Monday Poll – When the First and Second Amendments Collide with 3D Printing

If you’re interested in the technology field at all, you’ve almost certainly heard of 3D printing, which, according to Lisa Harouni, is a technology that “will change and disrupt the landscape of manufacturing, and most certainly our lives, our businesses and the lives of our children.“  That’s a pretty sweeping prediction, but we’re already seeing examples of how 3D printing has clashed with fundamental legal concepts, such as those memorialized in the Bill of Rights.

This is especially evident in printed objects, such as firearms, that raise both First Amendment and Second Amendment issues. A recent TechCrunch article on one company’s efforts to distribute plans for a printable handgun did an excellent job of laying out the various angles, including the relevant legal cases that point up the challenges in deciding these types of Constitutional questions.

Test firing of a 3D printed handgun 

To simplify, on one side are free speech advocates who make the claim that restricting access to printing plans, even for a handgun, amounts to a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantees regarding free speech. Just because a printing plans allows for the creation of a weapon does not give the government authority to censor the plans themselves, the argument goes. The plans are protected speech, even if the resulting firearms may ultimately be determined illegal.

On the other side are those who argue that criminals and terrorists now have an easy, cheap, and effective way of manufacturing nearly undetectable weapons. As a proof of that concept, two reporters in the U.K. actually manufactured a 3D printed handgun and smuggled it aboard the Eurostar rail line undetected. They had no ammunition, and they had also removed the firing pin from the gun, but their point was made: If they could do it, anyone could, including someone with criminal intent.

So, what is your position on this? Vote in this week’s poll and see the results!

Friday Crime Vids – The Good, the Obscure, and the Timely on PBS

We’re taking a different tack on crime vids this Friday. Instead of the usual roundup of oddities, I’ve pulled together previews of some high-quality, but rather obscure documentaries or informational programs that apply to the topics we’ve been covering the last few weeks. For example, below is a preview of Peter Sagal’s (of “Wait, Wait…Don’t Tell Me!” fame) PBS show on the U.S. Constitution.

I hate to label PBS shows as obscure, especially gems like this one, but I doubt too many people have seen Sagal’s series. It’s not only worth watching, it’s worth a season pass on your Tivo.

 

Next up is a yet-to-be-released documentary about a prisoner, Herman Wallace, who it’s claimed has been in solitary confinement longer than any other in the U.S. Here’s the promotional copy from the film’s website:

Herman Wallace may be the longest-serving prisoner in solitary confinement in the United States—he’s spent more than 40 years in a 6-by-9-foot cell in Louisiana. Imprisoned in 1967 for a robbery he admits, he was subsequently sentenced to life for a killing he vehemently denies. Herman’s House is a moving account of the remarkable expression his struggle found in an unusual project proposed by artist Jackie Sumell. Imagining Wallace’s “dream home” began as a game and became an interrogation of justice and punishment in America. The film takes us inside the duo’s unlikely 12-year friendship, revealing the transformative power of art. Premiering on PBS’s POV July 8, 2013.

The final preview is actually a film that’s been around for a while (it’s on Netflix, for example), but it was also recently broadcast on PBS’s Independent Lens. The Invisible War is a documentary about the epidemic of sexual assaults against female military members. In light of the recent press on this topic, this film is more timely than ever, even though it was released last year.

Thanks for reading, and have a great weekend!

What is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy?

Recently, on Quora, I responded to a question about whether there were any interventions actually proven through research to help offenders change their behavior for the better. Not only is the answer to that question a resounding yes, but there are a number of approaches that are very effective in that regard. One primary group of interventions along those lines is Cognitive Behavioral Therapies, or CBT, as they’re often called.

In a correctional context, the various forms of CBT generally  involve changing the dysfunctional thought patterns that contribute to criminal behaviors by applying a structured intervention process, often in a group environment. CBT has been shown repeatedly to be effective in a wide variety of settings and with nearly all categories of offenders, including those at high risk to reoffend.

In one article published by the National Institute of Justice in 2010, Preventing Future Crime With Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, the authors wrote that:

programs based on cognitive behavioral therapy are effective with juvenile and adult criminal offenders in various criminal justice settings, including prison, residential, community probation and parole. [The authors] examined research studies published from 1965 through 2005 and found 58 that could be included in their review and analysis. The researchers found that cognitive behavioral therapy significantly reduced recidivism even among high-risk offenders.

In a separate study published by the National Institute of Corrections in 2007, Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment: A Review and Discussion for Corrections Professionals, the authors reached similar conclusions. Specifically regarding CBT’s affects on recidivism, they wrote that:

A meta-analysis of 69 studies covering both behavioral and cognitivebehavioral programs determined that the cognitive-behavioral programs were more effective in reducing recidivism than the behavioral programs (Pearson et al., 2002). The mean reduction in recidivism was about 30 percent for treated offenders. Other meta-analyses of correctional treatment concluded that cognitive-behavioral methods are critical aspects of effective correctional treatment (Andrews et al., 1990; Losel, 1995). Yet another study similarly determined that the most effective interventions are those that use cognitivebehavioral techniques to improve cognitive functioning (Gendreau and Andrews, 1990).

