Despite shootings, schools among safest places for children

Shooting rampages - statistically rare events

This week's school shooting in Cleveland, Ohio may stir up the idea that schools are dangerous places. Especially since the 14-year-old boy, Asa Coon, favored the "goth" look of the Columbine shooters, wearing a long trench coat and black-painted fingernails. Reportedly upset over a recent suspension for fighting, Coon injured four people before killing himself.

Ironically, the very day before this shooting, a sociologist had heralded schools as "among the safest places for young people to be."

Karen Sternheimer, an author and sociology professor at the University of Southern California, explained in her blog article why this is true, despite highly publicized rampages at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and – now – the school in Cleveland.

"Crime in America's schools is on the decline," Sternheimer writes at the Everyday Sociology blog. "Children are much more likely to be victimized by adults than by each other. Statistically, kids are actually safer in the company of other students than they are with their parents."

In critiquing knee-jerk Zero Tolerance responses to the perceived problem of school violence, Sternheimer concludes:

"There is a danger in focusing so much on unlikely events that we ignore many of the complex issues plaguing so many schools: overcrowding, outdated materials, decaying facilities and overwhelmed teachers, not to mention alienating students with rigid one-size-fits-all policies. This, coupled with skyrocketing tuition at colleges and universities means that many are being shut out of higher education entirely, giving them less reason to commit themselves to education. Perhaps the biggest danger facing our nation's schools is using our scarce resources to massage our fears rather than to educate a generation."

The article is available at the Everyday Sociology blog. Sternheimer is the author of two acclaimed books about youth culture: Kids These Days: Facts and Fictions About Today's Youth and It's Not the Media: The Truth About Pop Culture’s Influence on Children.

See also my post on Virginia Tech and my Amazon review of Rampage: The Social Roots Of School Shootings.

"Innocentrism": Changing the face of American law?

Is DNA testing, and the resultant exoneration of hundreds of innocent prisoners, dramatically changing the focus of criminal law in the United States? And if so, is that a good thing?

That's the topic of an intriguing new article by University of Utah law professor Daniel S. Medwed. The article, aptly titled "Innocentrism," is available online through the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). Here is the abstract:

American criminal law is undergoing a transformation due to the increasing centrality of issues related to actual innocence in courtrooms, classrooms, and newsrooms. This phenomenon, which I will term “innocentrism," derives mainly from the emergence of DNA testing and the subsequent use of that technology to exonerate innocent prisoners. Indeed, since 1989, over 200 prisoners have been freed as a result of post-conviction DNA testing, their innocence proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Dozens of nonprofit innocence projects have sprung up to investigate and litigate claims of innocence. Legislators have responded favorably to these developments as well; over forty state legislatures have passed statutes to facilitate inmate access to biological evidence that is suitable for post-conviction DNA testing. A number of states have even gone beyond the realm of DNA and implemented legislation designed to address the root causes of wrongful convictions, for instance, by modifying the manner in which eyewitness identification procedures are conducted. The academic community, in turn, has gravitated toward the topic of innocence with rising ardor, as evidenced by the fact that no fewer than eight major law reviews have published symposia on topics concerning wrongful convictions since 2002. It may not be farfetched to suggest, as others have done, that the effort to free the innocent has become the civil rights movement of the twenty-first century.

Many observers, including this author, have praised the evolving focus on actual innocence in the criminal law discourse and advocated the passage of legislative reforms geared toward eradicating or at least curtailing the factors that contribute to wrongful convictions. Several prominent commentators, however, have reacted less sympathetically and have mounted a series of attacks on the innocence movement, both from the right and the left. In this Essay, I aim to respond to those skeptical of (and antagonistic toward) the emerging centrality of innocence-based arguments in criminal law: in effect, to critique the critics. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate that innocentrism, while far from a panacea to the criminal justice system's many ills, is a positive occurrence and one that ultimately can complement, rather than replace, the emphasis on substantive and procedural rights that for good reason rests at the core of American criminal law.

