Obinyan's Criminal Justice Articles
Crime, Criminality and Criminal Behavior

ARTICLE 1

Brains of Males and Females with Regard to Language Processing Capability and Social Skills

The newly discovered evidence that scientists found about brains of males and females with regard to language processing capability and social skills is derived from a British study of xx (females) and xy (males) chromosomes. They wrote that their study indicated that "the x chromosome in males seems to stop
vibrating or releasing certain chemicals ----- activities around the area of the chromosome seems to halt while that of the female counterparts keeps on ticking". It is their position that this may be responsible from males' inability to effectively use language and social skills to deal with instances of confrontation and minor provocations. Males result to violence while females mostly use their superior language and social skills, chromosomal or genetic advantage to their benefit. Females are more likely to settle problems (confrontations and provocations) without resulting to violence, a virtue attributed to the activity of the x chromosome or the gene located on the chromosomal site. The brain according to Adrian Raine (1993)
can be crudely divided into two areas; the cortex and the subcortex. We can also state this definiton another way -crudely divided into two areas - coritcal and the subcortical. The cerebral cortex is said to make up the outer aspects of the brain, while older structures below this level make up the subcortex. Each of the two cerebral hemispheres is divided into four different regions or lobes. They include frontal, temporal, parietal and occipital. The cortex is believed to be if relatively recent origin in evolutionary terms and the subcortex is if phylogenetically older structures.

Most neuropsychological research on crime according to Raine (1993) has focused on the left hemisphere, specifically the more anterior regions which constitute the frontal and temporal lobes. The prefrontal area of the brain represents the most anterior or front part of the frontal lobe and it is believed to
receive projections from the mediodorsal nucleus of the thalamus. The prefrontal is centrally involved in abstract cognitive functions and higher intelligence, planning, behavioral inhibition, and the regulation of emotion and affects functions which have superficial relevance to criminal behavior.
The posterior part of the frontal cortex is more concerned with orientation , sensory and motor functions. The prefrontal cortex can be further divided into medial, dorsolateral and orbitofrontal cortex. It has been speculated that the orbitofrontal region could be of potentially greater relevance to antisocial and violent behavior. The subcortical structures are connected to the cortical structures by neuronal fibres. The
limbic system is a grouping of interconnected subcortical brain structures and is of particular relevance because it is involved in both important cognitive processes such as learning, memory, and emotional and aggressive behavior. It is believed that certain functions are localized within certain areas of the cerebral hemispheres and other functions are lateralized to one or other parts of the brain.

The sudy of patients with lesions introduce us to an example of function localization. The Wisconsin Card Sorting Task for instance; where patients are asked to sort cards into four piles on the basis of color, form and number. Patients with lesions according to Adrian Raine (1993) to the dorsolateral prefrontal
cortex part of the brain have difficulty shifting response set. Harlow (1848) reported a case study linking frontal functioning to antisocial behavior of one Phineas Cage, a railroad dynamite worker who was severely injured in an accident in which an iron tampering rod was blown through his head damaging the left frontal lobe extending from the medial orbital region up to the precential area. Phineas Cage was a capable man who displayed no antisocial behavior prior to the accident; but had a behavioral reversal after the accident decribed as impulsive, irreverent, profane, obstinate, capricious and antisocial.

More recent studies of the frontal lobe reported by researchers such as Mackinnon and Yudofsky, 1986; Mesulam, 1986; Silver and Yudofsky, 1987, shows a pattern of changes including argumentativeness, lack of concern for conseqences of behavior, loss of social graces, impulsivity, distractibility, shallowness, liability, violence and reduced ability to utilize symbols a pattern referred to as the frontal lobe syndrome.
Frontal lesion patients make perseveration errors behaviorally on card sorting tasks (Milner, 1963).

We also know that there are more direct evidence for frontal dysfunctional crime and this comes from neuropsychological studies that have implicated anterior and frontal dysfunction in violent criminals. Yeudall and Fromm-Auch (1979) compared 86 violent criminals to 79 normal controls using the Halstead-
Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery (HRNTB) and found significantly more anterior neuropsychological dysfunction in the violent group. However, Yeudall and Davies (1982) failed to find differences between violent and non-violent delinquents on the HRNTB and 12 other such tests, indicating that frontal dysfunction may be specific to adult offenders; the deficits are localized to a particular brain region (Adrian Raine, 1993).

The LNNB, otherwise known as the Luria-Nebraska
Neuropsychological Battery was utilized in a study reported by Bryant, Scott, Golden and Tori (1984) and found violent crimes in 73% of subjects classifed as brain damaged compared to 28% of those classified as normal. Significant impairment was found in
violent relative to non-violent groups on LNNB tasks (Luria, 1980). However, Brickman et al (1984) compared violent and non-violent subjects on the LNNB and found impaired functioning for the violent group more indicative of temporal rather than frontal lobe dysfunction.

Govenstein's (1982) study showed further support for frontal lobe dysfunction. However, Have (1984), Hoffman et al (1987) and Sutker and Allain (1983) all failed to find support for Govenstein findings. But, Raine, O Brien and Scerbo (1991) found a significant better performance on the West or the Wisconsin
Card Sorting Test in a group of psychopathic conduct-disordered adolescents relative to conduct-disordered controls (Adrian Raine, 1993).

Moffit and Henry (1991) argue that while evidence for dysfunction in juveniles is mixed, adult violent offenders show more consistent evidence for neuropsychological dysfunction, including frontal dysfunction. Flor-Henry (1973) argued that criminal psychopaths were characterized by left hemisphere
damage, and in particular by disruption to frontal and temporal cortical-limbic systems. In support of this position, detailed and extensive testing on neuropsychological test batteries by Yeudall and Fromm-Auch (1979), Yeudall et al (1981;1982) revealed evidence for a frontotemporal locus of dominant hemisphere damage in a wide variey of criminal groups including criminal psychopaths, sexual offenders, male violent criminals, adolescents with conduct disturbances and behavior-problem school children.