So, I would say there is significant scientific evidence that CBT provides positive therapeutic effects, including reductions in recidivism.  Like any intervention, it is not appropriate for every offender or every situation, but it is still one of the most flexible and effective groupings of rehabilitative interventions available.

What are your thoughts about CBT?

Monday Poll – Juveniles and Sex Offender Registries

For the past week, I’ve been researching the history of sex offender registries for a podcast I’ll be airing in the coming weeks. One of the issues that’s emerged, and one that I think needs much more public discussion and debate, is the requirement for juveniles adjudicated on certain offenses to register as sex offenders.

Recently, the group Human Rights Watch released a report on this topic, which argues that registries do more harm than good when it comes to youthful sex offenders. According to the report:

“The harm befalling youth sex offenders can be severe. Youth sex offenders on the registry experience severe psychological harm. They are stigmatized, isolated, often depressed. Many consider suicide, and some succeed. They and their families have experienced harassment and physical violence. They are sometimes shot at, beaten, even murdered; many are repeatedly threatened with violence. Some young people have to post signs stating “sex offender lives here” in the windows of their homes; others have to carry drivers’ licenses with “sex offender” printed on them in bright orange capital letters. Youth sex offenders on the registry are sometimes denied access to education because residency restriction laws prevent them from being in or near a school. Youth sex offender registrants despair of ever finding employment, even while they are burdened with mandatory fees that can reach into the hundreds of dollars on an annual basis.” (emphasis added)

From this perspective, registration and notification requirements essentially create an untenable situation for juveniles seeking to move past the harm they’ve done, even after they’ve served their time and completed any required programming.

On the flipside of this issue are those who argue that it benefits the public for citizens to know whether or not someone who has committed a sex crime is living in a particular neighborhood. Protecting children and keeping them safely out of reach of sexual predators outweighs the negative consequences experienced by those forced to register, even if those individuals are children themselves.

In 2012, a federal appellate court ruled that requiring juveniles over the age of 14 to register as sex offenders did not violate any Constitutional protections, including ones against cruel and unusual punishment or protections against self incrimination.

I think we can all agree that juveniles who commit sex crimes must be held accountable for their behavior, but does requiring them to register as sex offenders go too far? Vote in this week’s poll and make your position known!

Also, watch for my upcoming podcast about the history of sex offender registries. Think they began in the 1990s? Think again. Sex offender registries have their roots in the 1930s, and involve groups as disparate as the the mafia, the LA Sheriff’s Department, and the Parent Teacher Association (yes, the PTA). Watch for the link – coming soon!

Friday Crime Vids – Cleveland Victims Reunite with Family and Friends

One of the big crime stories this week has been the escape of three young women who were abducted and held captive for a decade in Cleveland, Ohio. There’s been a lot of focus on the alleged perpetrators in this case, and that’s certainly justified, but the real story here is the strength, persistence, and incredible courage of the victims: Amanda Berry and her daughter, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight.

As more details emerge about their horrific ordeal, the clearer it becomes that these women are not only victims of heinous crimes, they are also heroes in every sense of the word.

So, to recognize their bravery in the face of horrendous circumstances, and in the spirit of Mother’s Day, the below videos capture some of the coverage of them this week, including reunions with family and friends.

It’s also important to remember that, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s (NCMEC) 2011 annual report (PDF), approximately 2,000 children are reported missing every day. That’s an estimated 800,000 children per year who go missing across the country.

If you have any information about a missing child, please contact your local police or the NCMEC Call Center at 1-800-THE-LOST (1-800-843-5678)

Have a safe weekend and a Happy Mother’s Day!

Podcast – Three Myths About Crime and Criminals

Well, I’ve taken the plunge and put together my very first podcast.  I’m trying to keep it simple at this point, so this first episode is only a few minutes long and simply discusses three common myths about crime and criminals: Crime is on the increase, all offenders are the same, and there’s nothing we can do to change criminal behavior. 

Listen to the inaugural episode of the CJ Podcast here and share your feedback and comments!

Monday Poll – Should Police be Required to Obtain A Search Warrant for a DWI Blood Draw?

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers are required to obtain a search warrant before a blood sample is collected from a suspected DWI offender.  The ruling emerged from a state court case, Missouri vs. McNeely (PDF), in which the Missouri Supreme Court held that a warrant was required to take a blood sample, unless exigent circumstances existed making a warrantless search necessary.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Missouri Court and, in their written opinion, specifically held that:

In drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.

A number of amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court prior to the decision, including one by the organization, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (PDF), that opposed the warrant requirement, and the National College for DUI Defense (PDF) that argued in favor of securing warrants in DWI cases.

So, what do you think? Did the Supreme Court get it right? Vote in this week’s poll and see the results for yourself!