POP Interactive Module Paper
Dana Cowan
The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing is a website that provides enhanced problem-oriented policing learning tools to help professionalize policing. The interactive module provides a fictitious community avatar that includes lower Scott Avenue. Lower Scott Avenue is becoming plagued with prostitution and a rise in crime. The community, public agencies, and the private sector are voicing dissatisfaction with the government and the police. The purpose of this paper is to report and explain how problem-oriented policing and the SARA model combined to correct a localized problem of prostitution on lower Scott Avenue. The downward spin of the neighborhood created by the influx of criminal elements and prostitution required all phases of the SARA model to improve the stability of lower Scott Avenue.
Problem-oriented policing is an approach to policing that uses the examination in depth of many available sources to learn about each problem. This is done in hopes of finding a more effective strategy for prevention. Problem-oriented policing uses sources that are outside of the normal business of the criminal justice system, these include other public agencies, the community and the private sector. The input and cooperation of these sources can contribute to the reduction of the problem. The ability to analyze and use the problem analysis triangle to correctly assess the prostitution problem in lower Scott Avenue, and then assemble the most appropriate response is the goal of the interactive module.
Analysis:
Analysis is the key to identifying the problem and provides discernment of the underlying causative factors. The analysis of the problem required interviewing the community, public agencies, and the private sector. The private sector was the first group chosen to be interviewed. The reasoning behind this is the businesses are the life blood of a community. Knowledge can be gained on the depth and scope of the problem from how it is affecting the financial perspective of the community.
Ken Harrison is the owner of Crafty Furniture Store located at 375 Scott Ave. The interview with Ken Harrison revealed many facts and provided the perception that the prostitution problem was serious. He stated a public health concern with the finding of used condoms on the stores loading dock. He has witnessed the victimization of prostitutes and found some unconscious. He states that “customers complain that they have been solicited on their way into the store” this is an indication that the problem is affecting the capital gain of the neighborhood. He notes that the drug use is becoming very obvious. The prostitution problem is making a victim of the business and the business owner to a small degree. These crimes of morality affect many citizens and take an unacceptable toll on the community.
The second interview was with Bill Webster the front desk manager at the Secrete Inn located at 388 Scott Ave. He was defensive from the start of the interview. He admitted providing rooms for the prostitutes and is receiving financial gain from the crimes. He appears to have been harassed by local police and government officials due to his culpability in the crimes occurring. This harassment is counterproductive due to creating an unwilling community partner. This business has potential to abstain from facilitating a place for the crime if approached in the correct manner.
The next input for the analysis was from the community citizens. The prostitution and crime rates have a direct effect on the citizens of the community. The crime rates affect every facet of everyday living in the community. The citizens often become victimized in their own homes and neighborhoods. If they have not been victimized, they have fear and anxiety over becoming a victim created from living with the everyday possibility of victimization. This fear changes behaviors, living standards and even spending habits. Citizens in the Unites States should not fear the community they live in due to crime. These citizens pay taxes and provide funds for the government; they deserve to be provided safety- at the very least.
The first citizen I interviewed was Chris Glatz a resident of the 600 block of Scott Avenue. He revealed that the sex trade was occurring every night, not only on the weekends. He said that before he can let his kids go outside to play he must clean up syringes and condoms from the night before. This is, as described above, a public health concern. Chris Glatz has provided a convincing testimony that there is a major crime problem on lower Scott Avenue. The second interview with Randy Bright a 50-year resident concurred with the first citizen interview and provided insight to the prostitution being the root of the problem causing the loss of business to the area. This loss of business leaves the community with only business that profit from the prostitution. These businesses such as bars and liquor stores do not support the community and are most active at night, adding to the problem. Other interviews revealed information on the fact that many upright citizens have moved away due to the crime rates.
