The realities of prison life are not always what media portrays. The truth behind bars can be misleading when information from criminal dramas, television series, and sometimes even popular news stories portray the reality. Behind a Convicts Eyes by K.C. Carceral and Voices from the Field by Carl E. Pope, Rick Lovell, and Stephen G. Brandi bring the realities to light and effectively depict the challenges inmates face every day in their fight for survival. This paper will address adaptation strategies used by inmates to adjust to prison life, how correctional policies affect an inmate’s rights to confidentiality and respect, along with perspectives and suggestions for correctional policies and inmate’s toxic-shamed identity.
In the media, Sherriff Joe Arpio’s prisons in Maricopa County, Arizona often flaunt the pink prison uniforms, revitalized chain gangs, and no-nonsense operations. However, after reading Behind a Convicts eyes, many might agree that prisoners have more control over their existence than originally thought. Inmates tend to use the system to their advantage, finding loop holes, and ways to manipulate routine procedures.
Prisoners use coercion and manipulative tactics to their advantage when attempting to get what they want. On page 20, Behind a Convicts Eyes, the conversation between Marv and Dr. Hanz provides a convenient example of how inmates control psychological testing; using clinical physicians to acquire medication to either become “high” or barter for profit. Another way manipulation takes place among prisoner and correctional officers is by building rapports (Carceral, 2004, p. 20). This then leads to doing small favors for an individual, which makes their actions seem as if they are helping someone out, so in turn the individual that is coerced by manipulation, returns a small favor. However, once a prisoner has a caught an individual doing something he or she is not suppose to do, they can blackmail them for more criminal behaviors in the future.
When entering the prison system many offenders experience an initial shock by the new world they are entering into. Basic means for survival are dependent upon the individuals’ demographics and ability to adapt. Anonymous N. Inmate shares several adaptation strategies including understanding the new language, the persona one should carry, and how to stay out of trouble. Anonymous describes the language as “prison-proper” and if a prisoner does not understand the jargon they have the potential of miscommunication that could cause them harm. For example, on page 24, Behind a Convicts Eyes, shares Anonymous’ conversation with Skin about learning “prison-proper”; there is certain name calling allowed only within specific ethnic groups, fowl language is frequently used, and referring to someone as a ‘punk’ provokes altercations. The talk becomes more complex with the everyday activities in prison life, but if the inmate pays close attention, they will eventually catch on (Carceral, 2004, p. 24).
Another important prison adaptation strategy is to show no emotion because a sign of emotion translates to one’s weakness. Behind a Convicts eyes continuously reinforces the importance of reputation throughout the text. An inmate’s reputation is said to determine if prison life will “make or break you” with the worst reputation being a “snitch” (Carceral, 2004, chap. 4). Anonymous became conscious of the importance of upholding a reputation and never had to fear the title of a “snitch”.
A poor reputation can have devastating results for an inmate, causing others to turn against them, possibly including correctional officers as well. Sometimes reputations start in the court house, depending upon the crime the prisoner committed; otherwise, reputations had to be earned. As long as the inmate “plays it cool” and avoids snitching, regardless of the action of another prisoner, this can help the inmate steer clear of being verbally and physically assaulted.
Lastly, one of the most important prison adaptation strategies is a technique Anonymous explains that inmates must “mind [their] own business unless asked” (Carceral, 2004, p. 11). By simply attending to personal affairs instead of others is an easy way to avoid potential conflicts; whether discussions are taking place between inmates or correctional officers. The best way to survive the system is for the inmate to keep to themselves.
The book Voices from the Field, provides another perspective with some similarities and differences from Behind a Convicts Eyes; one author portrays the perspective of an evaluator and the other as an inmate. One focus which both authors covered was the racial separation. Black inmates primarily conversed with other black inmates and white inmates general conversed with white inmates. In Voices from the Field and Behind a Convicts Eyes, survival methods were similar. The focal point addresses how prisoners avoid conflict, but does whatever may be required to meet their needs. The façade of defensive measures and strength were adequately represented in both texts.
Issues addressing the economy were also prevalent in both texts, proving that inmate interactions could prove to be beneficial when acquiring needs inside and outside of prison walls. The text displayed an example of an approximate living expense of $130 per month. Therefore, bartering is a frequent bustle throughout the prison cells, exchanging items in the forms of products or service to obtain additional needed materials. Maintaining a decent reputation proved extremely important in both texts, in order for bartering to be successful. However, both texts shared examples of how reputations can cause confidentiality concern within the prisons.
