You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘concerned citizens’ tag.
The Toronto Star created a map this week that shows the frequency of drug charges per 1,000 residents, according to neighborhoods throughout the city. The neighborhoods are color-coded according to drug arrest data between 2004-2008. Not living in Toronto, it’s hard for me to jump to any conclusions about the insights that a map like this might offer. However, in general, I think it’s safe to say that a map like this might be useful for residents of the city who want to avoid high-crime areas and steer their children clear of those neighborhoods where they might be most likely to find drug dealers and drug use.
You can experience the map for yourself at The Toronto Star website.
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
From a presentation given by Donald J. Loree, Ph.D., Center for Criminal Intelligence Research and Innovation, RCMP, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
With technological advances in transportation, which made transportation easier and cheaper, the mid-1800s saw a shift in the way that communities are formed. With ease of travel also came shifting demographics in communities. As immigrants began to move around the globe, existing communities started to change in ways that they had never needed to before. Today, we live in a very dynamic global community, and demographics in any one law enforcement jurisdiction can change very quickly—in as little as five to ten years—and law enforcement needs to be aware of trends in shifting demographics in order to better police the communities they serve.
Here are some key questions to ask to understand the way that community demographics may change:
- What are the age demographics of your community? How will they change in the next 5, 10, 20 years?
- What is the ethnic breakdown of your community? How will it change in the next 5, 10, 20 years?
- What are the income demographics? How will they change in the next 5, 10, 20 years?
- What about your department? What is the age and ethnic breakdown of your own department, and how will it change in the coming years?
- Are offender demographics changing? How will changes in the community affect offender demographics?
Of special concern is the growing elderly population. The age of citizens 65+ is growing worldwide. New challenges arise with an aging population, like increased elder abuse, financial scams, burglary, and more.
But how can you keep track of your changing population and shifting demographics if you are not engaging that community? Community policing becomes very important in engaging the community, understanding it, responding to its changing needs, and preparing for future challenges as the population changes.
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
Two police chiefs and a deputy commissioner for a state police force presented case studies of incidents that happened in their departments and how their communities had lost trust in law enforcement as a result. The bulk of their individual sections were about how they dealt with the incidents in order to rebuild community trust. Here are a few main takeaways:
Clear Guidelines and Practices—One of the worst things a department can do to break community trust is to not be consistent and fair in all their internal affairs investigations. If you are consistent then the public will trust you.
Community Outreach and Education—As one panelist said, “It’s not about what you are doing to solve the problem, it’s what you tell the public you are doing” that builds trust. If you are pouring time, money, and resources into solving an issue, and the public doesn’t know about it, they still won’t trust you. You have to give the public a clear picture of your plan to deal with the situation and let them know how the investigation and reforms are coming.
Transparency and Open Communication—Again, the more you communicate with the public, the more trust they will have trust in you and your department. If you provide the public with progress reports and a clear line of communication they won’t feel like you are hiding anything or are purposely keeping them in the dark.
Independent Oversight of Internal Affairs—Why should the public trust an internal affairs investigation, if your department does not answer to anyone outside the department? Creating independent oversight committees lets the public know that you are being fair, honest, and open.
“If we don’t take care of business, others will”—Basically, if you are not putting the practices and policies in place for a solid, open, and fair internal affairs department someone else will. Maybe it will be a lawyer who sues the department. Maybe it will be a civil rights or police “watchdog” group. Maybe it will be the city council or state legislature. If you are transparent about your practices and have real, efficient practices and policies in place, others will see that you have things under control and won’t try to do your reform for you.
Overall, the main theme of the session was that internal affairs is a tool for public trust. The public trusts organizations that can take care of their own problems through transparent, consistent, processes with independent, external oversight. Those practices combined with community outreach and education give the public avenues to pursue complaints, get information, and feel that their department is working for them and with them, not against them.
Panelists:
John Brown, Deputy Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police
John Firman, Director, Research Division, IACP
Mark Perez, Deputy Chief, Professional Standards Bureau, Los Angeles Police Department
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
The Violence Prevention Research Program, out of the University of California, Davis, recently released a study of 78 gun shows in 19 states over a 3-year period. The study was partly prompted by a concern over the high rates of guns recovered in criminal cases that were bought through “private” sales. Private gun sales are a controversial issue because private gun sales do not need to comply with the same legalities that licensed gun dealers are required to follow (background checks, etc.).