The next tier of the analysis was to cover the government and police interviews. The contemplation that has been created from the previous interviews is “What has been attempted to correct the problem?” The strategies enacted by the police did not appear to be effective. Commander Brian Rule of the Scott Avenue District police stated that the public knows very little about prostitution, and the police do not have the funds to do anything about the problem. He states that the police just try to reduce the signs of prostitution so the complaints are kept to a minimum. This is a very discretionary way to deal with the problem. He reports that the financials of the police do not provide the resources needed to do anything. This discretionary response has added to the problem. When there is a financial barrier to protecting citizens of the community; the community’s churches and originations can be enlisted to help. The means of this is to build a good rapport with these community originations. Instead of ignoring the problem, Commander Brian Rule could extend a hand towards outreach and volunteers from the community. Officer Jordan confirmed the Commanders comments. She states that the prostitutes are migrating into the upper end of Scott Avenue. This migration will continue to grow and the upper end of Scott Avenue will soon be in advanced decline. The community decay will progress to surrounding areas.
All of Scott Avenue will be known as the red light district if there is no effective change. After analyzing the provided statistics it was noted that the calls for police service related to prostitution in target area (CAD records) went up five times (28 to 141) in one year. The statistics and crime reports appear to indicate that the primary business in the lower Scott Avenue area is the sex trade. This crime against morality has destroyed the very community that is based on common morals. This hopelessness is displayed in law enforcement’s actions and felt by the businesses and citizens of this community.
The analysis of Scott Avenue created 76% budget expenditure. This included interviewing offenders to see what about the area appeals to them. This helped in identifying specific factors in the problem analysis triangle that provide for this crime to occur. The query is to discover what is so appealing to the criminal towards the location. What is attracting these crimes to the area? The bars on Scott Avenue and the loss of other businesses (creating empty buildings) are making the street appealing to crime, drugs and prostitution.
Response:
The response to the crime provides choices of correction for the criminal behavior. They range from crackdowns to improved lighting. Many of these choices offer some level of abatement to the crimes. Nothing appears to have a long term effect as the mayor requested. The community as a whole has deteriorated to a point that is beyond enforcing a few of these choices. Many of the choices provided would have been successful it they had been implemented over a year ago. The time to use small measures has passed. This is supported by the loss of many of the businesses and the economy of the community was based on these businesses. The enacting of these choices will prevail in a reduction of crime only for a short while due to the location being previously primed for criminality.
The Broken Windows Theory suggests a proactive stance against the influx of crime to an area within a small time frame of the deprecation of a property from the community. In the lower Scott Avenue area this was not the case. The overlooking of prostitution by law enforcement and the acceptance of it by some businesses in the community exacerbated the decline of the community. The restoration of the lower Scott Avenue will require extreme measures and change. In the future, communities would benefit from community involvement, zero tolerance, establishing a highly visible police presence and crackdowns at the first sign of an increase in reports of crime, drug use and prostitution. These are preventative measures not necessarily restorative measures and will be effective short term. Lower Scott Avenue needs restorative not preventative measures to redirect the area back to a viable community.
The response recommended provides the long term solution and gets to the underlying causes of the problem. Due to the decay of the community the recommendation is to redevelop the area economy at 100% expenditure of the budget. This economic redevelopment will bring in new businesses to the area, fix up areas that are in distress, provide visibility and create a sense of safety for the residents and the community as a whole.
Meeting the Mayor’s Needs
The mayor needs solutions that are long term and get at the underlying causes of the problem. The recommendation provided demands radical changes and can be costly both in political and financial terms. The probability of the success of economic redevelopment plan is high. The economic redevelopment plan favors long-term solutions. The assessment of the recommendation one year later revealed that the plan reduced the overall crime rates and complaints to the previous year’s statistics. The Citizen Survey Data noted the seriousness of problems reduced from 8.3 at the time responses were implemented to 3.1 one year later. Visibility of prostitutes at 12:00am reduced from 16 at the time responses were implemented to one sighting a year later. The volume of discarded drug/prostitution paraphernalia reduced from 394 at the time responses were implemented to 18 one year later. This result is remarkable and indicates a significant public health improvement. The solutions are effective and if current trends prevail the crime in the area will be abated. The economic redevelopment plan is the only foreseeable way to improve the conditions of lower Scott Avenue long term. The community has been subjected to policies that created situations of harassment and quite possibly violations of civil rights. This has done nothing to improve relations with the community. When the terms of protecting citizens and implementing plans becomes based on winning elections the measures taken are usually short term and ineffective putting the citizens in jeopardy from victimization and causes the long term destruction of a community.