Many other studies, for example, Mungas,1988; Tarter et al, 1984 have observed that where neuropsychological deficits are observed in violent groups, they tend to involve left hemisphere
functions of language; verbal comprehension (Hart, 1987) and expressive speech (Brickman et al., 1984). Nachshon (1988) however, argues for a generalized functional as opposed to a specific structure of disruption to the left hemisphers and based his evidence on studies of lateral preferences, skin conductance assymetries, divided visual field and dichotic listening studies. It is his position that left hemisphere
dysfunction predisposes to violent offending by disrupting normal left hemisphere control over impulsive behavior. Naschon argues that a left ear advantage on a dichotic tone task in violent offenders is abnormal and reflects a left hemisphere deficits (Raine, 1993).

A more recent and potentially plausible theory of violence concerns the notion that violent individuals are less lateralized for speech processes. The newly discovered evidence can be seen as improvements in this area; especially as it relates to social skills and the differences that exists betweeen the genders. Psychopaths, for example, are said to have unusual use to language - loguacious and deceitful and curious
disassociation between what they say about themselves and how they actually behave. Cleckley (1976) argued that a form of deep seated aphasia may represent this characteristic of psychopaths.

Gillstrom and Have (1988); Jutai et al (1987); and Raine and Venables (1988) studies provide some support at a general level for the view that psychopaths have unusual speech processes. Raine et al's (1990) recent study confirms past studies. In 1990, Raine and others administered a verbal dichotic listening task to juveniles offenders aged 13-18 years and found that non-psychopaths showed the expected left hemisphere advantage for verbal material, psychopaths evidenced a reduction in this lateralization. This reduced ear symmetry indicates that psychopaths are less lateralized for linguistic processes (Raine, 1993).

The new findings could have significant implication in understanding the long-observed differences between the genders in tendencies toward violent behavior as the studies reviewed above indicates, with the development of new technologies and discovery of more evidence as revealed by these new findings, it
is possible to expand our knowledge as to the differences between the genders. Adrian Raine (1993) noted that it is possible that female antisocials may be more characterized by frontal dysfunction than males. It is his position that the only study that assessed sex differences in frontal dysfunction among delinquents was reported by Moffit (1988). The study assessed seven hundred and fifty 13 year old normal male and female children in New Zealand on self-report measures of delinquency and on a neuropsychological test battery that included measures of frontal lobe functioning. Rey found that male delinquents did not differ from non delinquent males controls on the composite index of these frontal lobe task (West,Trailmaking Test, Verbal fluency, Wisc-R Mazes, Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure Test), but female delinquents were found to have significantly lower frontal lobe scores than female nondelinquents. These findings according to Raine (1993) would be consistent with the notion that female antisocials require a stronger biological (neuropsychological) predisposition to antisocial behavior for such behavior to override socialization forces against the expression of such behavior in females.

The enthusiasm created by the recent findings from Britian and what we have already known gives a great hope for the future in both research and policy. This new knowledge may one day be used in psychosurgery to correct the dysfunction observed in male cortical areas of the brain. This may be a step towards the prevention of violence especially because regarding in particular to the Amygdala. Psychosurgery studies seem to indicate some involvment of this structure in the mediation of aggression. Modern psychosurgery uses more refined surgical techniques and is performed on a few selective, intractable cases (Raine, 1993).

With the information generated from past and recent studies and the willingness for public policy change, the new findings may well be utilized in preventing violent behavior; especially with the advent of new technology in psychosurgery and new and refined surgical procedures. Further studies is still recommended before applying what we now know.

ARTICLE 2

Unraveling the Genetics of Personality

Previous studies have shown more generally that genes influence personality as do a person's

life experiences (Malcom Ritter, 1996). The two studies under discussion are the study headed

by Ebstein, 1996 reported in the January issue of the Journal Nature Genetics. The second study

reproduced Ebstein's results in a different population. According to Malcom Ritter, 1996

scientists say they have identified a gene that influences how impulsive, excitable, quick-

tempered and extravagant you are, a possible step toward unraveling the genetics of personality.

The two studies are said to provide the first confirmed association between a particular gene and

a normal personality trait - in this case, a characteristic scientists call "novelty seeking", which

includes impulsiveness, excitability and the like.

Brian Gladue, a psychologist at the Institute of Policy Research at the University of

Cincinnati, said this finding is going to open up a whole new field of molecular personality

research, and that the discovery provides the first missing link between genes and personality by

implicating a particular communication system in the brain. As Ritter noted in the report, in that

communication sytem, brain cells signal each other with a chemical messenger called dopamine.

Dopamine is secreted by signaling cells, and delivers it messages by binding to receptors on the

surface of receiving cells. The gene identified in the study tells cells how to make one kind of

dopamine receptors.

Another study reported by Ritter in January of 1996 unrelated to the two studies under

discussion was conducted by Nelson, Snyder and colleagues from their Hopkins and

Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston on mice. The study reported that vicious mice lack a

single gene. According to Ritter, male mice lacking a single gene are oversexed and vicious,

pressing attacks even on rodents that have signaled defeat, according to the study that could shed
light on human aggresssion. The experiment, they noted, could someday help control aggression

in humans. The mice, which are a strain created in the laboratory, lacked a working copy of a

gene needed to make a chemical messenger called nitric oxide in their brain. So their behavior

suggests that nitric oxide normally acts as a brake on behavior, researchers said.

As scientists discover more individual genes that affect particular traits, it might open the door

to identifying people at risk from problems like drug abuse and counseling them on how to lower

their risk, said researcher Richard Ebstein. The study found that on average, people with a

particular version of the thrill seeking gene score 10% higher for novelty-seeking on personality

tests than people who lack that version. People who are above average on novelty-seeking are

impulsive, fickle, excitable, quick-tempered and extravagant, while those scoring below average

tend to be reflective, rigid, loyal, stoic, slow to anger and frugal.

Amazing and breath taking advances in human genetics and molecular biology have led to

spectacular successes in establishing linkage to many genetic disorders. Analyses of family, twin

and adoption data through genetics have consistently supported the influence of heritable factors

in schizophrenia for example (Gottesman, 1991). Many complex social problems especially

criminal behavior, crime in general, personality disorder and schizophrenia can be characterized

by mutiple risks factors that likely play important roles in the susceptability of individuals to

developing such behavior.

Impulsivity and sensation seeking have been associated with violent behavior even in

nonpsychotic individuals, presumably by being linked to a relatively decreased serotonergic

neurotransmission (Kaliski and Zabow, 1995). A recent study has suggested, they argue, that

dimensions applied to aggressive and violent criminals has not been addressed adequately, but

rather suggested that low cerebrospinal fluids - hydroxy - indoleacetetate concentrations
predict suicide attempts not violent behavior in some individuals. Violent outbursts of certain

individuals especially violent offenders often seem to be impulsive and reckless, and not simply

a consequence of their psychopathology.

