Prevention Works

Could Brain Scans Offer a Window Into the Human Mind?

As explorations into science and technology continue to change the world around us, the ways we consider and implement crime prevention will inevitably continue to change as well.  Recent advances, namely in the field of neuroscience, are already raising questions and concerns about how to recognize and deal with criminal behavior.  As previously discussed on this blog, that particular field has the potential to revolutionize our entire criminal justice system.  Already, neuroscientists have testified in countless court cases across the country, primarily in capital cases, regarding the mental competency of alleged criminals.  However, I hope (and believe) that we are still a few years away from making any really crucial ethical decisions on how, exactly, this new knowledge and technology will affect the judicial system.  Still, in the meantime, we should pay careful attention to neuroscience and try to understand its implications. 

A recent article from the New York Times explains in detail how some newer types of scans can actually decipher an individual’s thoughts by monitoring activity in different areas of the human brain.  It also describes how some of these processes could potentially be used in the future to choose a jury that is supposedly free of bias, to either incriminate or pardon criminals, or even to predict future criminal behavior. 

The accuracy of these tests is stunning, and the facts are mounting to make a solid argument that people are not always in control of their actions.  Some brain scans could conceivably convince a judge and jury that a criminal defendant was driven to commit criminal acts simply because a certain area of their brain has been damaged or does not function properly.  But some warn that these new tests are not enough to excuse criminal behavior, and that drawing a line based on brain-scanning technology is a dangerous road to take.  In the Times article, Stephen J. Morse, professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, was quoted as saying,

“Causation cannot be an excuse for someone who believes that responsibility is possible.  Since all behavior is caused, that would mean all behavior has to be excused . . . . Some people are angry because they had bad mommies and daddies and others because their amygdalas [part of the brain] are mucked up.  The question is:  When should anger be an excusing condition?”

Regardless of the future, this technology is here and now.  Scientists in Germany have also recently made great progress in neuroscience technology, and the field will only continue to grow.  Inevitably, the fields of crime prevention and criminal justice will be affected in one way or another.  But there is much more we need to learn about the human brain before we can make any rational and truly educated decisions.

Cyberbullying Is Everyone’s Problem

Last week, we launched a campaign to help reduce cyberbullying among teens. In our kickoff, we focused on teenaged girls, who are both at high risk of cyberbullying attacks and are often cyberbullies themselves. However, cyberbullying does not affect only teens; as an article the Washington Post makes clear, adults face cyberbullying too.

Last week, the Post reported on the plight of several law students who had been victims of “reputation mangling” on a popular message board, Xoxohth. The students had been variously libeled by other law students. One victim had been ridiculed, threatened, and impersonated online. Another had photos copied from a social networking site and then been “rated” for attractiveness versus other female law students. The popularity of the discussions caught Google’s attention, too, meaning that when potential employers look for information about these bullying victims, as many do, they will find message board threads dedicated to demeaning the victims. The site participant’s behavior certainly constitutes cyberbullying, which is defined as harassing, demeaning, or abusing someone online. The Post’s article suggests that cyberbullying has led to lost job opportunities and physical harassment for these women.

For adults, cyberbullying is a particularly difficult problem. Although high school students have parents to turn to help, adults have few resources to help them cope with bullies. The law schools involved in the examples above decried the behavior, but they also claimed that there is little they can do to control it. Thus, adults who are victims online are left to fend for themselves. They are not entirely vulnerable, however. First, adults can protect themselves by being careful of what kind of information they put online; just as we advise teens not to put too much identifying information on social networking sites and to be careful which pictures of themselves they post, adults should do the same. Furthermore, according to the Post, at least one company is looking into the legal ramifications of online slander; such behavior may bear consequences for the cyberbullies. If you are the victim of cyberbullying, you may want to obtain professional help to have the material removed on your behalf. Finally, the behavior highlights the importance of educating young people about cyberbullying and its dangers; if you interact with teens, be sure to direct them to NCPC’s cyberbullying campaign and talk to them about the dangers of cyberbullying. I hope that as we educate new generations about the real consequences of online behavior, we can prevent many of the problems we face now.

