crime

And Now, The DNA Evidence

Francie Grace — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:15:41 -0400

Hollywood has done a great job trumpeting the benefits of DNA – the double-edged sword that can free a wrongly convicted inmate and force a killer to face his or her legal fate – but the reality of DNA's impact on the criminal justice system is quite something else.

USA Today reports half of the states still do not have requirements mandating the preservation of DNA evidence. Proposed laws to implement or ramp up DNA databases – including, in some cases, collecting DNA from individuals who have not been convicted of crimes – have run into obstacles including concerns about costs and civil liberties.

Even when DNA databases do exist – and contain matches to potential suspects in criminal cases – there can be problems, according to a 2006 study published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Researcher Frederick Bieber reported then that databases have been helpful in both identifying suspects and ruling them out – saving investigators time and money – but administrative and crime lab logjams can cause delays in searches of databases, and even after potential DNA matches were found, hundreds of matches languished without any follow-up by law enforcement or prosecutors.

According to The Innocence Project, there have been 218 cases since 1989 in which DNA led to official declarations that individuals were not guilty of the crimes for which they were previously convicted. On average, they had spent about 12 years behind bars; sixteen were on death row.

Public confidence in DNA evidence is high. A 2005 Gallup poll found 85 percent of participants said they think it is either completely or very reliable. And a 2003 Time/CNN/Harris Interactive poll found 82 percent who said they were either very concerned or somewhat concerned that lack of funding sometimes prevents DNA testing from always being carried out in death penalty cases.

This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

Scott Bittle — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:23:55 -0400

Seattle is giving up on the automated public toilet, with city officials saying they've become too filthy, crime-ridden and vandal-prone to work. You might say that's not the most critical policy issue out there, but this story speaks to a real public concern.

"Other cities around the world seem to be able to handle toilets civilly," one city councilman said, and "civilly" may be the key word here. One of the consistent themes we've run into in our opinion research is that people think their fellow Americans are increasingly rude, disrespectful and inconsiderate, and it bothers them. A lot. In our Aggravating Circumstances survey, one of the first to focus on this problem, we found eight in 10 called "a lack of respect and courtesy" a serious problem in society. More than half (52 percent) said bad incidents are difficult to shrug off and tend to stay with them for some time.

What's also striking is that the issue of civility also crops up when we're examining other issues as well. We find it's a strong theme in education, for example – a stronger theme than many educators seem to want to deal with. Even students complain about profanity and rudeness in their high schools. And it's a powerful theme in people's attitudes about parenting, where parents tell us they're always playing defense against the crude influences of pop culture.

It isn't that people are looking for the government to solve this. In focus groups, we usually run into one or two people who want media censorship or some kind of Singapore-style legally imposed courtesy, but far more see this as their own battle. Four in 10 admit they've behaved badly themselves. And they largely see protecting their kids as their job (and they expect other parents to do this as well). When a major city can't sustain a minor public convenience, it just provides the public with more evidence that they can't quite trust their fellow citizens to behave.

Gun Laws Face Challenges After Supreme Court Ruling

Scott Bittle — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:07:42 -0400

Gun control laws across the country are likely to face legal challenges in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that individuals have a Second Amendment right to own a gun for self-defense. The ruling struck down only the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, but a lawsuit has already been filed against Chicago's strict gun laws. In its ruling, the high court said governments still have a right to impose a wide range of gun regulations, such as licensing or barring ownership by felons or the mentally ill.

Surveys find two-thirds of Americans do believe the Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun and only one-third favor a complete handgun ban. Self-defense is one of the major reasons gun owners cite for having a gun, along with target shooting and hunting. But the general public is divided on whether owning a gun makes a home safer or more dangerous. And while most people do support stricter gun regulations, surveys find considerable doubt on about how effective they would be.

Americans are divided on whether having a gun in the house makes it a safer or more dangerous place

jwilliams — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:23:06 -0400

Liberal or Conservative?

Jenny Choi — Wed, 21 May 2008 10:27:43 -0400

Opinion polls suggest that the public's views on how to combat illegal drug use don't fall crisply into either a liberal or conservative ideology. Rather than take an "either-or" approach, the public seems to combine elements from both camps. Survey findings show majorities support criminal prosecution, but equally large numbers say providing treatment and education would also be effective measures for combating the problem. While half of Americans say drug use should be treated more like a disease than a crime, they are divided on whether states should do away with mandatory sentences for nonviolent offenders. Further, though nearly half of Americans say stopping the illegal importation of drugs into this country would be the most effective way to control drug use, few say we should spend more money to help other countries like Columbia and Peru fight drug trafficking. Similarly, a majority of Americans favor spending more on educational programs to prevent drug use among young people, but less than half say they would increase spending on treatment in general. The public's tendency to combine elements of both liberal and conservative approaches is reflected in other issues like crime and welfare. (See Crime, Red Flags and Welfare, Red Flags.)

Marijuana: How Dangerous?

Jenny Choi — Wed, 21 May 2008 10:25:38 -0400

Americans' views on marijuana are complex. While majorities say marijuana should not be legalized, they are somewhat divided on whether possession of a small amount should be considered a crime. And most Americans say they approve of using the drug for medicinal purposes when prescribed by a doctor. About three in 10 people say they have tried marijuana and a majority of parents who have tried it say they would tell their kids if they asked. On the other hand, three-quarters of parents say they would be "extremely" upset if their child smoked marijuana and half say they would be more concerned about pot than cigarettes or alcohol.

Disapproval vs. Punishment

Jenny Choi — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:56:37 -0400

On some questions of personal conduct, such as abortion and adultery, surveys show that significant numbers of Americans want these actions to be illegal. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the public wants people to be arrested. These Americans may be willing to tolerate these activities as unfortunate facts of life, but they also fear that making something "legal" sends a message that it is also acceptable. For this group, making something "illegal" sends a strong statement of social disapproval. Those who want homosexuality to be "illegal" follow precisely this pattern. As one survey shows, roughly a third of Americans say homosexuality should be illegal, but most of these people change their minds when asked whether consenting adults engaging in homosexual activities in private should be prosecuted for a crime. [The U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws against sodomy in 2003.] Although the numbers fluctuate, people are currently less likely to say homosexual relations should be illegal. It is also significant that most people, despite public controversy, don’t seem to want strong government action. Strong majorities say gay marriage should not be an important issue in the 2004 elections. And more than half of Americans say allowing gay marriage would demean the institution of marriage, but just as many say the government should not promote traditional marriages. See also our Red Flags on Abortion

What is a likely cost or tradeoff of each course of action?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:04:03 -0400

What is a likely cost or tradeoff of each course of action?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:03:07 -0400

What is a likely cost or tradeoff of each course of action?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:02:05 -0400

What's the main thing that's wrong with the nation's current anti-crime efforts?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:00:41 -0400

What's the main thing that's wrong with the nation's current anti-crime efforts?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:59:49 -0400

What's the main thing that's wrong with the nation's current anti-crime efforts?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:58:51 -0400

What trends should concern us most?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:56:53 -0400

What trends should concern us most?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:55:55 -0400

What trends should concern us most?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:54:52 -0400

Would this approach be fair to America's racial minorities?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:53:26 -0400

Would this approach be fair to America's racial minorities?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:51:51 -0400

Would this approach be fair to America's racial minorities?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:50:56 -0400

What costs and tradeoffs should we be prepared to accept?

Peiting Chen — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:50:21 -0400