Uncategorized

for some months now i’ve been disturbed by the issue of states using civil commitment to lock up sex offenders after they have served their prison sentences. chris posted on this a couple of months ago, showing how we have clearly dehumanized and demonized sex offenders in this country. how else to explain the fact that these individuals can do their time, pay their debt to society, and then still potentially be locked up for the rest of their lives? states like new york and washington have opened or are in the process of building new “perv prisons” at great expense and very little public outcry.

new york is currently planning to build a facility that will house 500 civilly committed sex offenders who have served their prison sentences. such civil commitments have been upheld by the us supreme court. in 2002, the nation’s top court ruled that people who were “unable to control their dangerousness” and were likely to commit another sex crime could be legally civilly committed.

in washington state, a study by independent researchers showed that felony-level sex offenders had a recidivism rate of 2.7 percent — lower than the rate of repeat arrests for felony-level drug violations and several other categories of crime. the tacoma news tribune reports the following statistics:

About 5 percent of treated sex offenders commit another sex crime, studies show. That figure is about 7 percent for those who didn’t receive treatment. About 8 percent commit new crimes that are nonsexual and nonviolent. About 3 percent commit new crimes that are violent but not of a sexual nature. About 77 percent have no new offenses at all.

yet, still, the moral panic is driving punitive new laws and there is no end in sight. in washington state alone nearly 50 sex offender bills were introduced in the last legislative session. washington’s policy is to indefinitely incarcerate offenders after their prison sentences until they have successfully completed “deviancy treatment.” in at least one case, an individual has been civilly committed–with the supreme court’s blessing–for over a decade after completing his prison term.

as chris wrote about in the post mentioned earlier, minnesota has taken this issue even further and defined some individuals as “sexually dangerous” and civilly committed them without their ever having committed a sex offense.

while sex offenders are the target of the day, i worry that such trampling of individual rights may be a slippery slope…what will be next? when we allow states to play god and incarcerate people based on their potential for predatory crime, the state may ultimately become more frightening than any individual offender.

every spring when the minnesota snow melts, all manner of items surface on the roadside. as a running criminologist, i like to observe changes in the quantity and type of items discarded by young people. in spring i run a big loop around shoreview (west to arden hills, north up lexington to lino lakes, east on county road j to north oaks, south on hodson to vadnais heights, and back west to shoreview). along all of these roads i find the detritus of recent delinquency, though most of it is quickly cleaned up each spring.

suburban high school kids don’t have much private space, so they tend to do stuff in cars and then throw said stuff out of cars quickly thereafter. i’m therefore thinking about compiling an index of leading delinquency indicators that will use winter trash to predict summer delinquency.

every spring when the minnesota snow melts, all manner of items surface on the roadside. as a running criminologist, i like to observe changes in the quantity and type of items discarded by young people. in spring i run a big loop around shoreview (west to arden hills, north up lexington to lino lakes, east on county road j to north oaks, south on hodson to vadnais heights, and back west to shoreview). along all of these roads i find the detritus of recent delinquency, though most of it is quickly cleaned up each spring.

suburban high school kids don’t have much private space, so they tend to do stuff in cars and then throw said stuff out of cars quickly thereafter. i’m therefore thinking about compiling an index of leading delinquency indicators that will use winter trash to predict summer delinquency.

for some months now i’ve been disturbed by the issue of states using civil commitment to lock up sex offenders after they have served their prison sentences. chris posted on this a couple of months ago, showing how we have clearly dehumanized and demonized sex offenders in this country. how else to explain the fact that these individuals can do their time, pay their debt to society, and then still potentially be locked up for the rest of their lives? states like new york and washington have opened or are in the process of building new “perv prisons” at great expense and very little public outcry.

new york is currently planning to build a facility that will house 500 civilly committed sex offenders who have served their prison sentences. such civil commitments have been upheld by the us supreme court. in 2002, the nation’s top court ruled that people who were “unable to control their dangerousness” and were likely to commit another sex crime could be legally civilly committed.

in washington state, a study by independent researchers showed that felony-level sex offenders had a recidivism rate of 2.7 percent — lower than the rate of repeat arrests for felony-level drug violations and several other categories of crime. the tacoma news tribune reports the following statistics:

About 5 percent of treated sex offenders commit another sex crime, studies show. That figure is about 7 percent for those who didn’t receive treatment. About 8 percent commit new crimes that are nonsexual and nonviolent. About 3 percent commit new crimes that are violent but not of a sexual nature. About 77 percent have no new offenses at all.

yet, still, the moral panic is driving punitive new laws and there is no end in sight. in washington state alone nearly 50 sex offender bills were introduced in the last legislative session. washington’s policy is to indefinitely incarcerate offenders after their prison sentences until they have successfully completed “deviancy treatment.” in at least one case, an individual has been civilly committed–with the supreme court’s blessing–for over a decade after completing his prison term.

as chris wrote about in the post mentioned earlier, minnesota has taken this issue even further and defined some individuals as “sexually dangerous” and civilly committed them without their ever having committed a sex offense.

while sex offenders are the target of the day, i worry that such trampling of individual rights may be a slippery slope…what will be next? when we allow states to play god and incarcerate people based on their potential for predatory crime, the state may ultimately become more frightening than any individual offender.