Testing Trust

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that suspicionless drug testing of students is constitutional, some school districts have implemented drug tests for their student populations. Testing tools sold to school districts are also being marketed for home use, offering parents the opportunity to test their children for drug use as well. Drug screening, however, is understandably contentious, with the federal government offering grants to schools to test students and scientists saying that the testing doesn’t help prevent drug use. Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) weighed in and asserted that drug screening is not only ineffective for prevention, but that it can be harmful.

As discussed in this space before, a parent’s respect is an incredibly effective tool in preventing drug use in young people. Indeed, according to theantidrug.org, “[t]wo-thirds of teens say that losing their parents' respect and pride is one of the main reasons they don't smoke marijuana or use other drugs.” Without trust though, there cannot be respect. This is the argument against the practice; according to MSNBC.com, the AAP asserts that “[d]rug testing also creates a counterproductive climate of ‘resentment, distrust and suspicion’ between children and their parents or school administrators.” The AAP also claims that “screening for illicit drugs is a complicated process prone to errors and cheating, and has not been shown to curtail youngsters’ drug use.” Thus, not only are the tests largely useless, but they also destroy one of the best prevention tools we have: trust.

To me, the accuracy of the tests is largely irrelevant in the face of the climate the tests promote. Parents are a powerful force in shaping their children’s lives. By talking to their children, they can learn when intervention and scientific testing may be in order. Otherwise, being involved in a child’s life is a less expensive and more effective way to prevent drug use. The alternative — suspicion and secrecy — only serves to weaken relationships and endanger children.

Hat tip to Corrections Sentencing.

Delete Cyberbullying

Today, we at NCPC kicked off a new national campaign to prevent cyberbullying among our country’s youth.  But since it such a new (and somewhat obscure) issue, I thought that the topic was also worthy to highlight on our blog.  In fact, as I type this, the word “cyberbullying” is accented by that squiggly red line that normally lets me know when I am butchering the English language.  However, I am sure that parents and educators across the country will soon be well aware of this new term, and my word processing program will be updated to include the word in its next version.

Cyberbullying is a close cousin of bullying, but defined more specifically as the use of the Internet, cell phones, or other technology to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.  Teens who are cyberbullied experience a wide range of emotional responses, including anger, shame, embarrassment, and fear, and they may want to seek revenge.  The consequences can be dire, and the effects of cyberbullying have resulted in depression, school violence, and teen suicide.  It’s these dramatic outcomes that spurred our new national campaign.

On top of that, 43 percent of teens were victims of cyberbullying last year, but only one in ten told their parents about it.  Because of this, we implore parents to involve themselves with their children’s use of the Internet and other technologies. The new campaign highlights several ways they can do this:

• Set guidelines:  Set rules for Internet use and monitor your teen’s use of technology.
• Select a central location:  Place your home computer in a central location, such as your kitchen or living room. 
• Discuss the issue:  Set expectations for online behavior and discourage your teen from posting others’ personal information or contributing to slam sites.
• Save the evidence:  If your teen has been cyberbullied, make sure that you copy all messages and websites—you may need them for reporting purposes.
• Encourage positive behavior:  Make sure your teen is not sending or posting text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.
• Block cyberbullying messages: Learn how you and your teen can ask to block cyberbullying messages through the Internet service provider (ISP), social network site, or chat room moderator. Seventy-one percent of teens believe this is the most effective way to prevent cyberbullying.

For more information on this emerging trend, visit the new NCPC Cyberbullying campaign.

Nicotine by Any Other Name

The public campaigns against smoking have worked on teens. However, I should qualify that statement: although teen cigarette smoking has been declining for years, more teens are now smoking cigars than ever before, according to an article by Kathleen Doheny in HealthDay. This troubling information can be useful not only in formulating new prevention efforts, but also in uncovering weaknesses in existing prevention campaigns.

