Five Myths about Crime Today

Myself and a prosecutor (I’m a criminal defense lawyer working in a public defender office in Minnesota) spoke to a group of mystery writers last night.  The prosecutor was actually the featured speaker although as we got into issues of criminal justice, the questions flew at both of us.  Here are some of them:

1.  We should just put the criminals in prison and throw away the keys.

Easy to say and it certainly makes us feel good.  People have the impression that most criminals are “getting away” with their crimes and aren’t paying the penalty.  The media feed this idea since they only report the few cases where someone does beat the system.  The reality is that the majority of people charged with crimes are found guilty and do pay the penalty.

Question is, what should the penalty be?

My prosecutor friend brought up several recent empirical studies that show short, intensive punishment combined with rehabilitation efforts tend to have the best results.  Why?

Putting aside the serial murderers and career criminals, I believe it’s because simply locking people away can be counter-productive.  For many of them, the hardest part is when the doors to the jail slam shut.  After months or even years, the deterrent effect of incarceration drops off.  So, it makes sense to send people for a limited amount of time–with supervised probation and release afterward.

2.  Criminals will never change–there’s no hope they’ll reform themselves.

Some psychologists maintain that criminals are people who have chosen to live a life of crime and will continue to do so no matter what we do to them.  I’m not sure this is true all the time.  I think that most criminals balance the risks of getting caught with the rewards of crime.  I believe some can be persuaded to go straight.  The best persuasion is a combination of prison and probation.

3.  Many criminals are drug addicts who commit crime to feed their habits. No.  I would say in my own experience that the majority of crimes are committed when people are high–by far alcohol is the most prevalent–when they commit crimes but they’re not doing the crime to make money to supply themselves with drugs.  And for all the attention to dangerous drugs, alcohol still remains the most widely abused chemical substance that leads to crime.

4.  The crime news in the papers never seems to end–crime is up.  It’s definitely down, especially since a peak during the 1980’s as measured by the FBI.  Violent crime and all types of crime are down significantly.  Why does it seem the opposite?  The news media report criminal acts–not the drop in crime.

5.  “Get tough on crime” laws and longer prison sentences deter crime. I don’t think so.  In my experience dealing with defendants charged with crime, the last thing they think about is getting caught and certainly, they never think about penalties.  The one area that’s different is in drinking and driving crimes.  People do think about that when taking another drink.  But particularly for crimes of passion and anger, very few people stop to think about the penalties–therefore, I don’t think tougher penalties act as a deterrent.

What are you ideas?  Get tougher?  More probation?  More community service?  What can we do?

Same Sex Marriages in the Courts

The Minnesota legislature has voted to put a new amendment to the state constitution on the ballot for next fall.  It would define marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman and not recognize same-sex marriages.

Even though the state already has a law defining legally recognized marriage, proponents still want the amendment.  Why?

Conservatives, who hold the majority in both houses of the state legislature, maintain that a statute (a law passed by the legislature) is vulnerable to judicial review and may be declared unconstitutional.  In contrast, an amendment is a permanent addition to the constitution but cannot be reviewed and struck-down by any court.

Is this a wise idea?

Putting aside the obvious point that we already have such a law on the books, the main concern voiced by proponents is this idea of preventing judicial review.  For years, conservatives have complained about “activist courts” that are outside the control of voters and, on their own, “legislate”  laws that the majority of voters, expressed through their elected officials, don’t agree with.

This may apply at the federal level where federal judges are not elected, are appointed in highly political settings by the president, and serve for life.

But in the state of Minnesota, we elect our judges who serve six-year terms.  To say they are beyond the power of the electorate to change, is not true.  I see a number of problems with the proposed constitutional amendment.

1.  If it passes, it remains attached to the constitution forever unless repealed which is an even more difficult task that the initial passing.  Through-out our history, we have had reason to change amendments such as prohibition.  However, repeal is rare.  For some people, this is good since in spite of the shifting political winds, the law will remain.  The problem is that the shifting political winds usually express the desires of the majority.  The benefit of a democratically elected legislature is to ensure we have flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.  An amendment prevents this.

2.  We don’t need it.  The law in Minnesota already defines what a legally recognized marriage is.

3.  The fear of judicial review is in itself a false fear.  Conservatives are the ones usually complaining about this–unless the review and interference tips in their direction.  Remember the presidential election between Bush and Gore.  The ballot question was strictly a state issue, involving Florida’s ballot laws.  The U.S. Supreme Court decided to interfere and made a ruling.  This is a perfect example of an “activist court.”  We all accepted the ruling because we wanted someone to declare a winner and end the race.  Since Bush won, I didn’t hear any conservatives complaining about the “activist court.”