Sensation seeking or thrill seeking can be described as the need for new experiences, a non

conforming lifestyle, and the desire to engage in riskful activities (Koopmans et al, 1995). A

number of studies have shown that thrill seeking was related to psychophysiological, biological,

genetics and biochemical measures, such as the orienting reflex, augmenting-reducing of the

averaged evoked potential, levels of monoamine oxidase, gonadal hormones and the genes

located on the xx and xyy chromosomes (Zuckerman, 1984).

Since the discovery of the thrill seeking gene and its relation to personality trait, does this

imply that we have found the cure for aggressive and violent behavior or whether this genetic

factor may be the "root cause " of aggressive and violent behavior? It is not clear to state

categorically without reservation that such is the case. What this means to me is a step towards a

promising future. It also means that we are approaching the day when violent behavior can be

analyzed, disected and predicted from a genetically based study and diagnosis of individuals.

The fact is that at the present time, we need to analyze aggressive and violent behavior

through a multivariate genetic analysis of specific gene, specific chemicals that comprise the

genes and its location and the environment in which the individuals that possess these genes

exhibit their behaviors. In a paper presented by Koopmans et al, 1995, a multivariate genetic

analysis of sensation seeking in 1700 pairs of adolescent twins was conducted. Sex differences

in the genetic architecture of sensations seeking were analyzed by testing whether the magnitude

of the genetic influences differed between males and females or whether different genes were

expressed in males and females. The result suggested that genetic factors influence individual differences in sensation seeking. It shows phenotype correlations on the sensation seeking scales.

Thrill and adventure seeking correlated highest with experiential seeking and disinhibition

correlated with boredom susceptibility the highest. The environmental correlations were smaller

than the genetic correlations.

It is Koopman's contention that genes play a major role in the individual differences in

sensation seeking or thrill seeking. Koopman noted that between 48% to 63% of the total

variance in sensation seeking scales was explained by genetic influence. The genetic variance

was highest for thrill and adventure seeking (62% for males and 63% for females). Males

however score higher than females on thrill and adventure seeking and disinhibition. Sensation

seeking is positively related to extraversion, phychocitism and impulsivity. Ensyeck's (1983)

study also did not find one specific gene (genetic factor) underlying the sensation seeking

subscales.

When the day comes and it is determined practically in the laboratory and elsewhere that a

specific gene is responsible for certain behavior, we must then pay attention and redirect our

focus as we continue to search for the "root cause for violent behavior". Until then, we must not

hold hostage other theories that explain the causes of violent behavior. It is important to

recognize sociological, biological, radical, psychological, historical, economic and others as

viable explanation of the cause of aggressive and violent behavior.

