimes, police force could let him know almost the legal consequences of violence — decades or life in prison — and the customs could voice, through personal interactions, how it would direct damage his family, friends, church, school, and then on. And the groups should also offer help through, for example, accessible job and pedagogy programs.

"The community itself needs to convey extremely strong and clear standards against the violence," Kennedy said, describing it every bit a form of breezy policing that comes from within someone'southward community.

The idea is that a would-exist shooter, now knowing the full consequences of his actions, will be deterred from acting out in the future. And he'll accept alternative options if he wants to pursue a different kind of life.

The inquiry shows this works. Focused deterrence is one of the changes in policing strategy credited with what's known as the "Boston miracle," in which the city saw tearing crime drop past 79 percent in the 1990s. And other research has plant that it can work in many other places.

This policing strategy can involve retraining cops, getting them more involved in the customs, hiring more officers to comport it out effectively, and boosting spending on social services. That tin can be very expensive — as such services and police departments already make up a sizable chunk of many municipal and state budgets. But if local lawmakers and officials want to reduce crime, these changes tin can go a long way.

4) Heighten the age or grade for dropping out of school

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Some other way to reduce crime and violence could be to go along kids in school longer.

The enquiry is quite clear that kids who don't driblet out and complete school are less likely to commit criminal offence.

Merely this tin can go into tricky questions over correlation versus causation: Does keeping kids in school longer terminate them from committing offense afterwards by keeping them off the streets and giving them the pedagogy they need to observe a legal task? Or are the kids who decide to stay in school longer simply better behaved, and therefore less probable to commit crimes?

A recent study published in the American Economic Journal took an ingenious approach to cutting through this question — by tapping into data for students in North Carolina, their birthdays, when they enroll in kindergarten, their dropout rates, and their criminal offense rates. Information technology found that keeping kids in schoolhouse longer probable reduces crime.

The report looked at information based on when children begin their didactics and whether the older children in a class — those who were enrolled into kindergarten at an older age — were more likely to drib out and commit crime. The idea: These kids are by and large enrolled at a subsequently age due to a technicality in North Carolina rules about birthdays and cutoff dates, so there'due south no inherent reason to think their behavior should be different — unless their time in school influences it.

The written report strongly suggests keeping kids in schoolhouse will reduce their offense rates

The study found that these older kids were more likely to drop out — and they were more probable to commit a felony criminal offence by age nineteen.

Phil Cook, one of the report's authors, told me his findings strongly suggest keeping kids in school will reduce their law-breaking rates.

So what could policymakers do with these findings? Well, many states, including N Carolina, set up the dropout age at 16. They could raise the dropout historic period to 18 or older.

"If North Carolina raised its age to eighteen, at that place would exist some seniors in detail who'd cross that threshold and would be legally entitled to drop out," Melt said. "Merely that prospect would look different than it does at historic period 16 — they would exist closer to the finish line, so presumably it would non exist as enticing."

Another pick: Lawmakers could adopt Denmark's model, which requires students to complete a sure number of grades. (Presumably at that place would be exceptions, such as for children with farthermost disabilities.) This would be less arbitrary than an age cutoff, but it could run into some politically tricky territory if it forces adults 18 and older to stay in high school.

Whatever method policymakers use, keeping kids in school longer appears to reduce crime rates. And information technology doesn't involve guns at all.

v) Behavioral intervention programs

Scott Olson/Getty Images

The University of Chicago Law-breaking Lab has done a lot of great work into many different policy proposals to fight crime. I of those ideas, Youth Guidance's Condign A Man, is emblematic of how specific these policies tin can go — it targets youth who are at hazard of getting into violent encounters, perhaps because of the neighborhood they live in or what schoolhouse they go to.

The program then uses once-a-week interventions, based on cerebral behavioral principles, to teach youth how to react in encounters that tin can plough tearing.

"Information technology helps kids understand and slow down the scripts that they use to get past," Harold Pollack, co-director of the Criminal offence Lab, said. "They have exercises that the kids do where they get to do self-regulation, skills, and slowing down and negotiating with other people — the kinds of things that young boys growing upwardly specially in a tough surround haven't had enough of a chance to practise."

It works: Randomized control trials by the Crime Lab found it reduced violent offense arrests by 30 to 50 percent during the time of the intervention.

"It helps kids empathize and slow downward the scripts that they use to go past"

One example of the exercises the program uses: One child is told to get a golf brawl from another kid. Typically, they make it a concrete fight within seconds, because they simply don't know any better. Merely when they're walked through the situation, they larn to resolve it much more than peacefully.

"So many of the confrontations that kids become into are nigh over nix in ane sense," Pollack said. "Only in another sense, kids are in a situation where they've learned over a period of time a fix of reactions that are pretty of import for them so that everybody knows not to mess with them."

The problem, Pollack said, is that many of these kids simply haven't learned the right behaviors over fourth dimension — and they've really learned to resort to violence quite quickly. Pollack gave an example:

For example, I'thou walking downwards the hallway and somebody steps on my pes in school. If Harold Pollack is doing that, walking around the University of Chicago, I effigy that it's just another colleague that was playing with his iPhone and stepped on my pes — and I ignore it and movement on.

If I'm a 17-year-old kid in Fenger High Schoolhouse, I can't afford to have people punk me. I got to get home. And I got a dainty jacket, and my mom has told me that if somebody comes and takes my jacket, she can't become me another 1. So when somebody does something like that, I might reply in a way that to the middle-aged white professor seems really excessive, only in the life of that child is really man — in that location's an incentive to reacting really harshly.

Pollack emphasized that these kids are not in any way bad or evil. They have rational incentives for behaving in the way they do: In the tough environments they grow upwards in, sometimes it is important to fight.

But, Pollack explained, "What we want to tell them is, 'You lot may have to fight as a terminal resort. But y'all got to have other things in the toolkit that you go to showtime. And many of the situations where you might bound to escalate, you have more options, and the long-term consequences for you lot if yous tin avoid that confrontation are much meliorate than if you react instinctively.'"

6) Eliminate blighted housing

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

One of the more unexpected ideas I heard from policy experts: Clean upward and repair blighted buildings.

Only it seems to work: A 2015 report from Branas, who's part of the Urban Health Lab, and other researchers found fixing up abandoned and vacant buildings in Philadelphia led to pregnant drops in overall crimes, total assaults, gun assaults, and nuisance crimes. At that place was no prove that crime shifted to other areas, although there were signs that drug dealing, drug possession, and property crimes went up effectually remediated buildings. Nonetheless, net gains overall.

Branas characterized the findings as proof of a big gain for a pretty small investment.

"It makes the space announced cared for, and suddenly criminal action doesn't want to happen at that place"

And so what explains this? "It makes the space announced cared for, and all of a sudden criminal action doesn't want to happen there," Branas said. "Also, the neighbors get more invested in the space and look subsequently it — more than of an informal policing machinery."

Another potential caption, co-ordinate to Branas: Some would-be shooters may stash guns in vacant or abandoned spaces, since they desire to avoid getting caught with illegal firearms. So when those vacant or abandoned spaces get abroad, they may make up one's mind to forego at to the lowest degree some guns — and may not be able to comport out some violence.

It's certainly ane of the more exotic ideas I heard from researchers. But combined with the other proposals I heard from experts, it helps testify that there are many varied policies lawmakers could embrace to combat criminal offense and gun violence in the US — nevertheless perhaps haven't to the extent that the show suggests they should.

larochepres1995.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/15/10981274/crime-violence-policies-guns

Share this post