The study found that gun shows facilitate private gun sales; however, it also found that—overall—gun shows represent a small percentage of gun sales in the US and that the majority of sales at these shows occur through licensed gun dealers.
In addition, the study found that, for the most part, all guns sales at these shows are above the table and legal. But the study also finds that there is some disturbing behavior, culture, and attitudes displayed at gun shows in the form of Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi, anti-government, and neo-confederacy paraphernalia; sexist and misogynist messages and items; as well as a general endorsement of violence as a way to solve problems.
You can download an overall summary of the study here: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pdf/IGS/IGSexecsummweb.pdf
Or download the entire report, with hundreds of photos, by going to the Violence Prevention Research Program website: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
Over the weekend, QuieroPaz.org launched its Venezuelan crime map. I have argued in the past that implementation of crime mapping in third-world countries could help cut crime by giving the people access to crime information, and I think this is a step in the right direction.
Unless you speak Spanish, the site may be a bit hard to understand, but it does offer the benefit of linking individual crimes to stories in the media about those crimes. I’m not sure whether the crimes on the map come directly from local law enforcement or whether the map is made of data culled from media sources. However, from the prevalence of homicides over any other crimes (by a wide margin), I’m guessing that the site mostly collects data from media sources and does not display crime data directly from local law enforcement.
Still, this map is a start, and hopefully it will help local citizens and law enforcement track and stay informed about crime in their area so that they can keep themselves and their communities safe.
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
In a recent post titled, “Traditional Media Loses Grip on Local Crime Information,” I hypothesized that with the increase in law enforcement agencies providing citizens with direct access to crime data through Facebook, Twitter, CrimeReports, and other web tools the public may not need traditional media as a crime-reporting source anymore.
But I believe that the issue of direct data vs. traditional crime reporting is more complex than my simple conclusion seemed to express. The core of the debate is this:
If I (as a citizen) already have a direct feed of official crime data pertinent to my neighborhood through Twitter, CrimeReports, Facebook, etc., what would make me tune in to the nightly news or read the daily crime blotter in my local newspaper for crime information?
My first response is—nothing.
If I receive daily crime alerts from CrimeReports, and religiously check my local police department’s Facebook page, I would feel relatively informed about the crime situation in my neighborhood. But this does not mean that traditional media does not hold any value.
Context
First of all, print and broadcast media provide context to the data that law enforcement provides to citizens through these new web tools. As a citizen, I can track the handful of crimes that may happen in my neighborhood on a weekly basis, but I don’t know how my neighborhood fits into the bigger picture of crime across the city or the state. Traditional media has the time and resources to do the analysis and paint the bigger picture.
In addition, although many law enforcement agencies provide basic data through crime mapping and social media tools (i.e., Breaking and Entering, 9/5/09, 10:04pm). Traditional media has the ability to elaborate on those incidents (i.e., “Resident called 911 after hearing glass break. Neighbors report seeing a young woman in late teens or early twenties, fleeing the scene through the victim’s backyard,” etc.).
Contrast
Besides providing complex analysis that most citizens cannot or will not do on their own, traditional media can serve as a counter balance to the direct data coming from a law enforcement agency. Granted, most law enforcement agencies are more concerned with informing citizens than they are about providing a positive spin on the information they release, but traditional media can provide a different perspective on crime than one would get from just following the local PD on Twitter. And although newspapers and broadcast news are supported by advertising and have an incentive to increase readership/ratings, the perspective they provide can shed a different light on the data given out by local law enforcement agencies.
The Bigger Picture
Lastly, traditional media can offer a broader picture of crime than basic-level crime information. Although it has been my experience that most people are more directly concerned with crime on their block than they are with crime in the neighboring town, getting a broader picture of crime can also help raise awareness of trends in crime both locally and nationally. And awareness of broader crime trends is, as well, helpful in keeping citizens vigilant and safe.
A Difference in Scale
All-in-all, the main difference between using social media to get crime data and following traditional media for crime information is scale. CrimeReports and other crime mapping resources are very good at giving citizens a picture of crime in their neighborhood. Twitter and Facebook are excellent tools for local law enforcement to use to disseminate information and interact with a city, county, or town. But traditional media is probably the most useful for large-scale crime reporting.
Only one question remains: If citizens have a direct line to crime data on their street, will they still tune in to or read traditional forms of crime reporting to get the bigger picture? Since social media is only being used by a relatively small number of law enforcement agencies currently (although more are joining everyday), it’s too early to predict citizen’s reactions to these new information streams. My only hope is that citizens will access crime information on whatever level they feel comfortable so that they can stay informed and keep their neighborhoods safe through the greater vigilance that comes from increased access to crime information.