ARTICLE 3

ZERO TOLERANCE

The Federal illegal-drug policy of "zero tolerance" is an effective approach to the prevention of violent criminal and delinquent behavior. Drug use in this country has snaked back and forth between the affluent and the impoverished. Today it has gravitated from the lower class back to the middle class (Bennett, 1987). This author noted that in the 1960's, while the slums mainlined heroin and artists snorted coke, the scions of the students' revolution smoked grass and hash between jolts of LSD. In the 1970's the upwardly mobile were doing Quaaludes, and by the 1980's gained stature along with increased purity and became more accessible to the weekend "chipper". Cocaine has become the darling of yuppies and "crack" the sop of the inner cities. We became inundated with cocaine, courtesy of our neighbors in South America. It is his position that in the space of five years, cocaine emergency room casualties more than tripled - not because that many more people were using cocaine, but because many more veteran users had become addicted. The cocaine addiction process is said to take about five years. Therefore it was not until the mid 1980s that we began to feel the ravages of the peak usage of 1979.
Since 1980, the worldwide poppy crop has increased, along with record production in southeast Asia. International policies are impacting the cocaine, marijuana and illicit pills trade. We have been blatantly unsuccessful in reducing the supply at the source. But significant changes in demand are taking place and will lead to a reduction in use of most drugs (Mark Gold, 1986).
The phenomenon of workplace drug use and the new generation of drug users within the middle class population has created an increasing concern. Their recreational and habitual drug use are costing the country $60 billion a year in lost productivity, medical expenses and crime - Bennett, 1987. According to him, by taking the drug problem into the boardroom, we are introducing a new element into the politics of legalization. According to Buzzeo, most states, however, have attempted to plug the loopholes with legislation of their own; mainly as a result of public sentiments about the fact that the powerful rather than the powerless are increasingly using drugs. Yet, this growing population will influence existing legislation.
It has however, become apparent that drastic steps must be taken, and that step came in the form of the federal illegal-drug policy of "zero tolerance". Since the inception of this policy, there have been debates and arguments for and against the law. The policy set forth both intellectual and street debates. Social scientists are divided on this very volatile and controversial issue. The debate that followed the implementation of "zero tolerance" could be heard from South America, Southeast Asia, Pakistan, India, Africa and Washington, D.C.
Some critics of the policy are disturbed because it seems that by criminalizing the use of illegal drugs, the government has created a monster, a problem much larger than the one it had intended to solve. In other words, by enacting legislation such as "zero tolerance", the government has replaced a small problem with the much larger one that the policy created.
It is estimated the forty-seven percent of female inmates in state prisons and fifty-six percent of male inmates have used an illegal drug within the month preceeding the crime for which they were confined (Pepinsky et al, 1984). One-half of state prison inmates admit to having been under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time they commmitted their offense. Twenty-six percent of local jail inmates report having been under the influence of drugs at the time they committed the offense for which they are currently convicted (Pepinsky et al, 1984).
In New York City; Dade County, Florida; Washington, D.C.; Detroit, California, Baltimore and Philadelphia, more than one-third of all homicides were tied to drugs; most involved the murder of dealers or stemmed from disputes over drugs. Nationwide, a study of criminal youths disclosed that three-quarters of all robberies and one-half of all felony assaults were committed by only 3% of the sample who had each committed three or more major crimes and were pill, cocaine or heroin users. The Rand Corporation study discovered that most violent predators have a history of heroin use, usually in combination with alcohol and other drugs. Drug abuse was identified as one of the best predictors of serious criminality (Bennett, 1987).
The link between drugs, violent criminal and delinquent behavior appears to be inexorable according to this author. He noted that it is clear that crime increases with individual levels of addiction. Bennett believes that if prohibited drugs were made legal, organized crime would lose its largest source of income. Illegal drugs and the crime they generate provide police with much of their rationale for demanding larger budgets and more manpower. When we regulate, we create a Black Market that creates chaos. We have worked endlessly to quash supply and its source; both at home and abroad. We have also done the same with demand and the problem it has created by treatment and economic incentives to countries that for example grow cocoa plants as it cash crop without success. The legalization alternative professes to take the profit out of drugs, deal with the public health issue, define civil controls on drug abuse and identify those areas where criminal sanctions still apply. On the other hand, advocates of the policy fear decriminalization would reverse a host of criminogenic forces which may become worse than it already is. James Q. Wilson argues that the present policy of interdiction and enforcement as prescribed by the "zero tolerance" combined with education and enforced treatment is the best approach to the drug use problem.
In Erich Goode's "Drugs and Crime" (1981), he maintained that the history of attempts to control drug use is for the most part an inventory of failures. The self-righteous attempts to regulate drug traffic and eliminate addiction he said, have culminated in drug laws that are among the most repressive in the world, and involve an extraordinary array of enforcement functionaries at every level of government. This vast bureaucy he argues, carefully nurtures the illusion that only through relentless enforcement can a drug free socity be achieved. Many critics of social issues believe that policy enforcement is necessary and is an effective approach to the prevention of violent criminal and delinquent behavior. They say this is so because drug use is related to criminal behavior in many ways. They argue that the first and most obvious is by (drugs) influencing people to commit violent crimes by inducing a psychopharmacological state that makes physically aggressive acts more likely (Blumberg, 1981). The second is by inclining users or addicts to commit money making crimes to pay for an expensive drug habit. Thirdly, where the possession of drugs is prohibited by law, users commit a crime simply by being users and lastly, criminal violence and delinquency may arise out of the fact that a great deal of money changes hands in some drug transactions, and that the participants are frequently unscrupulous and willing to resort to violence (Goode, 1974). According to Goode, from an economic point of view, it does not make sense for narcotics to be illegal. He argues that occasional users, who make up the vast majority of dopers, are not responsible for the waves of crimes that accompany addiction. If the cost of drugs were not so outrageously inflated by smuggling, they (poor dopers) would not have to steal.
Some observers believe that by reducing the cost of drugs and making it accessible, users commit fewer crimes. But, Guiliani of New York disagrees, stating that the price of drugs will not stop them for stealing for other reasons. There is some evidence that those in the crime-prone years will commit more robberies, theft and assaults while on a methadone program. Guiliani maintains that it is a more tolerable price to pay to fight drugs than to support it. It is his position that criminalization is a form of education.
"Different drugs connect more closely with one or another of the links to crime. Marijuana for example, all studies on the subject that can be taken seriously agree that its effects are unrelated to the commission of crime. Heroin's immediate effect inclines the user away from the commission of violent activity (Blumberg, 1981). The use of other drugs, particularly in heavy doses, is common in this country and in violent crimes. According to Blumberg, alcohol leads the list --- roughly half of all homocides are committed by persons with detectable levels of alcohol in their bloodstream.
As Goode noted, enforcing the drug laws line of reasoning represents a rational means of reducing the total social harm ---violent crime included. This view, he said, was a rationalistic model of drug use. First, they believe that certain drugs cause users to engage in behavior that is harmful to others, and also causes significant damage to the users. Secondly, the public, scientists, physicians, lawmakers, and politicians have a clear notion of which drugs are harmful and which are not. Thirdly, criminalizing possession (such as zero tolerance) and sale of certain drugs is a logical and almost inevitable consequence of their inherent dangers. Fourthly, criminalization will bring about a drop in the social harm that flows from the use. According to Goode (1981), these propositions are, for the most part, fallacious. Alcohol he said, was the most commonly used drug worldwide, and has proven to be amongst the most dangerous by almost any measure. On the other side of the coin, a number of currently criminalized drugs whose use has generated public hysteria at different times are far less harmful to society than alcohol and cigarettes in a number of significant respects. It is his position that criminilization differences cannot be ascribed simply to the harmful effects of these drugs, but to the non-rational factors such as ideology, morality, religion and culture. Drugs do have many effects, and many of these effects are relevant to the commission of crime.
One way of classifying drugs and drug effects is to examine their effect on the central nervous system (CNS), the brain and the spinal cord. Drugs can stimulate, excite or speed up signals passing through the CNS. They can also retard, inhibit, slow down or depress the action of the CNS. "No systematic study of the connection between drug use and crime has ever turned up a casual link between the ingestion of LSD or marijuana and committing acts of violence" (Blumberg, 1981). The use of cocaine also is not implicated as the cause of violent behavior. However, sedatives, especially barbituates, are implicated in violent and criminal behavior. Heavy users become very aggressive and exhibit "surly demeanors". As a part of a study, daily doses of 1.3 to 3.8 grams of barbituates were given to subjects. They became confused, disoriented, disordered, irritable, belligerent and abusive. In another study of criminal assaults by adolescents in California, it was found that after alcohol, the drug assailants most often admitted to being under at the time of the offense was barbiturates. Like barbiturates, alcohol is a sedative. There is no doubt at all that alcohol is closely related to violence. Studies conducted in the United States on the relationship between alcohol consumption and murder have shown that the proportion of people intoxicated at the time of the killing is in the 50 to 60 percent range (Goode, 1981). "The same holds for sexual aggression; an extremely high proportion of rapes, attempted rapes, and incidents of child molestation occur when the offender is under the influence of alcohol" (Kinsey Institute, 1985).
The rehabilitative or therapeutic position maintains that the cause of crime among drug users is their addiction and not their general propensity to commit crimes. It is the need to feed the habit that forces users to commit crimes, especially money making crimes. It is their position that without the need to maintain the habit, (therapeutic theory holds), addicts would not have to resort to crime -- support the addict's habit legally, and their crime rate will drop. Studies on the relationship between narcotic addiction and crime indicate that men and women who eventually become addicted, do not necessarily commit crimes prior to addiction. It is true that most men and women today that eventually become addicts do commit crime proportionately in excess of their numbers in the population before becoming addicted to drugs -- addicts usually have a strikingly higher crime rate than the rest of the general population. It is also clear that addiction sharply increases the frequency and diversity of crimes committed, the seriousness of them, and the addicts likelihood of arrest. Though drug users do commit violent crimes, it is not the most common among them.
It is my position that until some genius creates a panacea or a more effective alternative to deal with the drug problem, I am very comfortable with the "zero tolerance" policy. The policy is mainly geared toward supply, sale, smugglers and the dealers. There are provisions for controlling demand which is mainly education, treatment, and the media blitz depicting the harm that drugs create. Efforts aimed at controlling drugs, reducing supply, increasing the social and economic cost of sale and use, instituting stiffer penalty for use and sale can have some effect. The policy may produce a temporary reduction in demand and supply, but may result in producing other more serious problems like the underground black market, which usually creates increased violent and delinquent behavior.