Behind a Convicts eyes briefly describes the need for respect, hope and safety in the correctional policy addressing “society’s need for social order and the value of social justice” (Carceral, 2004, p. 183). The Correction Policy includes that staff must provide protection to each inmate and is responsible for confiscating all contraband from the inmate’s possession. However, these policies rarely take effect as they should. Inmates are more successful at manipulating and controlling the system because they are trying to survive in the system. For example, inmates will not report that another inmate is in possession of contraband because they do not want to ruin their reputation and contract the label as a “snitch”; especially after seeing others attacked by other inmates for the same behavior. Although, there are policies within the prison to report such crimes, there is little hope that inmates will adhere to these policies.
The inmates always seem to have a hidden agenda, regardless of how well correctional officers perform their job functions. The intent of the correctional policies is to provide rules and guidelines to protect the inmate’s privacy and self respect. However, inmates have the capability of searching for information about an individual, aside from what prison staff is attempting to keep confidential. As for the respect correctional officers have for inmates, some would say inmates are only receive a portion of what should be provided. Both texts testify to strip searches providing correctional officers with an intimidation tactic, with an attempt to prove a point with little or no means of respect.
When offering suggestions for implementing at the facility where Anonymous N. Inmate is housed, intimidation tactics and extreme measures of force should be abolished, unless deemed absolutely necessary. They system should work much like an elementary or junior high school system: starting with a verbal warning, then a write-up, ending with appropriate action for the misbehavior or crime committed. Solitary confinement should not be for someone who has not tucked his or her shirt in, unless the inmate has received several warnings for his or her misconduct. In the example of an un-tucked shirt, the inmate should receive a warning, then a write up, with concluding appropriate action being the loss of recreational time outside of their cell. If the same behavior continues, then solitary confinement should be considered.
Much like a four-year-old, by taking away their personal freedoms or ability to do something they want to do, they can determine the appropriate behavior to receive positive or negative consequences. Some would wonder why placing a four-year-old onto time-out for forgetting to clean up his toys as a punishment, when a simple reminder or warning would have been sufficient the first time. Same goes for inmates, why throw them into solitary confinement when a warning would have been just as effective.
Carceral believes that the “…root problem in people and how they become criminals is that they have toxic-shamed identity” (Carceral, 2004, p. 190). Going from freedom outside of prison, to abandonment from family and friends, loss of any reputable reputation, and simply humiliation for being incarcerated; inmates are already attempting to cope with many negative changes, enough to bring anyone’s morale down. Then what makes the situation worse, their identity is taken away. Their clothes, their shoes and even their names are taken away from them. They become a number in the system, or even more like a statistic.
The text illustrates toxic shame as a state of being rather than an emotion. Incarceration is a regrettable punishment as is toxic shame and can potentially damage the emotional wellbeing of inmates. Many people know, based upon common knowledge, that inmates are not sent to prison for good behavior. However, as they make their way through the process they begin to understand that their behavior was unacceptable to society and that they deserve what they get. The prison system tends to remove all independence from the lives of inmates, making them suffer through the sense worthless, as if they were barely even human. When entering into the prison system inmates are in an extremely vulnerable state to show emotions, which can be poor to their health when exposed to other prisoners. Toxic shame may not necessarily be avoidable because there are no transition periods to prep them for what they are about to experience upon immersion.
In conclusion, prison life may be hard to comprehend if an individual has never been there before. Prison life is an extremely traumatic experience, even for the tough guys. Learning a new language, building a new persona, and keeping out of anyone’s business but their own can prove to be detrimental strategies to their survival behind bars. Although, media portrays an unpleasant life, nothing compares to experiences inmates receive once in the slammer. Maybe the prison system should offer more resources to assist inmates in coping with toxic shame.
References
Carceral, K. C. (n.d.). Behind a convicts eyes: Doing time in a modern prison ( ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Pope, C. E., Lovell, R., & Brandl, S. G. (2001). Voices from the field: Readings in criminal justice research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Media in the Courtroom
Many led by news stories and legal dramas may be disgusted by the operations of the Criminal Justice system. Although some believe the media does not affect the verdict, they may not be aware of the realities in the courtroom because of unrealistic portrayals and corrupted celebrity cases. Since there are many media restraints, majority of the news stories are lacking in objectivity and have many biases; leaving the reality of most cases in the dark.