[Special thanks to an unnamed journalist for helping me tease out these ideas]
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
Donald Robinson's home, the sign reads (as best I can tell): "Please help save our women of the community"
Donald Robinson, who served 25 years in prison for two rapes, was released from prison and moved into a neighborhood on the San Francisco peninsula the day after Phillip Garrido was arrested and the 18-year-old imprisonment of Jaycee Lee Duggard was uncovered.
In addition to the 25 years in prison, Robinson spent the last 11 years as part of a state-sponsored, out-patient rehabilitation program. As part of his release, Robinson wears a tracking bracelet, has a curfew, is randomly tested for drug and alcohol use, needs permission to drive a car or walk through a neighborhood, and is forbidden to use the internet. Local police even distributed fliers to all the neighbors to alert them to Robinson’s presence in the neighborhood. (source)
The Protest
Despite all these state-sponsored interventions, the mayor of the community in which Robinson recently moved contacted everyone listed in the town’s phonebook and personally organized a protest outside of Robinson’s home to have him removed, which has now become daily picketing. As a result, the state pays two security guards $800/day to protect Robinson from threats and attacks.
Is There a Better Way?
The whole situation makes me wonder if there is not a better way to go about keeping people safe from violent sexual predators. With the Garrido case, we’ve seen the results of isolating sex offenders from society. The measures taken by the mayor and local citizens in this case—although with the goal of community safety—serve to further stigmatize the offender and breed resentment, frustration, and anger, the very emotions that Robinson has been working to overcome through the last 11 years of rehabilitative therapy. Emotions that led to his violent offenses in the first place.
I understand that residents do not want to live next door to a sex offender—especially a rapist. As one neighbor told the associated press: “The judge said that if Robinson weren’t here, he’d be homeless. We don’t want him to become homeless. We just don’t think he belongs among families.” But, if not here, where?
Building Safe Communities
To play devils’ advocate for a second, maybe living in a concerned and vigilant community is the best place for Robinson. In a community with an active neighborhood watch, a vigilant mindset, and a strong desire to keep their area free from crime, Robinson would have little chance to re-offend (especially considering the protective measures that have already been put into place).
Instead of spending all the time and energy to remove Robinson from the community, might it be better to put that time and energy to work educating the community and organizing a dedicated and informed neighborhood watch? Keeping Robinson in the neighborhood lets citizens have power over him. Moving Robinson to an isolated area lets him keep power over the community through fear and the ability to hide his actions from them.
Thoughts? Leave a comment—I actively welcome debate on this topic, and would like to work toward a better way to deal with sex offenders in our communities.
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
Apparently in the Tampa, Fla., area, police are now doing more than letting people know about sex offenders in the area, now they are going house-to-house telling residents about felons in the neighborhood. You can read the full story and watch the news cast here.
This news story seems to skew opinion in favor of the notifications, but it makes me wonder if punishing these offenders after they have served their time is really accomplishing anything. First of all, these people have already paid their debt to society, and punishing them socially like this, would seem to only aggravate their efforts to try and make a normal, crime-free life for themselves. You could go as far as to say that the police department, in this instance, is actually encouraging discrimination based on past criminal history. As well, as the ACLU lawyer points out, door-to-door notification like this could encourage vigilantism or make the ex-offender a target of ridicule or attack.
The real question here is, what does the local police department want to achieve with such a tactic? If their real goal is to make neighborhoods safer, then why not encourage more participation in neighborhood watch, publish online crime maps, or create social media tools for public outreach? Simply warning neighbors about a single individual in their neighborhood with a criminal past would not seem to actually help citizens protect themselves from a multitude of crimes from people in and outside of their neighborhood.
What do you think? Does warning neighbors about a individual with a criminal past help prevent crime?
Get on the map at CrimeReports.com
I received an email this morning from a reader who, contrary to previous articles posted here at The Crime Map, expressed that surveillance cameras DO, in fact, prevent crime. He added that cameras prevent crime by putting criminals behind bars, preventing them from re-offending.
Surveillance
Although it is certainly true that surveillance cameras, or CCTV, have helped catch criminals in the past (keeping them off the street), many citizens and lawmakers questions the overall effectiveness of a surveillance camera system. For example, a recent story published by the BBC stated that for every 1,000 cameras in London, only one criminal was caught with the technology last year. However, with over 1 million cameras, that still adds up to 1,000 criminals caught with the aid of CCTV. But, are 1,000 criminals worth the 500 million pounds spent on maintaining the cameras every year? The number spent on maintaining the system equates out to 500,000 British pounds per criminal caught last year, which converts to over $833,000 per criminal in US dollars.