The article from HealthDay offers several interesting tidbits about teen tobacco consumption habits. Doheny asserts that although cigarette smoking is now seen as “stinky, smelly and a hazard to your health,” teens think “that cigars look fashionable.” Because they are associated with success and celebration — politicians, executives, and even fathers of new babies all smoke cigars — they seem chic and grown up. Furthermore, although states have increased taxes on cigarettes (which, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, is something youth respond to), Doheny cites research that says most states have not raised taxes on cigars. Thus, cigars have a price advantage and deliver what cigarettes once did: a sign of growing up.

We must counter this trend. Tobacco products are dangerous and addictive; according to the National Institutes of Health, “cigar smoking causes a variety of cancers” and “[d]aily cigar smoking, particular among those who inhale, also causes an increased risk for coronary heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary (lung) disease.” Prevention needs to start at home and surprisingly, Doheny’s article suggests that “[d]welling on the long-term risk of cancer … is not usually effective,” and that instead parents should focus on what campaigns have said about cigarettes —tobacco generally is not sophisticated, but is instead smelly and unsexy. Parents can also deal with cigar smoking the way NCPC suggests they deal with other drug problems—by being role models and setting their expectations clearly for their children. Few forces are more effective than a statement by a parent about what is acceptable and what is disappointing.

In a larger sense, the emergence of this problem shows prevention practitioners some interesting things about prevention campaigns. There are many substitutes for risky behaviors available to teens. We must be careful when constructing campaigns to be specific enough to be effective but general enough not to push youth from one bad habit to another. This is a difficult problem, and I’d be interested to see suggestions and comments.

Hat Tip to the always excellent blog Corrections Sentencing.

A Good Time as Long as You're Safe

Throughout the coming months, people from all over the country will be traveling for work or pleasure. Whether you are attending a conference, taking part in spring break, or attending a sporting event, you should be aware that any large group attracts the criminal element. These criminals know that travelers are arriving with a lot of money and valuables and very little knowledge of the city they are visiting. Despite a heightened police presence during many large events, travelers still need to be alert and do everything they can to stay safe.

Florida, one of our country's most popular travel destinations, provides some information on travel safety on its website. The tips that follow come from the National Crime Prevention Council and About Florida.

In a hotel:

• Always keep your door locked.
• Look through the peephole before answering the door. Don't open the door to a stranger. If the person at the door claims to be staff, call the front desk and verify the person's status with them.
• Don't leave valuables in your hotel room.
• Use the buddy system whenever you leave the hotel.

On the street or out on the town:

• Don't drink too much - drinking makes it easier for a person to let his or her guard down and become the victim of a crime.
• Again, use the buddy system - don't walk alone, especially in an isolated area.
• Don't leave any location with someone you have just met.
• Keep your identification on you at all times.
• Don't keep your wallet or purse in an easily accessible location. Keep your wallet in a front pocket or inside a jacket, not in your back pocket. Make sure your purse is closed securely and hold it tightly against your body.
• Travel on busy, well-lighted streets.
• Use traveler's checks or credit cards instead of cash.
• When using an ATM, make sure it is in a well-lighted location.
• Don't wear expensive jewelry.

The National Crime Prevention Council has provided information about safety at many large group events, including the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. Don't let your meeting or vacation be ruined by a crime. Take the proper precautions to keep yourself safe.