What’s your position?  Do you fear the courts will interfere in the present law unless Minnesota voters pass a new amendment?

The Smallest Terrorist

People think the death of Osama bin Laden stopped one of the biggest killers in the world.  He’s nothing compared to one of the oldest, most widespread killers in the history of humans—the disease of small pox.

Found in the remains of Egyptian mummies and all over ancient Asia and China, the virus has probably killed more people than wars, famine, and drought have done.  Epidemics in Europe during the Middle Ages affected the course of western history.  Outbreaks of small pox started the decline of the Roman Empire and, once transported to the New World, succeeded in wiping-out most of the native population.  During the early 1700’s in Europe as many as 400,000 people died annually—about the population of Minneapolis.

The war on small pox started with the practice of inoculation against the disease.  Medical practitioners brought the practice from Istanbul to Western Europe and then to the United States by the mid-1700’s.

The process involved pricking the skin of a person and infecting them with a small amount of pox.  It caused them to become slightly ill but also made them immune to the more serious disease when it struck.

During the American Revolution the Continental army attacked the British city of Quebec.  They came close to succeeding until an outbreak of small pox stopped them. The British army had been inoculated, avoided the plague, and repulsed the American’s attack for good.

Edward Jenner didn’t actually discover the vaccine used against small pox, but he was the first scientist to attempt to control an infectious disease—and he was successful.

By the 1950’s small pox had been effectively eradicated from Europe and North America, thanks to public sanitation efforts and the widespread use of the vaccine.  By 1980, after a world-wide campaign, the World Health Organization announced the official end of the disease in the world and recommended that countries cease vaccination—which meant that today no one has immunity to the disease.  (Even for those of us who received vaccine years ago, the protection has decayed.)

Everyone in the world is vulnerable.

With that scary thought in mind, I’ve written a suspense novel about terrorists who steal samples of small pox from a repository in Russia and intend to infect American school children with it—creating hundreds of “weapons of mass destruction.”  It’s called Reprisal.  It takes place in Minneapolis where several Somali boys have disappeared in the past few years.  In my book, they’ve been kidnapped to be used by the terrorists to carry small pox back into the schools and start a pandemic.

Could it happen?  What do you think our most vulnerable spot is for bio-terrorists to attack?  What should we do?

Something Worse Than bin Laden

People think the death of Osama bin Laden stopped one of the biggest killers in the world.  He’s nothing compared to one of the oldest, most widespread killers in the history of humans—the disease of small pox.

Found in the remains of Egyptian mummies and all over ancient Asia and China, the virus has probably killed more people than wars, famine, and terrorists have done.  Epidemics in Europe during the Middle Ages affected the course of western history.  Outbreaks of small pox started the decline of the Roman Empire and, once transported to the New World, succeeded in wiping-out most of the native population.  During the early 1700’s in Europe as many as 400,000 people died annually—about the population of Minneapolis.

The war on small pox started with the practice of inoculation against the disease.  Medical practitioners took the practice from Istanbul to Western Europe and then to the United States by the mid-1700’s.

The process involved pricking the skin of a person and infecting them with a small amount of pox.  It caused them to become slightly ill but also made them immune to the more serious disease when it struck.

During the American Revolution the Continental army attacked the British city of Quebec.  They came close to succeeding until an outbreak of small pox stopped them. The British army had been inoculated, avoided the plague, and repulsed the American’s attack for good.

Edward Jenner didn’t actually discover the vaccine used against small pox, but he was the first scientist to attempt to control an infectious disease—and he was successful.

By the 1950’s small pox had been effectively eradicated from Europe and North America, thanks to public sanitation efforts and the widespread use of the vaccine.  In 1980, after a world-wide campaign, the World Health Organization announced the official end of the disease in the world and recommended that countries cease vaccination—which meant that today no one has immunity to the disease.  (Even for those of us who received vaccine years ago, the protection has decayed.)

Everyone in the world is vulnerable.

With that scary thought in mind, I’ve written a suspense novel about terrorists who steal samples of small pox from a repository in Russia and intend to infect American school children with it—creating hundreds of “weapons of mass destruction.”  It’s called Reprisal.  It takes place in Minneapolis where several Somali boys have disappeared in the past few years.  In my book, they’ve been kidnapped to be used by the terrorists to carry small pox back into the schools and start a pandemic.

