Week 6: News Article Blog - Doc

from The ST. Louis American Vol. 84 No. 25 September 19-25, 2013.

"Koster convenes crime summit: Missouri AG focuses on curbing urban crime" By Rebecca S. Rivas

This article covers the first day of the Urban Crime Summit held at the St. Louis University School of Law on September 18. A creation of Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, the Summit is designed to gather ideas on how to curb the crime rate throughout Missouri. The first day of meetings focused on gang violence, youth employment programs to decrease crime, and mental health resources. Jerod Breit, a Detective who specializes in gang activity for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, called for heavier punishment for offenders. Jonathan Davis, a Doctoral Fellow at the University of Chicago Crime Lab, provided a study conducted in Chicago that implemented an employment program for youth that reduced crime by half.  The executive director of the Incarnate Word Foundation, Bridget Flood, agreed with Davis. She stated that the organization STL Youth Jobs helps to not only reduce crime, but also has led to an increase in graduation rates. A solution presented by St. Louis Corrections Commissioner Dale Glass was to increase the availability of mental health services. Glass argued jails were overloaded with individuals (21% of city jail inmates have mental health issues and 65% have problems substance abuse or addiction) that these facilities were not designed, and lack the resources, to properly care for. This proposal was deemed unfeasible as St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch states, “People are willing to pay for jails, but not willing to pay for treatment centers.”

            This last statement played over and over in my head after I read it. We, as Missourians, are more willing to lock individuals in a cell rather than give them effective treatment. Why is this? Why is it that we believe that harsher punishments, as Breit argues, will decrease rates of crime? I did a bit of research searching for an answer and what I found, as it relates to the American criminal justice system, is quite interesting. It seems that our system relies on a theory of justice called “Retributive Justice.” The basic premise of retributive justice is that the best form of crime prevention is punishment. However, this seems clearly undermined when one looks at the amount of crime that occurs under the threat of punishment. Moreover, various social theories explain that the biggest prevention of any activity is social control. (This is one study that confirms this statement: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/morality-prevents-crime) In other words, the judgment of our peers plays a greater role in our decision-making than the threat of criminal prosecution. This is reminiscent of when parents claim how effective the use of “disappointment” is when disciplining children, as opposed to taking away toys, grounding, spankings, i.e., punishments.

            So, how does this relate to communities? Well, one could assume that if community solidarity was increased, then it would be quite possible that crime would decrease. As individuals build closer relationships with other individuals in a community the threat of judgment could be an effective prevention of crime. What are your thoughts? Do you that that social bonds in the community would prevent crime? Why?

Some links for individuals who are looking to expand their knowledge on this topic

http://www.restorativejustice.org/ - An alternative to retributive justice that increases community solidarity

http://stlyouthjobs.org/ - The site for the STL Youth Jobs organization mentioned in the article

https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/wholedoc.htm - a lengthy report to the United States Congress that supports building community solidarity to prevent crime