Final Summation, the policies of the mayor and how he has run his elected office show a lack of care towards the people of the community. He has let the crime wave progress and reacts to it only because he is receiving political pressure. In fact, it may be better for the people of this community if he does not acquire reelection. The overlooking of prostitution by law enforcement is a reflection of the mayor’s political values. In his failure to act, the mayor caused the loss of many of the businesses that in turn degraded the economy of the community. This reduces property values and in turn reduced tax revenue needed to run the city. This revenue reduction is usually compensated at the expense of law enforcement and creates a greater difficulty in protecting the citizens. The mayor could have advocated to increase the financials of the police and provided the resources needed to help correct the problem when it was first noted.
The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing has helped me understand the SARA model in a creative and thought provoking way. I did not consider interviewing offenders as a tool that could be part of the analysis phase. The analysis section taught me how to gather information and organize it into groups that hone in on the root of the problem. I discovered a way of optimizing the approach to a recurring problem. The model effectively addresses a specific crime and disorder problem and teaches how to investigate and solve the underlying issues.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 US 321 (1977)
Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 US 321 (1977)
Brief descriptions of the basic facts that are related to this case begin with a 22-year-old female, Dianne Kimberly Rawlinson (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). She attempts to gain employment with the Alabama prison system (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). She weighs 110 pounds and does not qualify for employment as a guard due to the minimum weight requirement of 120 pounds (Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career, 2011). She was denied employment due to the height and weight requirements for the job of correctional counselor trainee (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). Rawlinson filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging sex discrimination. A civil suit was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and created the district case that became the Supreme Court Case: Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 US 321 (1977). The two parties are the Alabama corrections officials and Dianne Kimberly Rawlinson (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). The District Court must decide if the standard requirement for employment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The Supreme Court must decide if the District Court ruled in error when it decided that it was a discriminatory practice and did violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Supreme Court takes issue with the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the question; do employment requirements that remove 41% of women (national level) (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977) as acceptable candidates for the job create a discriminatory practice? Is a woman’s choice to work in a “dangerous field” superseded by the need to protect her from harm (Cushman, 2001)? These two questions become the main Constitutional questions.
The Supreme Court decision upheld the lower court’s ruling that is was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court voted 8 to 1 that the requirements were a violation of Title VII. The Court did find that bona fide occupational qualifications could permit the hiring of one gender. In this case it was reasoned that women working in an all-male prison environment were subject to the unique harm of rape. This part of the filing was remanded and sent to the lower court for revision (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977).
. Title VII violations primarily revolved around racial bias during the 1970’s. The Rawlinson case was one of the few cases of the time period that involved sexual discrimination in hiring practices. The Court felt that this was unlawful sexual discrimination. The Civil Rights Act was a new precedence in law standards and was used to correct many disparities in the United States. The Court felt that the choice of a woman to work in a field superseded the paternalistic view that she may not be able to protect herself and must be discriminated against for her safety. The Court further identifies that there is a danger working in prisons no matter the gender of the employee. The opinion of the court noted that the close contact of females to inmates created a bona fide occupational qualifications situation where women guards were at more risk than male guards (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977).
One full opinion of dissent was given for the case by Justice White. Justices Marshall and Brennan provided a partial dissent concerning the latter issue of close contact ruling (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). Justice White stated that Rawlinson failed to prove up her case by using statics that were not specific to the subject. In this failure, Rawlinson had no right to sue. In the opinion of Justices Marshall and Brennan, they both concur with the ruling on the height and weight requirement and dissent from the ruling on close contact. The opinion asserted that undesirable behavior among the prison population as an excuse for denying job opportunities to female applicants is unacceptable.