Televised courtroom proceedings have increased in popularity. Majority of the popular broadcasting companies have a reality court television line up. A popular courtroom series that has been around since 1981 is The People’s Court, a throwback from popular courtroom shows in the 1950s. What many fail to realize is that the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s are guaranteed money to appear for their court hearing. In 1989, Louis De George sued Judge Joseph Wapner of
The People’s Court for only receiving $250 after he was guaranteed $1,500; but since he lost the case, the money owed to the plaintiff was taken out of De George’s assumed profit. He stated, “I never would have appeared on that show and made a fool out of myself for a chintzy $250” (Associated Press, 1989). In reality, the offender and the defendant are either summonsed to court or they appear willingly, and if they refuse to appear the case can be dropped or a warrant can be placed for their arrest.
Another example of unrealistic portrayals of the criminal justice system can be found in legal dramas such as sitcoms or movies. Law and Order appears to be a favorite television show of many, but the accuracy of the show can be deceiving. “In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories” (Giuliano, 2008).
In the background on New York City, Law & Order is a law enforcement drama played on NBC Universal television. The show commences with the immediate aftermath of the investigation and prosecution which is played out by following a small team of homicide detectives. Unlike real crimes, the detectives rarely encounter a simple murder where the perpetrator does little to hide his or her guilt. Detectives also have little or no clues to start with, usually chasing several loose ends before finding a worthy suspect. Halfway through, prosecutors begin collaborating with police officer to make an arrest, while sometimes also testifying in court. Majority of these investigations are conducted by the detectives, who always consult with the District Attorney before proceeding with the case. Law and Order does not always win their cases; sometimes finishing the show with an incomplete resolution. Sometimes true facts of the crime are left for the audience to determine the criminals’ destination where other cases against the offender are won; though justice still seems to be lacking.
In comparison to the lawyers and police on the show, the victims and witnesses of crimes speak briefly, obligated sentences help speed up the plot, even though the same characters are under cross examination or visibly upset. Typically, questionings of a key witness will last only a minute, if not less, even in real time. Forensic experts are depicted as all-seeing individuals and the forensic evidence is never deemed questionable. Like many legal dramas the show has been accused of providing an unrealistic portrayal of the criminal justice system.
Society has been divided over allowing media in the courtroom. One of the more controversial cases is the trail of O.J. Simpson where he was acquitted for murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Each person is guaranteed a fair trial and an unbiased jury, but being a celebrity makes finding an unbiased jury nearly impossible. Some contemplate if Simpson’s Constitutional rights were violated with the news coverage that was provided. After the trail many were outraged by the results and wondered why he was not perceived as guilty. What news coverage failed to address is that in criminal court, sentencing is determined upon reasonable doubt which sets a much higher standard than in civil courts. The reason OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal court system is because there was not enough proof to leave any reasonable doubt that he did not commit the crime. Then when the trail proceeded to civil court the Goldman’s family was rewarded $33.5 million because the preponderance of evidence provided proof beyond reasonable doubt to acquit him with the murder.
In order for society to gain confidence in the justice system, media and the press must represent all the facts with little bias. According to their contract as an associated member of the press, news reporters are not allowed to lie; but many articles tend to use one side of a story more than another. News stories and crime narratives still ring with key elements of the conservative discourse on crime. The news and media tend to make society believe that criminal offenders are professional criminals, clear-headed, and motivated by greed. Another strong deception is the interest of public safety and justice are ill serviced by dead beat cops, liberal judges and lawyers who are sometimes to the point of absurdity – preoccupied with the rights of defendants. Hopefully more people will be able to acknowledge the reality before they are misled with false perceptions of the reality in a courtroom.
Even though the media tends to represent many facts, they also provide unrealistic portrayals of the realities in the court room. People enjoy legal dramas, but often perceive them to be realities. Another contributing factor to societies mislead perception is celebrities ability to afford excellent legal counsel, so they do not have the full repercussions of their actions. These reasons allow people to have misled presumptions of the criminal justice system, which largely affect their everyday lives.
References
Associated Press. (1989, June 15). 'People's Court' finds itself before the dock. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE2D71F3BF936A25755C0A96F948260
Giuliano, P. (Director). (2008). Law and Order: Special Victims Unit [Motion Picture].