ARTICLE 4

The conceptual framework that I use in the special topics seminar subscribes to a multidimensional or interdisciplinary approach to crime prevention. It is conceived as a perspective and this perspective offers students a way to consider various points of view and to integrate these points of view in their assessments of crime prevention strategies. This approach is based upon principles from systems thinking that assume that "each person is composed of molecules, cells and organs; each person is also a product of their respective environment" (Eisendrath, 1988).
The fundamental assumptions underlying this conceptual framework are that there are several dimensions for assessing human behavior, especially as it relates to crime prevention. The dimensions are conceptualized as a system of interdisciplinary efforts (biosocial, psychosocial, biopsychosocial, biological, biochemical, etc.). It involves multiple systems in the framework which are in a constant state of interaction with other living systems and with other nonliving components of the system's physical environment. These dimensions provide perspectives on human behavior and crime prevention that form the basis for various kinds of intervention strategies. This will allow students to see this conceptual framework for crime prevention as a holistic view. This framework cannot be implemented without a solid foundation of facts and issues about the various perspectives and theories relating to crime prevention.
As the students understand the conceptual framework, I then proceed to discuss what we know or what has been done in the area of crime prevention and the limitations of existing research. For example, I will discuss the etiology of aggressive and violent behaviors and what has been done in terms of prevention. Several authors assert that these behaviors are a result of psychopathology (Craig, 1982; Krakowski, Volavka, & Briser, 1986; Menuck, 1985); others (Monahan & Steadman, 1983) suggest that the determinants of aggression and violence in, for example, mentally disordered, are the same as for nondisordered persons. However, biological factors have been implicated both in the etiologies of the various mental disorders and as determinants of aggressive and violent behavior (Hodgins & Von Grunau, 1986).
According to Hodgins & Von Grunau, "the literature on the biological determinants of physically aggressive behavior is remarkable in three ways. First, the technologies for measuring the biological variables have developed rapidly in recent years, resulting in a high degree of precision; secondly, findings resulting from animal studies are usually stronger than those resulting from investigations of humans; finally, the investigation of biological determinants of physical aggression often lacked theoretical justification. It is as if subjects were studied because researchers have access to them, or biological variables were measured because the technology was available." For example, "men with a diagnosis of explosive or intermittent personality disorder metabolize sugar abnormally. This abnormality when exacerbated by alcohol, illegal drugs, leads to confusion, memory loss and violent behavior" (Hodgins & Von Grunau, 1986).
After discussing biological, biochemical, neurological, etc. (brain lesions, brain stimulation, hormonal control, pharmaceutical control, sex differences, endocrine factors, CNS factors, cognitive dysfunctions, and violent aggressive behaviors), I will further discuss the sociological and psychological studies and toxic trace elements studies.
Now, let me give a brief sample of the form the seminar takes.
The graduate "special topics" seminar on crime prevention exposes the student to interdisciplinary methods of crime prevention. The conceptual orientation for the course is that nature can most usefully be understood as a whole of integrated, interactive systems within systems in which human behavior is a function of constant organization--environmental interaction.
I introduced this class to the students by first discussing certain relevant issues in criminology. One of these issues is that of mentalism, or mind and body dualism found in Western philosophy, psychology, sociology, as well as criminology. The belief that behavior involves mental states and mental illnesses has made a science of human behavior impossible (Jeffrey, 1990). The second issue is that of environmentalism, the belief that behavior is caused by experiences with the environment, especially the social environment. Both behavioral psychology and sociology are based on environmentalism, the former on experiences with the physical environment, and the latter on experiences with the social environment (Jeffrey, 1990). The third issue is that of legalism, the doctrine found in the criminal law. This view assumes a nonscientific, nondeterministic view of human nature as found in concepts of mens rea and moral guilt as well as the view that immoral behavior must be punished by courts and prisons. However, the scientific view of human nature is ignored by the legal view. There is conflict between modern biology and psychology, especially in the area of prevention as a crime control strategy. As Jeffrey (1990) tells us, "Legalism has led to the police-courts-corrections system, the criminal justice system as a model of crime control. The scientific model has led to the medical model based on the prevention and treatment of social behaviors through scientific means." My purpose in the special topics seminar on crime prevention is to explore the organization and environmental model and integrate them as a system in which human behavior is a function of constant organism environment interaction.
I recommend to the students of this special topic seminar on crime prevention to therefore be familiar with the nature of systems theory. This I hoped will help the students grasp more easily the theoretical conceptual parameters emphasized in this special topic.
Systems theory is an approach to knowledge and the analysis of data which is holistic in nature. It is rooted in the interrelationship of parts with the whole and with the flow of energy and information from one subsystem to another subsystem (Kuhn, 1974; Boulding, 1978; Miller, 1978). C. Ray Jeffrey noted that "systems theory is closely related to organization theory and the study of bureaucracy and social structures as interrelated systems of interaction." Furthermore, he said, that the critical concept in systems theory is that of "interaction." Systems theory forces us to think in terms of mutual co-existence, mutual interdependence of variables rather than in terms of linear causation and influence. An organism, therefore, has many organ systems in interaction; from biochemical elements to cells to organs to organisms to groups, communities, and societies (Jeffrey, 1990). A living system is said to be one capable of reproducing and perpetuating itself through interaction with other systems in its environment. Jeffrey also tells us that "in the living human system, the defector system is the sensory system--eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and skin. The selection system is the brain and nervous system."
In this class, the model of behavior utilized involves the organism's interaction with the environment or an O X E model of human behavior espoused by C. Ray Jeffrey. He noted that the "ability of the organism to guide and direct its behavior based on past experiences and future expectations is a basic control system for human behavior that is critical for future planning and direction of behavior. It is through the brain that past experiences and present circumstances are used to govern behavior in anticipation of future events."
