Death_Penalty

Introduction In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty “as administered” was cruel and usual. However, in 1976, capital punishment was re-instituted. Over the past couple of years, DNA evidence and other developments have resulted in prisoners being released from death row, causing doubt in some people of the efficacy and fairness of the death penalty. This paper is to debate the pros and cons of the death penalty. Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review two articles and debate the pros and cons of the death penalty. One article to support the death penalty and the other against the death penalty. Articles Article 1 Article 2 Summary of Article 1 The local police department in Garden Grove, California set up a storefront for a year in an apartment complex known for the amount of crimes reported in order to reduce crime and improve relationships within the immigrant community. “The specific intervention activities included routine foot patrols, forging a close working relationship with the complex manager, identifying problems and risks (e.g. poor lighting, overgrown shrubs, blind spots, problem residents) and meeting with the residents to discuss their concerns.” “During the intervention complex management refurbished all the units, repaired and an installed new lighting fixture in the carport areas, attention was placed on reducing orderly conduct, flagrant use of alcohol and gathering of gang members. “ The Garden City Police department conducted a pre-survey shortly before opening the storefront and a post-survey two weeks after terminating the experiment to determine the results of the effectiveness of police patrolling. Summary of Article 2 The Jersey City Police Department (JCPD) and Rutgers University Center for Crime Prevention Studies evaluated the effects of problem-oriented policing interventions on urban violent crime problem by “twenty-four high activity, violent crime places were matched into twelve pairs and one member of each pair received treatment conditions in a randomized block field experiment. “ Citizen calls for service and reported criminal incidents were compared for six months pre-intervention and post-intervention periods to determine if positive or negative changes at the treatment locations compared to the control locations. Eleven officers from the JCPD Violent Crimes Unit (VCU) were responsible for developing appropriate problem-oriented strategies at these places. These officers did not limit to addressing just crime but also attempted to control places by cleaning up the environment by making physical improvements, such as securing vacant lots or removing trash from the street. In order to try and control social disorder the officers used the following tactics; “repeat foot and radio car patrols, dispersing groups of loiterers, issuing a summons for public drinking and “stop and frisks” of suspicious persons.” Comparison of Articles Same: Between the two articles police patrolling had a positive effective for the California apartment complex and the Jersey City neighborhoods. The focused police patrolling in both articles reduced crimes, reduced fear of crime and improved people attitudes towards law enforcement officers. Both articles compared data from the pre-test and post-test timeframes to make the determination of the effectiveness. Both articles talked about certain reported crimes in the post-test period due to the awareness that such activities would not be tolerated. Differs: In Article one the apartment complex wasn’t randomly chosen like in the Jersey City neighborhoods of Article two was based on crime mapping. Article two researched even further to see if the effects of the police patrolling in treatment areas was displacing crimes to the surrounding neighborhoods. With the apartment complex in article one the Garden Grove police department had to deal with language barriers, cultural differences and immigrants not being familiar with the criminal justice system. Compares with textbook: The textbook and articles talked about “hot spots” where most criminal offenses take place and focusing on those hot spots can prevent crime by environmental and physical changes. Conclusion The Garden Grove local police storefront and the Jersey City Police Department pilot program was successful in reducing crime, disorder at violent places, reduced fear of crime and improved the attitudes of the community members towards law enforcement officers. The results of article two suggest that “focused police efforts modifying the places, routine activities and situations that promote violence may be effective in reducing violent behavior”. “Law enforcement agencies interested in controlling violence should consider implementing problem-oriented police patrolling programs that focus on the places where violence clusters by developing tailored interventions addressing the underlying conditions and dynamics that gave rise to violent situations.” The results of article one suggest Vietnamese residents perceived the problems in the apartment complex to be greater than the Latinos before and after the intervention but the intervention has a positive effect on both groups. With regards to the attitudes towards the police, Latinos and Vietnamese identified a lack of cultural sensitivity and poor communication based on language barriers. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anthony A Braga, David L Weisburg, Elin J Waring, Lorraine Green Mazerolle, & et al. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology, 37(3), 541-580. Retrieved August 26, 2010, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 44397339). Sam Torres, & Ronald E Vogel. (2001). Pre and post-test differences between Vietnamese and Latino residents involved in a community policing experiment: Reducing fear of crime and improving attitudes towards the police. Policing, 24(1), 40-55. Retrieved August 26, 2010, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 70074293).