Televised courtroom proceedings have increased in popularity. Majority of the popular broadcasting companies have a reality court television line up. A popular courtroom series that has been around since 1981 is The People’s Court, a throwback from popular courtroom shows in the 1950s. What many fail to realize is that the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s are guaranteed money to appear for their court hearing. In 1989, Louis De George sued Judge Joseph Wapner of
The People’s Court for only receiving $250 after he was guaranteed $1,500; but since he lost the case, the money owed to the plaintiff was taken out of De George’s assumed profit. He stated, “I never would have appeared on that show and made a fool out of myself for a chintzy $250” (Associated Press, 1989). In reality, the offender and the defendant are either summonsed to court or they appear willingly, and if they refuse to appear the case can be dropped or a warrant can be placed for their arrest.
Another example of unrealistic portrayals of the criminal justice system can be found in legal dramas such as sitcoms or movies. Law and Order appears to be a favorite television show of many, but the accuracy of the show can be deceiving. “In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories” (Giuliano, 2008).
In the background on New York City, Law & Order is a law enforcement drama played on NBC Universal television. The show commences with the immediate aftermath of the investigation and prosecution which is played out by following a small team of homicide detectives. Unlike real crimes, the detectives rarely encounter a simple murder where the perpetrator does little to hide his or her guilt. Detectives also have little or no clues to start with, usually chasing several loose ends before finding a worthy suspect. Halfway through, prosecutors begin collaborating with police officer to make an arrest, while sometimes also testifying in court. Majority of these investigations are conducted by the detectives, who always consult with the District Attorney before proceeding with the case. Law and Order does not always win their cases; sometimes finishing the show with an incomplete resolution. Sometimes true facts of the crime are left for the audience to determine the criminals’ destination where other cases against the offender are won; though justice still seems to be lacking.
In comparison to the lawyers and police on the show, the victims and witnesses of crimes speak briefly, obligated sentences help speed up the plot, even though the same characters are under cross examination or visibly upset. Typically, questionings of a key witness will last only a minute, if not less, even in real time. Forensic experts are depicted as all-seeing individuals and the forensic evidence is never deemed questionable. Like many legal dramas the show has been accused of providing an unrealistic portrayal of the criminal justice system.
Society has been divided over allowing media in the courtroom. One of the more controversial cases is the trail of O.J. Simpson where he was acquitted for murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Each person is guaranteed a fair trial and an unbiased jury, but being a celebrity makes finding an unbiased jury nearly impossible. Some contemplate if Simpson’s Constitutional rights were violated with the news coverage that was provided. After the trail many were outraged by the results and wondered why he was not perceived as guilty. What news coverage failed to address is that in criminal court, sentencing is determined upon reasonable doubt which sets a much higher standard than in civil courts. The reason OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal court system is because there was not enough proof to leave any reasonable doubt that he did not commit the crime. Then when the trail proceeded to civil court the Goldman’s family was rewarded $33.5 million because the preponderance of evidence provided proof beyond reasonable doubt to acquit him with the murder.
In order for society to gain confidence in the justice system, media and the press must represent all the facts with little bias. According to their contract as an associated member of the press, news reporters are not allowed to lie; but many articles tend to use one side of a story more than another. News stories and crime narratives still ring with key elements of the conservative discourse on crime. The news and media tend to make society believe that criminal offenders are professional criminals, clear-headed, and motivated by greed. Another strong deception is the interest of public safety and justice are ill serviced by dead beat cops, liberal judges and lawyers who are sometimes to the point of absurdity – preoccupied with the rights of defendants. Hopefully more people will be able to acknowledge the reality before they are misled with false perceptions of the reality in a courtroom.
Even though the media tends to represent many facts, they also provide unrealistic portrayals of the realities in the court room. People enjoy legal dramas, but often perceive them to be realities. Another contributing factor to societies mislead perception is celebrities ability to afford excellent legal counsel, so they do not have the full repercussions of their actions. These reasons allow people to have misled presumptions of the criminal justice system, which largely affect their everyday lives.
References
Associated Press. (1989, June 15). 'People's Court' finds itself before the dock. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE2D71F3BF936A25755C0A96F948260
Giuliano, P. (Director). (2008). Law and Order: Special Victims Unit [Motion Picture].