The ruling on this case restricted the discrimination of women by removing unlawful job requirements. Hiring requirements can no longer be based on factors or requirements that remove women as acceptable candidates for the job (Cushman, 2001). The affects are far reaching to women in Criminal Justice. Criminal Justice is currently a field that is composed of a primarily male workforce. This ruling has provided access to many jobs for female employees. This ruling establishes that women can do the job as well as a man. The ruling has affected women’s ability to gain employment in fields including Law Enforcement and Corrections. A positive example of this case ruling is noted by a Southern Poverty Law Center Article in 2011: “Glenda Deese was working at the Dallas County Courthouse in Alabama when she asked a state trooper how she could join the force. “He politely told me I shouldn't worry about it because I couldn't become a trooper anyway," she recalls” (Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career, 2011). This court ruling provided her with an open door and she became “the second-highest ranking official in the Alabama Department of Public Safety” (Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career, 2011). There is no differential reason that a woman cannot do the same job as a man. The job can be done by a human no matter the gender. The paternalistic attitude of society politely harms women and keeps them in poverty with dead end jobs. Rulings such as this provide a way to correct this dehumanizing practice. This ruling is slowly changing social values by correct education on the accepted fiction that women are weak. If women are weak it is because society told them to be weak. . Dana Cowan concurs with the partial dissent opinion provided by Justices Marshall and Brennan. The ruling on the height and weight requirement is sound; the ruling on bona fide occupational qualifications violates Title VII. In no way should a woman be prevented from gaining employment due to the possibility of unruly, dangerous inmates. The fact of danger is understood and accepted and should be a woman’s choice. Ruling on preconceived notions based what may happen to the woman is paternalistic, bias and legal fiction. Barring a woman from employment on these grounds is asinine. Alabama was purposely discriminating against women due to one main fact: if the height and weight requirements were not enforced with discriminatory intent, the women would have been given the waiver provision. Rawlinson and Mieth (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977) were not given the waiver option making this employment denial an absolute discrimination with intent (Bartlett, 2002). Pam Horowitz, the former SPLC attorney who worked on Dothard v. Rawlinson (Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career, 2011) is a trailblazer and should be considered a hero for many women working in Criminal Justice.
Bibliography
Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321. (1977, June 27). Retrieved 10 01, 2011, from US Supreme Court Cases & Opinions: http://supreme.justia.com/us/433/321/case.html#328
Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career. (2011, July 11). Southern Poverty Law Center, 1.
Bartlett, K. (2002). Gender and Law. New York, New York: Aspen Publishers , Inc.
Cushman, C. (2001). Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Rights. Washington , Washington D.C, U.S.A.: CQ Press.
Brief descriptions of the basic facts that are related to this case begin with a 22-year-old female, Dianne Kimberly Rawlinson (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). She attempts to gain employment with the Alabama prison system (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). She weighs 110 pounds and does not qualify for employment as a guard due to the minimum weight requirement of 120 pounds (Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career, 2011). She was denied employment due to the height and weight requirements for the job of correctional counselor trainee (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). Rawlinson filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging sex discrimination. A civil suit was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and created the district case that became the Supreme Court Case: Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 US 321 (1977). The two parties are the Alabama corrections officials and Dianne Kimberly Rawlinson (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). The District Court must decide if the standard requirement for employment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The Supreme Court must decide if the District Court ruled in error when it decided that it was a discriminatory practice and did violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Supreme Court takes issue with the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the question; do employment requirements that remove 41% of women (national level) (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977) as acceptable candidates for the job create a discriminatory practice? Is a woman’s choice to work in a “dangerous field” superseded by the need to protect her from harm (Cushman, 2001)? These two questions become the main Constitutional questions.