In America, a system that spent $833,000 to catch one criminal would be deemed a huge waste of taxpayer money. Despite the fact that a significant amount of criminals are caught by surveillance cameras, the amount of resources it takes to install and maintain the technology far outweighs the comparatively small return.
Communication
But there might be better ways to put our tax dollars to work. Although the invention of cameras have allowed police to watch more of our neighborhoods from afar, and patrol cars have given police the ability to move faster and cover larger areas, police are less and less inclined to actually build relationships with members of the community. Lawrence Sherman, quoted in Peter Moskos’ book, Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing Baltimore’s Eastern District, says “The rise of telephone dispatch transformed both the method and purpose of patrol. Instead of watching to prevent crime, motorized police patrol became a process of merely waiting to respond to crime.”
It is the shift from active policing to passively waiting that has, perhaps, most damaged citizen’s relationship with law enforcement. It has put officers at arms length, out of sight, and out of mind. As a result, citizens see law enforcement as the specter that approaches when bad things happen (or the Big Brother who is watching them through a surveillance camera), not the partner that they interact with to prevent crime in their community. To prevent this Us vs. Them relationship between citizens and law enforcement, a communication shift needs to take place.
Already that shift is taking place through the rise of law enforcement agencies embracing social media tools like Facebook, Twitter, and CrimeReports. Although a neighborhood police officer may not be walking your street, they are slowly becoming more accessible online. These new communication tools give average citizens better access to crime data, information, and two-way communication, but they do not fully replace the advantages of foot patrol officers.
The Future Technology-Assisted, Community-based Law Enforcement Efforts
Just a few days ago, the Baltimore Police Department announced it would be issuing BlackBerries to all of its officers in the coming months, virtually making patrol-car-laptops obsolete overnight. With this new technology, officers have less reason to stay close to their patrol cars and have more freedom to move around on foot easier. Perhaps technology has brought us the next shift in law enforcement: a return to widespread neighborhood foot patrol officers, who leverage personal relationships in the community and online communication tools to prevent crime in their community.
Instead of reinforcing an Us vs. Them mentality through increased surveillance, maybe we should put more actual (instead of virtual) eyes in our neighborhoods to build relationships and foster community empowerment and responsibility through community-based relationships between citizens and law enforcement.
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
A study done by the Center on Media, Crime and Justice, published at the end of 2007, found that half of all respondents, regardless of race, said drugs, alcohol, and poverty were the most to blame for crime in the US; however, only about 30% of respondents felt that addressing these issues directly—through drug treatment and job training/placement programs—was the answer to reducing crime. The majority of respondents felt that the best way to fight crime was through increased police presence and stricter sentencing guidelines for criminals.
Although most law enforcement agencies have discovered that working directly with the residents of a neighborhood to address the root causes, decreases crime, it seems that a majority of citizens still feel that the best way to stop crime is to put more criminals into the justice system and keep them in jails.
The Results of Exile
A lock-em-up approach like this seem similar to the traditional attitude toward sex offenders that has recently sparked a debate about sex offender residency and registry laws brought to the surface by the arrest of Philip Garrido. Basically, our first reaction as citizens is to exile those who do us wrong. But woefully, in the case of Garrido, exile can make the situation worse.
I wonder if we can use the recent public backlash against decades of knee-jerk-reaction sex offender laws, as a warning of things to come. At one time, pushing sex offenders to the outskirts of society seemed like a good idea, until we found out that pushing sex offenders to the outskirts created a perfect opportunity for them to re-offend. Will locking up criminals and throwing away the key someday come back to haunt us as well?
As citizens of a nationwide community, is there a point at which we begin to stop pushing our problems away from us, roll up our sleeves, dig in, and solve the problems in our own neighborhoods?
Taking Responsibility
Solving problems in our own neighborhoods takes work and dedication. Solving the root causes of crime, rather than just dealing with the consequences, requires much more work up front. Creating drug treatment programs, job training, and better educational opportunities may, at first, seem like climbing Everest. But once you reach the peak of a mountain, the rest is downhill. Creating programs to fight the causes of crime now provides us with an easier route and less crime in the future.
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
Stumble It!
The Crime Map 