oxford is releasing locked out next week, so i’ve been checking amazon and barnes & noble. after some years of work and some years when we really should have been working, i guess it has finally arrived. i say “i guess” because i haven’t actually seen a copy and won’t believe it until i do.

the minnversity is doing a press release on monday, so i’m gearing up for interviews. my all-time A#1 favorite question was about “why i think charles manson should get to decide the next president.” if anything similarly interesting happens, i’ll blog about it — either as self-promotion or as damage-control.

the good folks at the sentencing project emailed a flyer on their distribution list today (thanks much, marc), so i’ve gotten some warm congratulatory-type wishes from friends. the best note, however, told me of the book’s actual theme song! and look, it’s an infectious rocker to boot! here’s a wmp snippet of crowded house’s locked out. jeff and i explore different themes than the brothers finn, but perhaps we can emulate their “carefully crafted songs, meticulous eye for lyrical detail, and gift for melody.”

oxford is releasing locked out next week, so i’ve been checking amazon and barnes & noble. after some years of work and some years when we really should have been working, i guess it has finally arrived. i say “i guess” because i haven’t actually seen a copy and won’t believe it until i do.

the minnversity is doing a press release on monday, so i’m gearing up for interviews. my all-time A#1 favorite question was about “why i think charles manson should get to decide the next president.” if anything similarly interesting happens, i’ll blog about it — either as self-promotion or as damage-control.

the good folks at the sentencing project emailed a flyer on their distribution list today (thanks much, marc), so i’ve gotten some warm congratulatory-type wishes from friends. the best note, however, told me of the book’s actual theme song! and look, it’s an infectious rocker to boot! here’s a wmp snippet of crowded house’s locked out. jeff and i explore different themes than the brothers finn, but perhaps we can emulate their “carefully crafted songs, meticulous eye for lyrical detail, and gift for melody.”

after last week’s excellent piece on the seemingly unreasonable fines and debts that states impose on felons sparked discussion, adam liptak has another thought provoking article in today’s new york times on the shackling of pregnant inmates while they are giving birth. this particular practice is a vivid example of why the “add women and stir” approach of many state corrections agencies just doesn’t work.

while my former home state of washington is shameful in denying felons the right to vote while they struggle to work off their debts for years after their release, i can be a little more proud of the fact that the washington department of corrections is one of the very few state agencies to enact policy that strictly forbids the shackling of pregnant inmates.

feminist criminologists have been sharing their concern over such practices for years, but it often seemed as though only other feminist criminologists were really listening. liptak suggests that, “In most cases…women are shackled because prison rules are unthinkingly exported to a hospital setting.” hopefully liptak’s article will bring this issue to a larger audience and encourage thoughtful discussion and debate on the shackling of female inmates during labor and delivery.

after last week’s excellent piece on the seemingly unreasonable fines and debts that states impose on felons sparked discussion, adam liptak has another thought provoking article in today’s new york times on the shackling of pregnant inmates while they are giving birth. this particular practice is a vivid example of why the “add women and stir” approach of many state corrections agencies just doesn’t work.

while my former home state of washington is shameful in denying felons the right to vote while they struggle to work off their debts for years after their release, i can be a little more proud of the fact that the washington department of corrections is one of the very few state agencies to enact policy that strictly forbids the shackling of pregnant inmates.

feminist criminologists have been sharing their concern over such practices for years, but it often seemed as though only other feminist criminologists were really listening. liptak suggests that, “In most cases…women are shackled because prison rules are unthinkingly exported to a hospital setting.” hopefully liptak’s article will bring this issue to a larger audience and encourage thoughtful discussion and debate on the shackling of female inmates during labor and delivery.

crimprofs links to a video that might be useful in teaching sociology of law or deviance. what would happen if four cars spread themselves across all four lanes of a major highway driving at exactly the speed limit? well, some college kids in atlanta undertook a little experiment on the dangers of strict obedience.

or maybe not. according to the museum of hoaxes write-up, this sort of thing was actually anticipated by georgia lawmakers:

code 40-6-40, section D: No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes, provided that this Code section shall not be construed to prevent vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of congested traffic conditions.

so, they weren’t actually obeying the law. i’m all for social experimentation and merry prankstering, but … after watching the five minute video, i had the urge to box their impudent little ears. i guess that’s probably just my inner dad emerging. despite the dangers, i can’t help wondering about manipulating one more experimental condition: what do you think would have happened if atlanta’s black college students had pulled this stunt?

crimprofs links to a video that might be useful in teaching sociology of law or deviance. what would happen if four cars spread themselves across all four lanes of a major highway driving at exactly the speed limit? well, some college kids in atlanta undertook a little experiment on the dangers of strict obedience.

or maybe not. according to the museum of hoaxes write-up, this sort of thing was actually anticipated by georgia lawmakers:

code 40-6-40, section D: No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes, provided that this Code section shall not be construed to prevent vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of congested traffic conditions.

so, they weren’t actually obeying the law. i’m all for social experimentation and merry prankstering, but … after watching the five minute video, i had the urge to box their impudent little ears. i guess that’s probably just my inner dad emerging. despite the dangers, i can’t help wondering about manipulating one more experimental condition: what do you think would have happened if atlanta’s black college students had pulled this stunt?