Variety Friday: Cyberbullying, Globalized Gangs, Working Ex-Felons

• Cyberbullying has been getting more attention lately. Cyberbullying is defined as harassing, demeaning, or abusing someone online. Spreading malicious rumors or gossip is included in this definition. On Wednesday, USA Today ran a story about the attempts by several states to legislate against cyberbullying. Ars Technica followed up yesterday with a report about a bill in Washington State that would “require school districts to create cyberbullying prevention policies.” Laudably, the Washington bill would not make cyberbullying a crime. Instead, it rolls cyberbullying policy in with other school harassment policies. Any policy or law, however, will have to be nuanced; not all cyberbullies are the same. Expect to hear a lot more from us in the coming weeks about cyberbullying; it’s a major problem for kids and teens, and prevention is a particularly promising way to stop the problem.
• Foreign Policy’s blog, Passport, says gangs are international, but not in the sense that most people would think. Recently, Passport reported on a fascinating study on youth gangs by the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). The executive summary of the study explains that “only a small minority of gang members in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala possess transnational ties with other gang members.” This runs counter to what the study authors call “alarmist rhetoric” that gangs migrate and expand the way multinational corporations, in search of new territories and markets, do.
  
  However, Passport points to a Foreign Policy article from 2005, which explains that deportations by U.S. authorities tend to spread gang members globally and, with them, knowledge of gang activities and gang connections. Thus, although branches of a gang in various countries may not be formally connected, they are often international in that members have developed gang-related skills and ties in one country and may exploit them in another.
  
  The WOLA study offers a variety of prevention recommendations, and I recommend reading it. Also be sure to see NCPC’s information on gangs for parents and kids. We even have a game where kids can test their knowledge about avoiding gangs.
• The Washington Post recently covered a bill being considered by the DC City Council that would shield ex-felons from job discrimination. According to the Post, the bill would “ban employers from looking into an applicant's criminal background until a job offer has been made. At that point, it would allow them to check the previous 10 years of a criminal record for offenses that have a ‘rational relationship’ to the job.” Although business leaders say the bill would increase their risk of lawsuits, I would love to see something like it passed; difficulty reentering society (which includes finding a job) raises the risk of recidivism. Indeed, the primary recommendation of the WOLA study is to “develop and ensure opportunities for ex-gang members to find work opportunities and a meaningful place in society.” Although hiring ex-felons may carry some risk, leaving former offenders outside society only guarantees failure.

Variety Friday: Identity Theft, Brain Scans, and Methamphetamine

It’s been an exciting week at NCPC, and I want to point out some of the articles and materials that I’ve bookmarked for the blog. Expect more analysis and commentary on these topics over the next few weeks. For today, however, check the links and start thinking about your comments.

• According to new survey data just released by NCPC, “[i]dentity theft remains a top concern for consumers although they are not taking immediate steps to prevent it.” This news isn’t exactly encouraging, but it does show that people are aware of the problem and are worried about it. More encouraging, however, is the fact that “[p]eople could name a variety of preventative actions that might prove helpful.” Check out the press release and then see our fraud and identity theft resources and use the advice. Also, be sure to check out the Office for Victims of Crime’s web forum about Identity Theft Prevention and Best Practices, hosted by NCPC’s Jim Wright; several specific and tricky questions are answered there that can help you keep your identity safer.
• According to The Guardian, “[a] team of world-leading neuroscientists has developed a powerful technique that allows them to look deep inside a person's brain and read their intentions before they act.” The crime prevention and judicial implications are obvious here, but the article states them nicely: “If brain-reading can be refined, it could quickly be adopted to assist interrogations of criminals and terrorists, and even usher in a ‘Minority Report’ era … where judgments are handed down before the law is broken on the strength of an incriminating brain scan.” As Corrections Sentencing so often notes, it is high time for some thoughtful discussion of these technologies, before we are simply living with them. For starters, how reasonable is a presumptive search of a person’s brain? Is it possible to maintain innocence until proven guilty in the context of mind-reading? Are there less intrusive prevention techniques that could be as effective? More on this later, though. Hat tip slashdot.
• Although the news is a little old, it’s better to mention it late than never: According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, “[m]ethamphetamine use in the past year among the civilian, noninstitutionalized population aged 12 or older declined overall between 2002 and 2005,” while the number of new meth users fell between 2004 and 2005. They don’t note why, but good news is good news. Hat tip to Governing via Corrections Sentencing.