Crime Comparisons between Counties
Walking out of a grocery store an older woman is grabbed from behind and forced to get into another man’s car with a knife held tightly against her neck; of course, she complies. When law enforcement officials arrive on scene, little can be done. They test fate, not knowing the criminals’ personality and attempt to apprehend them. Aggravated assaults tend to be more serious and complicated than a traditional assault. Many lives are put at risk and if the crime was carried out the result of the victim could include bodily injury or even death.
In 2006, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program recorded 815 aggravated assaults in Maricopa County, AZ and only 178 aggravated assaults in Calvert County, MD (US Dept. of Justice, 2007) The amount of aggravated assault in either county is too many, but the question society must ask is, why? Why are nearly four times more cases of aggravated assault reported in Maricopa County? Even though many believe blaming society for individuals’ actions provides an escape for the criminal, maybe society needs to start addressing plausible contributing factors.
First off, Maricopa County’s population consists of 3,768,123 residents within 9,203 square miles; whereas, Calvert County has 88,804 people residing within 215 square miles (US Dept. of Commerce, 2007). Many would thin
k that population density would be the reason for increased aggression among people, but if the statistics are compared there may be an alarming surprise. Only an approximate 409 people reside in Maricopa County per square mile; whereas, Calvert County has approximately 413 people per square mile. Calvert County is much smaller than Maricopa County, and although Maricopa has more residents, Calvert County has a slightly higher population density.
This may seem daunting to most, but Maricopa’s aggravated assault is less in comparison to Calvert County’s population. Maricopa has 42 times the population and 43 times the land, than in Calvert County. Therefore, if one were to multiply the ratio of aggravated assault rates in Calvert County by 42 there would 7,476 aggravated assaults to every 3,768,123 persons, population of Maricopa County; leaving Calvert County with a higher rate of aggravated assaults.
What is even more alarming is that according to Maryland State Police UCR, Calvert County’s aggravated assaults rates have been growing with the overall crime since the beginning of 2008 with an increase of nearly 21% (Madden, 2008). The residents of Calvert County are proving to be more venerable, thus being easier targets. The once small populated rural county has become more fully developed and the residents seem to be having difficulties accommodating themselves towards the change. They occasionally leave car doors unlocked and their homes are less secure. With the larger developments taking over and the sudden change in the economy, this is bringing in more crime and aggravated assaults that the county is not prepared for.
Another contributing factor that one must address is the amount of cultural diversity within the county. Maricopa County is filled with illegal immigrants; majority cannot speak or understand a bit of English, with a total of 9% of the total population. Recently, a County Attorney released information about research proving that illegal immigrants are contributing to an alarming amount of crime. In 2007, the illegal immigrants accounted for 16.5% sentenced for violent crimes, such as aggravated assault (Thomas, 2008). Majority of the citizens feel helpless with the overwhelming amount of illegal aliens and feel vulnerable to the crime committed in their area (Personal Communications, 2008). All they can do is place their confidence in their governing party that there will be an immigration reform.
One must not assume that just because a county shows a higher crime rate or aggravated assault in a particular area, the location has more crime in comparison to a lower crime rate in another area; all factors must be considered, such as population and size of the area. Vulnerability of Maricopa County and Calvert County seem to be a main concern in this report.
As a prevention of aggravated assaults citizens of these counties could have an opportunity to be informed of how to protect themselves from potential dangers in their area.
Aggravated assaults cannot be predicted the only prevention measure is to make citizens aware so they can take the necessary precautions. No matter how safe the person may believe their neighborhood is, leaving his or her front door open or car door unlocked is leaving them susceptible to crime. Another way to stay protected is to always be aware of the surroundings.
When walking to a vehicle alone at night, whether the car is located in a parking garage or a poorly lit parking lot, there should be no question that danger could be lurking around the corner, asking a security guard or attendant could save a person’s life; aggravated assaults are less likely when people travel in groups or pairs. In conclusion, things are not always as they appear, remember to stay protected and research assumptions.
