People across the United States are fearful - and fed up- withcrime. Dogs for protection, special locks, and security systemshave never been more popular. And no wonder: Almost half of U.S.adults claim that they are afraid to walk alone at night in thevicinity of their own homes. Government spending on crimeprevention has risen steadily during the past thirty years, but sohas the crime rate. At the same time, as noted at the beginning ofthis chapter, violent crime has gone down in the last few years.New York City is a case in point: Murders in the Big Apple droppedfrom 2,245 in 1990 to 803 in 1997. Are we beginning to learnsomething more about controlling crime? Three factors seem toaccount for the New York turnaround. First, more police are on thestreets than ever before. Second, a program of \"community policing\"makes police commanders directly responsible for controlling crimein their district. Third, and probably more important, police areless focused on making arrests and more concerned with preventingcrime in the first place. For example, police officers have begunstopping young men for jaywalking or even spitting on the sidewalkin order to check them for concealed weapons (as a result the wordis getting around that you risk arrest for carrying a gun) and evenblocking off streets to traffic if that's what it takes to putlocal drug dealers out of business (the policy seems to work: thedrug trade is down). Travis Hirschi (author of control theory)offers his own version of a community approach to crime. Hirschinotes that criminals today have two things in common. The first isage; most offenders are young. Crime rates are high in the lateteens and early twenties, and they fall quickly thereafter. Second,most offenders take a short-term view of their lives. Lawbreakers,as Hirschi sees it, are people who have trouble working toward anylong-term goal, including an educational degree, a career, asuccessful marriage, or even keeping a steady friendship. More thananything else, in fact, offenders are people characterized by lowself-control. That is why, according to Hirschi, our presentcriminal justice system can never control crime effectively. Forone thing, going to jail is too uncertain (most crimes gounpunished) and too far removed in time (catching, trying, andjailing criminals often takes a year or more) to deter the typicaloffender. Thus, Hirschi explains, popular calls for \"stiffersentences\" actually have little effect in suppressing crime.Moreover, by the time many offenders are sent to prison, they aremoving beyond the \"crime years\" simply because they are growingolder. Statistically speaking, then, offenders aging in prisonrepresent a crime threat already shrinking on its own. Therefore,rather than locking up adults, Hirschi argues that society needs tofocus on younger people before they commit crimes. /similar to thenew approach in New York City, Hirschi's approach calls for closerattention to teenagers - those at highest risk for criminalbehavior. Effective crime control depends on devising policies tokeep teens away not only from guns and drugs, but also alcohol and,if necessary, cars. Ultimately, though, the most effective way tocontrol crime, Hirschi concludes, is to teach children self-control. This is a reasonability that falls upon parents. Government canhelp, however, by intervening in dysfunctional families and bydeveloping strategies that help build strong-preferably two parent-families. Eliminating pregnancy among teenage girls would do farmore to reduce crime, Hirschi contends, than all the actions oftoday's criminal justice system. QUESTIONS 1. Do you thing we needmore prisons? Is that an effective way to deal with the crimeproblem? What else might be done? 2. Hirschi's recommendations arecontroversial because he opposes the popular practice of buildingmore prisons. What do you thing? 3. If we don't lock up today'soffenders swiftly and surely, how can we satisfy society's demandfor retribution? 4. Do you think that New York City's new crimeapproach and Hirschi's suggestions attack the broader conditionsthat breed crime, such as poverty, racial prejudice, and weakfamilies? Why or why not? 5. Does lethal injection illustrate the\"medicalization of death\"? How or how not? 6. Does lethal injection\"sugar coat\" capital punishment by making suffering less apparent?Is lethal injection more humane? Why or why not?