The materials that are used in this class are therefore interdisciplinary. I use materials from such fields as criminal law, criminology, sociology, psychology, biology, chemistry, etc. to integrate the nature of crime prevention. The central focus of crime prevention from this orientation should be on individuals, their environment, and their behaviors. I must emphasize that the special topics class, in order to cover nature as a whole integrated, interactive systems within systems, exposed students to interdisciplinary method, in which biological, biochemical, sociological, psychological perspectives, environmentalism, and other relevant disciplines' contributions to crime prevention were discussed.
For example, in discussing biological perspectives, we addressed the age-old question of whether human behavior is a product of nature or nurture in order that the parameters of biological research in criminology be understood. Fishbein (1990) tells us that those who claim that nature contributes predominantly to an individual's behavior have been affiliated in the past with conservative political ideologies and were known as "hereditarians." Behavior, she noted, was primarily attributed to inherited predispositions, and genetic influences were considered responsible for most of the variance in complex human behaviors. Those that argued that nurture is the impetus for behavior were environmentalists who were generally associated with a liberal ideology. However, "in an effort to explain changing trends in a seemingly immutable biological process, researchers are discovering that cultural and experiential conditions directly influence the developing pattern of cognitive abilities" (Fishbein, 1990).
In a step-by-step instruction process, I gradually take the students through this conceptual framework; from the learning process as it contributes to behavior and should not be underestimated in this model, especially because "fundamentally, both biological and social behavior are learned" (Fishbein, 1990). Furthermore, "biological traits and proclivities are not stationary characteristics; they are reinforced or, in some cases, altered through social learning processes."
Before I go into counseling my three students, I would like the reader to know that this class emphasizes that "Humans are equipped with the innate biological capacity to learn as a product of their genetic blueprint, which is physically expressed in the structure of the brain. When an individual is exposed to a stimulus from the (internal) biological or (external) social environment, permanent changes can occur in the neural structures and biochemical function of the brain" (Fishbein, 1990). The class presents, as Jeffrey (1977) notes, "a biological interdisciplinary model which argues that behavior can be scientifically understood and crime can be prevented rather than treated or punished." It is a crime prevention model or medical model of crime control.
Student #1, whom I'll call Miss Quiz, has an undergraduate major in food and nutrition. She is interested in a study concerning the relationship of diet and nutrition to prevention of aggressive and violent behavior. Since her background is somewhat limited in scope and knowledge in criminological theories, methodology, and research methods, I will begin by discussing what she already knows in the area in which she is interested. Since the special topics seminar covers the relevant theoretical issues, the method of research in social science or criminology will be the fundamental area of emphasis, in addition to feasibility of the study, in terms of data collection, research design, ethical and legal issues, problems of data analysis, interpretation, and utility of research findings. I will further recommend specific research references, including books, journals, and selected studies of the biology of maladaptive behavior.
Miss Quiz's study presents several problems. First, we have to be able to identify the specific behaviors and populations for the study. Moffitt and Mednick (1988) note that violent and aggressive criminality has factors that may be different from other maladaptive behaviors. What is more certain, however, is that among the criminal population there are far more predisposing determinants than the sort of dimensions presented in this special topics seminar. Good (1978), for instance, suggests, that affective disorders are under-diagnosed in prison populations, while Krakowski, Volavka, and Brizen (1986) note that violence shown in hospitals is most likely to be associated with schizophrenia. Among murders in maximum security institutions, Hinton, O'Neill, Hamilton, and Burke (1980) have shown that persons from different diagnostic groups may commit what, from a labeling point of view is the same crime, namely that of murder. I will help Miss Quiz narrow down her study topic. That is, to specify the specific population and the type of aggression or violence that the specific diet or nutrition to be utilized for prevention.
Robin B. Kananek and Robin Marks-Kaufman (1991) contend that the only way to establish the validity of claims about nutrition and behavior is to use established scientific methods. They suggested that these research strategies have been prominently employed to assess these claims. These methods are correlated studies which are used to generate hypotheses about nutrition-behavior relationships. The primary objective is to define a link between dietary intake and behavior, with the specific expectation that statistical associations will be derived between the two variables. This type of research can provide important insights for experimental evaluation of the connection between diet and behavior (Anderson & Hrboticky, 1986).
According to Anderson and Hrboticky (1986), there are several conditions that must be met before we can accept the validity of a nutrient-behavior connection. First, reliable and valid measures of nutrient intake must be made. One of the most widely used approaches for measuring dietary intake is the 24-hour recall, in which subjects are asked to record everything they have consumed during the preceding day. There are wide day-to-day variations in any individual's food intake; however, a 24-hour record does not always provide an accurate determination of average daily food intake. Consequently, it has been suggested that a maximum of seven 24-hour records be used in correlational studies (Kanarek & Orthen-Csambill, 1986).
Second, proper subject sampling techniques must be used to minimize extraneous variables that might affect the behavioral outcome. In general, a larger number of subjects is preferred. If the number is too small, the probability of observing relationships between dietary component and behavior is reduced, and a false negative relationship may be concluded. On the other hand, correlational studies using large numbers of subjects risk the possibility of finding false positive associations. For example, when correlations are made between several dietary variables and a behavioral measure, the chance of achieving statistically significant results increases with the number of subjects and with the number of correlations made (Kruesi & Rapoport, 1986). When large numbers of subjects are used, small correlations can also become statistically significant, making it necessary for the researcher to decide on the clinical or physiological importance of such findings (Mandalla, 1990). I have to stress that it is impossible to establish cause-and-effect relationships from correlational data. For example, positive correlations have been found between sugar intake and hyperactive behavior in children (Anderson & Hrboticky, 1986). The authors note that "these results have been interpreted by some (especially the popular media) as demonstrating that sugar causes hyperactivity." However, they contend that it is just as possible that high levels of activity increase sugar intake, or that a third unidentified variable influences both sugar intake and hyperactivity. In contrast to correlational studies, experimental studies have the potential of identifying causal links between diet and behavior. Messer (1984) tells us that if the manipulation of a specific dietary component (the independent variable) significantly alters the occurrence of a behavioral measure (the dependent variable) a causal relationship can be postulated.