Thanks to inveterate blog subscriber Kirk Witherspoon for alerting me to this article.

International outrage over abuses of U.S. boys

If you walked in partway through my presentation you might have assumed I was talking about human rights violations in a Third World country."

- Gregory Kutz, GAO investigator

speaking at Wednesday's Congressional committee hearing

Two days ago, I posted about a scathing governmental report and Congressional inquiry into widespread abuses at juvenile boot camps. In the wake of Wednesday's Congressional committee hearing, the topic is generating outrage around the world.

"Torture, starvation and death: how American boot camps abuse boys," screams a headline in today's Times of London.

The article, available online, presents unsettling details of abuses and deaths of youths around the country. Online comments from countries as far-ranging as Australia and China lament the failure of the world's superpower to protect its children from state-sanctioned abuse.


The publicity coincides with the Florida manslaughter trial of seven juvenile boot camp guards and a nurse over the death of a 14-year-old boy last year. Physical abuse of Martin Lee Anderson was caught on videotape. Jurors in that trial are set to begin deliberating today.


UPDATE: Just hours after I posted this, the jury reached its verdict. The all-white jury took just 90 minutes to find all of the defendants not guilty. "You kill a dog, you go to jail. You kill a little black boy and nothing happens," the lawyer for Anderson's mother told reporters outside the courtroom. CNN has the latest (along with links and blog commentaries, including the post you are reading here at "In the News").


Photo: Martin Lee Anderson, 14, who died at a boot camp on Jan. 6, 2006. A disturbing, 8-minute video clip of the boy's abuse is available online. Court TV also has a photo gallery on the case.

CNN linked to this post.

The Social Construction of Crime

Do you think that a crime is just, as Webster's would say, "an unlawful activity"? Think again. Yesterday, I was horrified to witness a prison guard brutalize a young man for the mere act of smiling, which the guard construed as a prison rules violation. In this essay, a sociology professor explains the complicated interpersonal negotiations that go into deciding whether a trivial act will be labeled a crime.

Guest essay by Bradley Wright*

What is a crime? This simple question turns out to have a variety of answers.

A simple answer would be that a crime is doing anything that is against the law. The problem with this, however, is that there are tens of thousands of laws, and who could possibly remember all of them? Did you know that here in Connecticut it is illegal to throw away used razor blades? In Massachusetts, it's illegal to use bullets as currency? In Arkansas, it is illegal to drive barefoot?

Some laws may be well-known but rarely or never enforced. For example, when was the last time you got a ticket for driving five miles over the speed limit? If a law is either not known or not enforced, does breaking it constitute a crime?

This raises the issue of which laws actually get enforced, and one answer uses the social psychological principle of social construction. Rooted in the sociological perspective of symbolic interactionism, social construction is the idea that social realities happens as people interact and come to an agreement about what a situation means.

Here’s an example that happens fairly regularly here at [the University of Connecticut]: A student walks around at night with a beer in their hand, and they see a police officer. Not only are they underage, but they are also not supposed to have an open container in public, so they drop the beer. The student defines the situation as one of avoiding an alcohol-related crime. The police officer sees the dropped bottle or cup, goes over to the student, and tells them to pick it up and dispose of it properly. The police officer defines the situation as one of littering. This situation is pretty straightforward—the student readily accepts the police officer’s definition and throws away the cup or bottle.

In other situations, however, there is protracted negotiation about what is happening and what is right and wrong.

Here's a video shot in St. George Missouri. Police Sergeant Sgt. James Kuehnlein confronts 20-year-old Brett Darrow for being stopped in a parking lot. It turns out that Brett had a video camera on in the back of his car, and so we are able to hear the whole interaction. Here's a snippet of the conversation:

Kuehnlein asks for identification. When Darrow asks whether he did anything wrong, the officer orders him out of the car and begins shouting.