The Supreme Court decision upheld the lower court’s ruling that is was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court voted 8 to 1 that the requirements were a violation of Title VII. The Court did find that bona fide occupational qualifications could permit the hiring of one gender. In this case it was reasoned that women working in an all-male prison environment were subject to the unique harm of rape. This part of the filing was remanded and sent to the lower court for revision (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977).
. Title VII violations primarily revolved around racial bias during the 1970’s. The Rawlinson case was one of the few cases of the time period that involved sexual discrimination in hiring practices. The Court felt that this was unlawful sexual discrimination. The Civil Rights Act was a new precedence in law standards and was used to correct many disparities in the United States. The Court felt that the choice of a woman to work in a field superseded the paternalistic view that she may not be able to protect herself and must be discriminated against for her safety. The Court further identifies that there is a danger working in prisons no matter the gender of the employee. The opinion of the court noted that the close contact of females to inmates created a bona fide occupational qualifications situation where women guards were at more risk than male guards (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977).
One full opinion of dissent was given for the case by Justice White. Justices Marshall and Brennan provided a partial dissent concerning the latter issue of close contact ruling (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). Justice White stated that Rawlinson failed to prove up her case by using statics that were not specific to the subject. In this failure, Rawlinson had no right to sue. In the opinion of Justices Marshall and Brennan, they both concur with the ruling on the height and weight requirement and dissent from the ruling on close contact. The opinion asserted that undesirable behavior among the prison population as an excuse for denying job opportunities to female applicants is unacceptable.
The ruling on this case restricted the discrimination of women by removing unlawful job requirements. Hiring requirements can no longer be based on factors or requirements that remove women as acceptable candidates for the job (Cushman, 2001). The affects are far reaching to women in Criminal Justice. Criminal Justice is currently a field that is composed of a primarily male workforce. This ruling has provided access to many jobs for female employees. This ruling establishes that women can do the job as well as a man. The ruling has affected women’s ability to gain employment in fields including Law Enforcement and Corrections. A positive example of this case ruling is noted by a Southern Poverty Law Center Article in 2011: “Glenda Deese was working at the Dallas County Courthouse in Alabama when she asked a state trooper how she could join the force. “He politely told me I shouldn't worry about it because I couldn't become a trooper anyway," she recalls” (Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career, 2011). This court ruling provided her with an open door and she became “the second-highest ranking official in the Alabama Department of Public Safety” (Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career, 2011). There is no differential reason that a woman cannot do the same job as a man. The job can be done by a human no matter the gender. The paternalistic attitude of society politely harms women and keeps them in poverty with dead end jobs. Rulings such as this provide a way to correct this dehumanizing practice. This ruling is slowly changing social values by correct education on the accepted fiction that women are weak. If women are weak it is because society told them to be weak. . Dana Cowan concurs with the partial dissent opinion provided by Justices Marshall and Brennan. The ruling on the height and weight requirement is sound; the ruling on bona fide occupational qualifications violates Title VII. In no way should a woman be prevented from gaining employment due to the possibility of unruly, dangerous inmates. The fact of danger is understood and accepted and should be a woman’s choice. Ruling on preconceived notions based what may happen to the woman is paternalistic, bias and legal fiction. Barring a woman from employment on these grounds is asinine. Alabama was purposely discriminating against women due to one main fact: if the height and weight requirements were not enforced with discriminatory intent, the women would have been given the waiver provision. Rawlinson and Mieth (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977) were not given the waiver option making this employment denial an absolute discrimination with intent (Bartlett, 2002). Pam Horowitz, the former SPLC attorney who worked on Dothard v. Rawlinson (Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career, 2011) is a trailblazer and should be considered a hero for many women working in Criminal Justice.
Bibliography
Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321. (1977, June 27). Retrieved 10 01, 2011, from US Supreme Court Cases & Opinions: http://supreme.justia.com/us/433/321/case.html#328
Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career. (2011, July 11). Southern Poverty Law Center, 1.
Bartlett, K. (2002). Gender and Law. New York, New York: Aspen Publishers , Inc.
Cushman, C. (2001). Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Rights. Washington , Washington D.C, U.S.A.: CQ Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)