One of the more difficult problems encountered in research on diet and behavior is how to separate nutritional from nonnutritional factors. As Olson (1979) wrote, "Food is an intrinsic part of social relationships, religious observations, and cultural practices; further, since food is a 'loaded' variable, both experimenters and subjects may harbor biases about expected research outcomes." To minimize the confounding effects of research bias, he suggested that experiments should be conducted under double-blind conditions (neither the researcher nor the subjects know who is receiving the test substance or the placebo). This procedure, Olson (1979) tells us, can be readily incorporated into experiments investigating the behavioral consequences of individual nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, by using pills which are indistinguishable from the placebo. Anderson and Hrboticky (1986) suggested a dose-response procedure should be used in studies of nutrition and behavior. They note that "because a low dose (amount) of dietary variable may have different behavioral consequences than a higher one, several doses of the dietary variable should be tested whenever feasible. Researchers can determine if there is a systematic relationship between dietary variable and behavior when different doses are used. We also have to consider the duration of treatment. Although short-term (acute) studies permit the evaluation of the immediate effects of a dietary variable, they cannot provide information about long-term (chronic) exposure (Swinney & Kananck, 1990). This indicates that since the behavioral effects of dietary components (e.g., food additives) may only appear with extended exposure, both acute and chronic studies should be used to assess the nutrition-behavior interaction (Kananek & Swinney, 1990). The time of day a nutrient is tested may also influence its behavioral effects. For example, Kanarek and Swinney (1990) observed that a snack (candy bar or yogurt) significantly improved subjects' ability to pay attention to relevant stimuli when it was eaten in the late afternoon, instead of late morning. Prior nutritional status is another potential source of variation in short-term studies. The types and amounts of foods previously consumed can affect how the test nutrient is metabolized. To eliminate this source of variation, Rumsey and Rapoport (1983) advise us to standardize dietary intake prior to testing the behavioral consequences of a nutrient.
I will further discuss another challenge in conducting nutrition and behavior studies, which is choosing appropriate subjects. Differences in nutritional history, socioeconomic background, and other environmental factors create subject heterogeneity which poses a threat to the internal validity of the research (Rumsey & Rapoport, 1983). Internal validity concerns the ability to conclude that a causal relationship exists between an independent and dependent variable. Rumsey and Rapoport tell us that "because of subject heterogeneity alternative explanations may exist for the observed effects, which lowers internal validity." For example, research on the dietary treatment of hyperactive children has shown that the home environment can affect results. Children from an unsupportive home environment show much less improvement with dietary treatment than children from more supportive homes (Rumsey & Rapoport, 1983). Standardized selection procedures for subjects (inclusion and exclusion criteria) help to eliminate the possibility of extraneous variables influencing the results of experimental research; that is, the use of within-subjects designs in which each subject experiences all treatment conditions can be used to limit the potentially confounding effects of extraneous variables. Since order of dietary treatment may affect behavioral outcomes, however, it is important to vary the sequence of treatments among subjects (Anderson & Hrboticky, 1986; Kruesi & Rapoport, 1986; Kananek & Orthen-Gambill, 1986; Hirsh, 1987).
S. F. Fleischer and G. Turkewitz (1984) contend that two major paradigms have been used in experimental studies of nutrition and behavior. In dietary replacement studies, the behavioral effects of two diets, one containing the food component of interest (experimental diet), and the other as similar as possible (control diet), are compared over a period of time. According to the authors, if appropriate double-blind conditions and sampling methods are employed, differences in behavior between the two groups can be assumed to be the result of the dietary manipulation. The advantage of dietary replacement studies is that chronic dietary effect can be examined. The disadvantage is the difficulty of making two diets equivalent in all factors. It is expensive. It is also not feasible to test more than one dose of the dietary variable. It is also time-consuming. Dietary challenge studies have been used to evaluate the acute effects of dietary components. In these experiments, behavior is usually evaluated for several hours after consumption of test substances or the placebo. One advantage is that double-blind procedures are relatively simple to implement. It is limited in that they do not provide information on the possible cumulative effects of a food component (Hirsch, 1987).
Jeffrey tells us that any chemical substance that enters the body can potentially affect the brain, including the food we eat, that the major neurotransmitter systems use food products as precursors (substances or amino acid chains which are converted into neurotransmitters). Chlorine is converted into acetylchlorine; tyrosine is converted into dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine; tryptophan is converted into serotonin (Kalat, 1988). One of the most obvious links is between diet and poverty (Jeffrey, 1990).
Miss Quiz may want to know other types of studies that might trigger ideas out of her. I will discuss with her some genetic studies, chromosomal abnormalities studies, autonomic nervous system studies, neurophysiological studies, hormonal studies, and neuropsychological studies. I will also make sure that she is exposed to family and twin studies which seek to identify genetic influences on behavioral traits by evaluating similarities among family members (Fishbein, 1990). Cross-generational attributes of these family members have been linked to violence and aggression (Fishbein, 1990). I will refer her to Robins' (1966) study, Johannes Lang (1929), Mednick and Volavka (1980), Volanka & Bernard (1986), Christensen's study, Sorbin and Miller (1970), Witkin (1977), Dalgaard and Kringlen's studies, Adrian, Rarbe, Fishbein (1990). Also adoption studies and references provided for Miss Quiz.
I will further counsel Miss Quiz about selecting her committee members. I will advise her that the outside member may be selected from the nutrition or biology department or discipline and should be a faculty member that may have done some work in this area and is compatible with the other members, because it is important that members can just get along. Since this is our first meeting, I remind Miss Quiz of other relevant issues in subsequent meetings. For example, I would want her to understand the history of biological criminology including legal and ethical issues. I refer her to Rennie's (1978) work, Kittrie's (1971) work, etc., so that she may be familiar with sugenics, Buck vs. Bell, Naziism, racism, right to refuse treatment; case studies in social science research. Ethics, for example, Project Camelot, Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study, Tearoom Trade, labelling effect (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1975); Carroll, Schneider, and Wesley (1985); typologies of ethical problems, confidentiality, and the right to privacy (Kimmel, 1988), etc.