"You want to try me? You want to try me tonight? You think you have a bad night? I will ruin your night. … Do you want to try me tonight, young boy?"

Darrow says no.

"Do you want to go to jail for some [expletive] reason I come up with?" the police officer says. Later, Darrow says, "I don't want any problems, officer."

"You're about to get it," Kuehnlein is heard saying, "You already started your [expletive] problems with your attitude."

[The police officer was ultimately fired.]

There are various implications of crime being socially negotiated. Most obviously, justice isn't a predetermined outcome based on what you actually do, instead it's sometimes what you can negotiate. This puts a premium on your ability to negotiate a successful outcome with police officers and other members of the criminal justice system. That's why it's such a good idea to be polite and deferential to the police when you interact with them. "Yes officer" and "no officer" are very good things to say, for a pleasant interaction paves the way for a more successful negotiation of what's going on.

The criminal justice system may not always enforce all written laws, but they do sometimes enforce unwritten laws. There are various norms of how to deal with the police and other officials, such as being polite, and even though these norms are not official laws, they are enforced as if they were.

For example, having a sarcastic tone with a police officer isn't illegal, but it can change the amount of punishment you get for a crime. Likewise, there is no law saying that defendants in court have to present themselves well and be apologetic, but it's quite possible that poor self-presentation in the courtroom will lead to a harsher sentence.

This social construction of crime can also be affected by individuals' place in society. The police and courtroom actors, like anyone, have their preconceptions about different types of people. That means that going into their interaction with somebody they might already have an idea as to whether that person is guilty or how that person will act.

These preconceptions, which we can also call stereotypes, can affect the interaction between the official and the person in question. In the video clip, the police officer clearly has some ideas about young people in fast cars, and he projected them onto the person he stopped. Not only age, but also race, gender, clothing, and general appearance can affect expectations of law enforcement officials which in turn, via social construction, can alter the way someone is treated by the police or the courts.

The next time that you get pulled over, maybe the real question is not what you did but rather what you can construct through social interaction.

*Reprinted with the written permission of Bradley Wright from the exceptionally high-quality blog Everyday Sociology. Dr. Wright is a sociology professor at the University of Connecticut.

CA: Sex offenders win temporary reprieve

Years ago, when he was 16, "John Doe" had consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl at a party. Now, long after he's done his time, the state of California wants to send him back to prison for living too close to a school or park.

"John" (whose name is being kept secret to protect his privacy) is one of four convicted sex offenders who are challenging the constitutionality of the new Jessica's Law and its residency restrictions.

The four are among 1,800 parolees who were recently ordered to move or face prison. Under Jessica's Law, approved by voters last November, sex offenders may not live within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

Yesterday (Oct. 10), John and the other three won a small victory when the state Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction forbidding the state from sending him back to prison until his challenge is heard in court later this month.

None of the four men challenging the law committed crimes against children; their crimes occurred as many as 22 years ago. Their attorneys are arguing that the law is unconstitutional because it is too vague, imposes unreasonable restrictions, and continues to punish people long after they have served their time.

CNN linked to this post.

Government probe finds widespread abuse at juvenile boot camps

When a spider bite sickened 15-year-old Roberto Reyes, staff at a juvenile boot camp tied a 20-pound sandbag around his neck. He later died.

An isolated incident? Not hardly.

The report of a government investigation, released today, documents widespread abuses at juvenile boot camps and wilderness therapy programs around the country and in U.S.-operated facilities abroad. Innvestigators found 1,619 incidents in 2005 alone.

The Government Accountability Office report attributes the abuses to a combination of factors, including reckless operations, untrained staff, insufficient food, and a lack of regulation or oversight. There's not even a central database to register complaints.

This morning, parents of some of the child victims testified at a hearing before the Education and Labor Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. It's good to see that Congress is finally shining a spotlight on this unregulated industry, because deaths like Roberto Reyes' – including many from dehydration and abusive physical discipline - have been in the news for decades.