What really scares me—and readers also—is that the “enemy” here is something you can’t see, touch, feel, or smell…how do you defend against it?  Also, once the population learns about the spread of small pox, I think the panic will be worse than the disease itself.

Luckily, I can tell you the heroine in my book succeeds in stopping the terrorists and preventing an outbreak—at the last-minute, of course.

Check-out the book at my web site and tell me what you think.

Has Bin Laden Beaten Us At Home?

Beyond the satisfaction that “justice” was done with the killing of Osama bin Laden, he left a legacy in our country and courts that is disturbing to me.

Is that legacy “beating” us now?

After 9/11, the White House and Congress (both parties) passed sweeping legislation which gave our investigatory agencies new powers of intrusion into our lives.  Most people felt these new laws were necessary to discover intelligence and information that terrorists could use against us.  I’m certain that in many instances, the new laws and procedures used by U.S. security agencies worked as the Congress intended.  They also created a massive new system of counterterrorism with huge budgets and more people.

This concerns me because:

1.  The fear that we all felt after 9/11 caused us, as a country, to give our own security agencies more power  to probe into our personal lives much easier.  As an example, the restrictions on wire-tapping and other means of gaining private information were relaxed under the idea of “warrantless surveillance.”  All these laws still remain on the books and are used by the government.  How do we know they won’t be used against innocent citizens under the guise of investigating terrorism?

Think of the internment laws used against innocent Japanese-Americans during the heightened fear of WWII.  In retrospect, we are all embarrassed by these actions and can see clearly how fear drove the Congress and public to enact laws that went much too far in combating internal security risks.

And think of how intrusive and scary the IRS can be…these new laws give the U.S. security agencies a lot more power.

2.  The “War on Terror,” by definition, will go on indefinitely.  Does that mean these intrusive laws will be on the books indefinitely? Have we given-up significant portions of our privacy for ever?  These rights of privacy are uniquely American and I hate to see them compromised.  They protect us from a too-powerful government.  The new laws allow more warrantless surveillance tactics–could these be used against innocent people rather than terrorists?  Who defines what a “terrorist” is?  Will this go on forever?

So, in a way, has bin Laden achieved something more than perhaps he even intended?  Have we Americans given-up our democratic rights of privacy and civil liberties because of the fear he caused?  I hope we never see another attack on our shores, but if that happens will we pass more laws giving-up even more of our privacy?

Measles Outbreak in Minneapolis

Health officials are battling an outbreak of measles spreading in the large Somali community in Minneapolis.  In Pennsylvania a case of measles is traced to an Indian child.  There’s a measles outbreak tracked to Maryland.  A potential measles outbreak is brewing in Boston.

What’s going on?

Measles has almost been eradicated from the United States.  So why is measles suddenly threatening to breakout?

Health officials point to a simple problem: in recent years, fewer parents chose to vaccinate their children.  It creates a cycle that applies to many infectious diseases like small pox.

Over the years, scientists and people worked together to develop vaccines to kill the disease and, as more people used the vaccine, the disease retreated.  The world-wide campaign against small pox. for instance, succeeded in eradicating the disease from the world–because it no longer had humans hosts to live and spread among.  Measles was close to being eradicated in the U.S.

Ironically, as the disease retreated and fewer people got sick, many others decided they, and their kids, didn’t need to be vaccinated anymore.  As a result, when infected people returned from Africa or Europe, many American citizens didn’t have an immunity to the disease.  Measles seems to be getting a foot-hold here again.

Serious?  Yes–people can die from measles.

Health officials warn that since measles rates are low in the U.S. it wouldn’t take many infections to cause an epidemic.  That’s because of something scientists call the “R-factor.”  It’s a way of measuring how fast the disease will replicate itself in other hosts and, therefore, how fast it will spread–especially if few people were protected by vaccination.

In Minneapolis and Boston, the main fight is to try to contain the outbreak to prevent the spread from growing into a full epidemic.

But…what if terrorists tried to use a disease to kill American citizens?

Defense experts say the biggest hurdle for terrorists would be the “release mechanism.”  How would they release it for infection of the maximum number of people?

Disease like small pox and measles would be easier to release because the viruses are airborne and passed like the common cold.  At least with measles, we have vaccines in great quantities.  That’s not the same for small pox.