The New Bad Ideas

Just when you think you’ve heard it all, and that nothing else can surprise you, a Baltimore news station has run a story about a new way that people are abusing their bodies in order to get high: drinking hand sanitizer.  This particular story reported that prison inmates got drunk by drinking alcohol-based hand sanitizer containing 70 percent alcohol.  But other incidents have been reported to poison control centers across the country.  Apparently, alcohol-based sanitizers seem to be effective against germs and less irritating to the skin.  But of course, these hand sanitizers contain many other chemicals and were never meant to be ingested. 

Since this information has already been published by scientific journals and now, news stations, I feel confident that I am not giving anyone new, bad ideas right now.  But rather, it is important that healthcare providers, administrators of correctional facilities, teachers, school administrators, and parents be aware of the potential misuse of these products.  Personally, I’ll stick to washing my hands with soap and water.

In other news, MSNBC recently reported that a school district in New Jersey has implemented a new strategy of randomly testing students for alcohol consumption.  The practice of random testing has been widely debated across the country and on this blog.  Students who test positive, however, are not kicked off teams or barred from extracurricular activities.  Instead, they are referred to counseling and their parents are notified.  Some people think that this practice will deter students who feel peer pressure to drink.  But critics are quick to claim that the tests invade students’ privacy.  Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, insists,

“Medical care and treatment are issues between parents and children.” 

I tend to agree with that statement.  Although I do believe that the fear of random testing for alcohol has the potential to deter some students from drinking, the consequences of this invasive policy could be more damaging in the long run.  Let’s concentrate on providing our country’s youth with the proper information and education so that they can make intelligent and informed decisions, rather than seeking out their faults and mandating policies that only underscore our lack of trust in them.

Urban Renewal: The Easy Way Out?

Urban renewal is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as the rehabilitation of impoverished urban neighborhoods by large-scale renovation or reconstruction of housing and public works.

Most impoverished neighborhoods that are being "renewed" are rife with drugs and crime. The law-abiding citizens not committing the crimes or doing the drugs become prisoners in their own neighborhood and don't have the money to move.  The neighborhood's high crime rate causes property values to drop. Next, a wealthy developer, perhaps with the permission of the city, buys the land and, foregoing the opportunity to clean up the neighborhood with crime fighting and rehabilitation programs, levels it entirely to build condos, lofts, and townhouses.  S. Claire Conroy, a residential architect in Washington, DC, said "None of this fine new housing is affordable; all of it is aimed at the luxury tier of the market." The low-income citizens that have been living in the impoverished area are forced to move to another low-income area filled with drugs and crime. Urban renewal and gentrification may be the easy ways out if the goal is to solve the inner city's problems.

Rather than building expensive luxury housing in the nation's inner cities, it would be more logical to clean up neighborhoods around the people that have lived there for years and then build for the "luxury tier of the market" in those neighborhoods. The idea is to work together to renew the neighborhood without taking the law-abiding citizens out of the neighborhood. The clean-up should start with cooperation between the developer, city government, police, and residents of the community. A Neighborhood Watch, expanded police presence, and community groups can all play a part. Also, by using the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), a community can revive itself by taking better precautions to prevent crime.  Ideas from CPTED include natural surveillance, natural access control, natural territorial security, and security lighting (street lights and home lighting).  Once the neighborhood has been cleaned up, the city can then decide to allow a developer to renew the area through reconstruction, but without displacing the residents who have lived there before and want to stay.

Crime prevention is not only an alternative to leveling a neighborhood to build expensive housing, but the history and people of a neighborhood can be saved. Don't take the easy way out; work to make the nation's impoverished urban areas a better place to live by preventing the crimes that make them so dangerous, then renovate or rebuild them for the people. 

For more information see:

Neighborhood Watch
CPTED
NCPC
Project Safe Neighborhood