References
Justice, U. S. (2007, September). Crime in the United States, 2006. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from Federal Bureau of Ivestigation Uniformed Crime Report: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html
Madden, M. (2008, November 12). Calvert's crime up nearly 21 percent. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from The Calvert Independent: http://www.calvertnew.info/news/1095/calvert-crime-increases-21-percent-in-2008
Thomas, A. P. (2008, October 2). Landmark Research Shows Relationship between Crime, Illegal Immigration. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from Maricopa County Attorney New Release: http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a.pdf
United States Department of Commerce. (2007, December). 2006
American Community Survey Data Profile Highlights. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from United States Census Bureau: http://factfinder.census.gov
In 2006, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program recorded 815 aggravated assaults in Maricopa County, AZ and only 178 aggravated assaults in Calvert County, MD (US Dept. of Justice, 2007) The amount of aggravated assault in either county is too many, but the question society must ask is, why? Why are nearly four times more cases of aggravated assault reported in Maricopa County? Even though many believe blaming society for individuals’ actions provides an escape for the criminal, maybe society needs to start addressing plausible contributing factors.
First off, Maricopa County’s population consists of 3,768,123 residents within 9,203 square miles; whereas, Calvert County has 88,804 people residing within 215 square miles (US Dept. of Commerce, 2007). Many would thin
k that population density would be the reason for increased aggression among people, but if the statistics are compared there may be an alarming surprise. Only an approximate 409 people reside in Maricopa County per square mile; whereas, Calvert County has approximately 413 people per square mile. Calvert County is much smaller than Maricopa County, and although Maricopa has more residents, Calvert County has a slightly higher population density.This may seem daunting to most, but Maricopa’s aggravated assault is less in comparison to Calvert County’s population. Maricopa has 42 times the population and 43 times the land, than in Calvert County. Therefore, if one were to multiply the ratio of aggravated assault rates in Calvert County by 42 there would 7,476 aggravated assaults to every 3,768,123 persons, population of Maricopa County; leaving Calvert County with a higher rate of aggravated assaults.
What is even more alarming is that according to Maryland State Police UCR, Calvert County’s aggravated assaults rates have been growing with the overall crime since the beginning of 2008 with an increase of nearly 21% (Madden, 2008). The residents of Calvert County are proving to be more venerable, thus being easier targets. The once small populated rural county has become more fully developed and the residents seem to be having difficulties accommodating themselves towards the change. They occasionally leave car doors unlocked and their homes are less secure. With the larger developments taking over and the sudden change in the economy, this is bringing in more crime and aggravated assaults that the county is not prepared for.
Another contributing factor that one must address is the amount of cultural diversity within the county. Maricopa County is filled with illegal immigrants; majority cannot speak or understand a bit of English, with a total of 9% of the total population. Recently, a County Attorney released information about research proving that illegal immigrants are contributing to an alarming amount of crime. In 2007, the illegal immigrants accounted for 16.5% sentenced for violent crimes, such as aggravated assault (Thomas, 2008). Majority of the citizens feel helpless with the overwhelming amount of illegal aliens and feel vulnerable to the crime committed in their area (Personal Communications, 2008). All they can do is place their confidence in their governing party that there will be an immigration reform.
One must not assume that just because a county shows a higher crime rate or aggravated assault in a particular area, the location has more crime in comparison to a lower crime rate in another area; all factors must be considered, such as population and size of the area. Vulnerability of Maricopa County and Calvert County seem to be a main concern in this report.
As a prevention of aggravated assaults citizens of these counties could have an opportunity to be informed of how to protect themselves from potential dangers in their area.
Aggravated assaults cannot be predicted the only prevention measure is to make citizens aware so they can take the necessary precautions. No matter how safe the person may believe their neighborhood is, leaving his or her front door open or car door unlocked is leaving them susceptible to crime. Another way to stay protected is to always be aware of the surroundings.
When walking to a vehicle alone at night, whether the car is located in a parking garage or a poorly lit parking lot, there should be no question that danger could be lurking around the corner, asking a security guard or attendant could save a person’s life; aggravated assaults are less likely when people travel in groups or pairs. In conclusion, things are not always as they appear, remember to stay protected and research assumptions.
References
Justice, U. S. (2007, September). Crime in the United States, 2006. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from Federal Bureau of Ivestigation Uniformed Crime Report: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html
Madden, M. (2008, November 12). Calvert's crime up nearly 21 percent. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from The Calvert Independent: http://www.calvertnew.info/news/1095/calvert-crime-increases-21-percent-in-2008
Thomas, A. P. (2008, October 2). Landmark Research Shows Relationship between Crime, Illegal Immigration. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from Maricopa County Attorney New Release: http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a.pdf
United States Department of Commerce. (2007, December). 2006
American Community Survey Data Profile Highlights. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from United States Census Bureau: http://factfinder.census.gov
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