My book, Reprisal, is a story about terrorists who use small pox as a weapon of mass destruction by trying to infect many school children to start an epidemic.  If you’re intrigued, or scared, by the idea, check it out at my web site or Amazon books.

Is your family vaccinated against measles?  Are you doing anything to protect yourselves?  Should the government step in and do anything for the people who refuse to get vaccinated?  As doctors warn:  even if you don’t want to do anything for yourself, think of all the other people you will infect if you’re not vaccinated.

Public Employee Unions=Too Expensive?

Is a Public Employee’s Union in California raising the cost of the prison system?  Should the prisons be sold to private companies to save the states money?

In my last post, I explored the movement across the country to privatize the prison systems in many states.  We looked at the high cost of maintaining prisons and one of the major reasons why the cost is suddenly so high–longer prison sentences and less chance for parole.

Starting in the 1980’s legislatures across the U.S. decided to “get tough on crime” by adding prison sentences to crimes that previously didn’t call for them and lengthening existing prison sentences, reducing the time on parole.

As a consequence, the prison populations in most states have sky-rocketed and so have the costs.

Before I look at an NPR story, I have to disclose that I am a member of a public employee union along with the prosecutors and public defenders in the county where I work.

A fascinating report from National Public Radio investigated the prison system in California.  See their story at:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?

storyId=111843426

Besides the increased prison sentences, they found a curious connection between the California Correctional Peace Officers Association–a public employee union–and the rising costs of the prison system there.  The union has become one of the most powerful political forces in the state.  Over the years, it’s contributed millions of dollars in support of tougher laws and longer prison sentences.  Since these laws passed, the number of union correctional officers has grown from 2,600 to 45,000.  The average salary in 1980 was $15,000.  By 2009 one out of ten officers made over $100,000.

Talk about an increase in costs!

NPR found that most of the funding to support new laws that increased prison penalties came from a political action committee that the union created for the purpose of  promoting a “Victim’s Rights Group.”  Question: why is a public employee union of correctional officers supporting victim’s rights?  And why should locking people away for longer time do much to help victims?

Today in California, most of the Corrections Department budget goes for salaries and benefits of the union employees. (70%) While just 5% goes for education and vocational training for inmates to give them job skills so that when they’re released, they don’t have to commit crime to support themselves.  To me, investing in job skills is actually going to help potential victims since the paroled inmates won’t be committing as many crimes.

I’m not saying that public employee unions have caused the same result in every state–but it sure looks like it in California.

What should we do about it?

Privatize the Prisons?

There has been talk about states selling their prison systems to private companies and allowing them to run the correctional system.  Is this a good idea?

At first, it looks great: the taxpayers can reduce the high cost of building, maintaining, guarding, providing medical care, and programming for offenders.  Why not let a private company take-over the costs?  The state would probably agree to some fee per inmate–which would be much lower than the present costs.  All the laws about incarceration and parole would remain the same, determined by the legislatures.

At present, because of the “Great Recession,” many states are looking at cutting this high expense.  But there are two factors that may have raised the cost of prisons beyond what anyone expected.

A couple of years ago, National Public Radio reported on Folsom Prison in California.  When Johnny Cash gave his concert there in 1968, it was a model for the entire nation.  See story at:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111843426

Today, it’s a disaster which may actually be making the public less safe than ever.  Even as most of the progress and programs have been cut at prisons like Folsom, the costs are higher than ever.  Why?

The NPR report suggests two reasons that may apply to prisons in all states:

1.  The “get tough on crime” laws of the past twenty years.

2.  Strong public unions of prison workers.

Let’s look at the first reason.

In the years since 1968 legislatures across the country decided to “get tough on crime.” That meant, usually, more incarceration penalties for more crimes and longer sentences for existing crimes.  The result has quadrupled prison populations–which states have to pay for.  Promoters of the get tough idea didn’t anticipate the consequences of putting significantly more offenders behind bars.

Though many people have the opinion that criminals should be locked-up and “throw away the key,” that’s not realistic.  Almost all offenders, except the most dangerous, are released at some point.  Without adequate programming for education, job skills, chemical dependency treatment, and mental health treatment these lower-level offenders come out with the same criminal tendencies they entered with–or worse.

People say, “So what?  I’m not going to spend tax dollars for social workers to help criminals.”  Those same people fail to realize that an “unimproved” offender coming out of prison poses the greatest threat to public safety.  Besides the heightened incidence of re-offending, the costs of police, courts, lawyers, jurors, and prisons is far greater than the cost to tax payers of the prison programs.

At some point, we must decide as a community how much we want to imprison people.  Most studies have shown that except for the violent, most dangerous offenders, close supervision by probation officers as the offenders live in the community not only is the best prevention for further criminal activity, but it is also the cheapest.

Of course, show me a politician that is courageous enough to point out these costs to the taxpayers and say, “let’s put fewer people in prison.”  Instead, we’re looking at privatizing the prison system.  It will reduce the direct costs to the taxpayer but won’t reduce the recidivism rate–since prisons like Folsom Prison in California now have some of the highest rates.  In 1968 they had the lowest rate.

What should we do?  In my next post, I’ll look at California and the power of the public employee union and its effect on the costs of the prison system there.

400 “Criminals” in One Room!

I just returned from a national writer’s convention in Santa Fe.  It’s called Left Coast Crime and I sat in the middle of almost 400 mystery writers.  Spooky…the only thing that could be worse would be sitting among 400 lawyers!

What would be most interesting for you is the wide variety of people who write mysteries/suspense stories and their ideas.  Almost any crime you could imagine has been written about.  The heroes/heroines include cops, private investigators, archeologists, little old ladies, female NASCAR drivers, cowboys, secret agents, bumbling professors, and even long-dead historical sleuths.

If any of you would like recommendations for books or writers beyond those I’ll list at the end of this post, please let me know.

The quality of the authors also impressed me.  They ranged through all ages and backgrounds.  One writer worked during the Viet Nam war as a  correspondent in Bangkok and was married to an engineer who was supposed to be building military bases in Viet Nam.   She learned from her journalist friends that he was really in the CIA!  (They remained married)  Another writer lived on a catamaran off the coast of England for a time.  Most of them are very intelligent and, even more importantly, curious about the world around them.

This fascination comes through in their writing, making their stories even deeper and more engaging.

Here are some suggestions for your mystery/suspense reading:

Western–  Murder for Greenhorns, Rob Kresge

Historical mystery–  City of Silver, Annamaria Alfieri

Humorous–  The Pot Thief Murder series, Mike Orenduff

Historical mystery–  SPQD, John Maddox Roberts

International mysteries–  The Charlie Fox series, Zoe Sharp

Gritty, street thriller–  Boulevard, Stephen Jay Schwartz

Humorous–  The Albuquerque Turkey, John Vorhous

Medical thriller–  Bone Dry, Bette Golden Lamb/J.J. Lamb

Archeology– Smoking Frog Lives, Pete Goodman.

NASCAR–  Dead Man’s Switch, Tammy Kaehler

Hope you enjoy some of these great authors!!  I can assure you that each one of them is an interesting, dedicated writer.

Let me know your recommendations for favorite authors!

Domestic Islamic Terrorists Here?

You’ve probably heard about the New York Congressman Peter King who will be conducting hearings for his congressional committee that is investigating domestic Islamic terrorism starting this week.

The  StarTribune carried an Associated Press article about the upcoming hearings at:http://www.startribune.com/nation/117590368.html

The proposed hearings are quite controversial.  Of course, most Americans are worried about domestic terrorists but many say that by singling out Muslims, the Congressman is reverting to McCarthyism.  The inquiry should be broader to include any domestic terrorists.

My new suspense novel Reprisal is about an imbedded terrorist who has worked as a scientist in a Minnesota company for years who plots to release a plague in the state.

If you are interested in these issues, I think you’d like my book.  The plot involves several missing young Somali men who left the Twin City area in the past few years.  The FBI thinks most of them went back to Somalia to fight with militias there.  But several of the young men are still missing and unaccounted for…where did they go?  And why?

In my book, the terrorists have stolen samples of small pox virus from a repository in Russia.  They intend to infect the missing Somali men and return them to American schools in order to start a plague.  And since none of us in the U.S. is immune to small pox any longer, the results could be disastrous.

The story has been described as a “page turner,”  or “one I couldn’t put down.”

What makes the book different from other thrillers is that the main character is an American citizen, a young female defense lawyer who must stop the plot before the plague is allowed to break-out.  She’s a moderate, progressive feminist–and a Muslim.  The story shows the struggles she has to be a loyal American and a faithful Muslim.

If you’d like to read it, send me your email address and I’ll send you the first 50 pages for free with no strings attached.

Maybe I should send a copy to Congressman King!