Student #2, I will name Miss Ki, has an undergraduate degree in social psychology and she proposes a thesis study on the role that environmental factors play in illicit drug dealers' selection of particular streets and sites for making sales. I will first discuss with Miss Ki relevant theoretical perspectives and issues as they relate to her area of study. I will discuss the earlier explanations of criminal behavior which were based on ecological factors. For example, the first systematic studies of ecology in the field of criminology were realized by Guerry (1833) and Quelelet (1892) (Robinson, 1993). Vold (1958) indicated that it was Guerry who published what many scholars consider to be the first work in scientific criminology. Robinson (1993) contends that "the environmental approach to understanding and explaining criminal behavior is arguably a logical expansion of Quelelet and Guerry, as well as the Chicago School." According to Morris (1957), Guerry held that the opportunity to steal was critical in determining criminal activity. We can then say that it was Guerry who forecast the development of future emphasis on opportunities for crime. They both mapped and analyzed French criminal statistics and found specific distributions of criminal events across the country, including incidence and prevalence. Their work may have set the stage for environmental criminology. The studies of ecology were not pursued from the times of Quelelet and Guerry up until the "Chicago School" in the early 1900s. Quin (1964) defined the social science interpretation of the meaning of ecology as "the study of relations between human groups and their respective environments, especially their physical environments."
Jeffrey (1990), who is a colleague and associate of a number of Chicago School scholars, tells us that sociology was established in 1892 as an academic discipline separate from economics and the then newly established University of Chicago. Crime, he wrote, was seen as a product of urbanization, culture conflict, immigration, poverty, ecology, and socialization. He further indicated that one of the major focuses of the Chicago School was symbolic interactionism or social psychology. The Chicago School may have emerged largely as a result of environmental and social conditions which were present at the turn of the century in Chicago, including immigration. Symbolic interactionism, as found in Sutherland, Cressey, and other sociological criminologists is based on the principle that "ideas cause action," or the mind causes behavior. This is what Jeffrey (1990) referred to as the nonphysical and nonscientific view of human behavior. However, the social-psychological theory of symbolic interaction was one of the more lasting of the Chicago School theoretical perspectives (McShane & Williams, 1988). The author contends that although the Chicago School theorists who developed it never referred to it by this name, symbolic interactionism developed from a belief that human behavior was a product of purely social symbols communicated between individuals and perhaps the basic idea is that the mind and the self are not innate but are products of the social environment. Williams and Machane (1988) tell us that two major methods of study were employed by the Chicago School: official data and life history. The life history or case study approach presented the social psychological process of becoming a criminal or delinquent. The most important contribution may be the organic approach to the study of the community as examined by Robert Park. Working under the assumption that the city was similar to a body with its different organs, Park sent his students out to examine the various organs, or social world of the metropolis. From these investigations and others, Park and Ernest Burgess produced a conception of the city as a series of distinctive concentric circles radiating from the central business district (McShane, 1988). The further one moves away from the center of these concentric zones, the fewer social problems were found. Shaw and McKay further enveloped and utilized Park's theories for studying juvenile delinquency in Chicago.
Ecological research has focused more recently on spatial aspects of crime and justice (Vold & Bernard, 1986). They have focused upon the distance between crime site and offenders' places of residence (Hakim & Regent, 1980). Other such studies have aimed to determine characteristics of crime sites (Harris, 1980). They also focused on why offenders select certain sites (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1978) and how such sites can be designed to prevent crimes (Jeffrey, 1971; Newman, 1972). Finally, such studies have attempted to describe distributions of aspects of the criminal justice system in action (Harris & Brunn, 1978).
Ms. Ki's, or Student #2's interest is the role of environmental factors and illicit drug dealers' selection of particular streets and sites for making sales. I would refer her to Brantingham and Brantingham (1981) and Brantingham and Jeffrey (1991). According to the former, there are four elements of a crime. These are a law, an offender, a target, and a place. Environmental criminology is the study of the place, ". . . a discrete location in time and space at which the other three dimensions intersect . . ." and a crime occurs. Similarly, according to the latter, environmental criminology is "the study of facts of objective and perpetual space, urban form, of offenders and target opportunities, and the roles that all these play in criminal events." So environmental criminologists initiate their search for the answers to crime by asking questions about when and where crimes occur, including the physical and social characteristics of the crime sites, the movement of offenders from place of residence to target, processes of target selection, spatial patterning of laws, spatial distribution of targets and offenders, and how place of crime occurrence interacts with law, offender, and target to create crime (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981).
Many crime-specific studies in environmental criminology focused upon rationality and its relationship to how offenders choose a career in crime, how they select targets, and how they function or operate in the criminal environment (Shorer, 1971; Brown & Altman, 1981; Akerstrom, 1983; Wright & Logie, 1988). I will inform Miss Ki that explaining the occurrence of the specific criminal event of her choice through a rationalistic perspective would entail showing that the drug dealers weighed perceived environmental risks and rewards prior to making a decision to make a sale; the buyer may have to do the same since they are both breaking a law. Other studies utilized opportunity theory, where rational choice was not the most important explanation for the commission of a criminal event (Waller & Okihiro, 1978; Cohen & Felson, 1979; Walsh, 1980; Maguire & Bennett, 1982; Rengert & Wasilchick, 1985). They say that the criminal event is a result of an individual's exploitation of a given opportunity. I will refer Miss Ki to S. Carr's (1973) study, Cohen and Felson's (1979) study, Pyle (1974), Mayhew, et al. (1976), and Cromwell, et al.'s (1991) studies, etc. Other studies have demonstrated patterns of offenses which suggest target selection based on rationality, opportunity, or both (Halperin, Stanislaus, & Botein, 1934; S. Carr, 1973; Rhodes & Conley, 1981; Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Some analysts focused on environmental cues or offenders' use of distinguishing environmental stimuli which function as signals or cues to provide important information about the potential targets' relevant characteristics (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1978, 1981; Olson, Avary, & Cromwell, 1991). These can be interpreted from a rationalistic or opportunistic viewpoint and applied to Miss Ki's thesis study. For example, Cohen and Felson (1979) pointed out three critical variables, which when interacting, increased the likelihood of a criminal event occurring. They include motivated offenders, target availability, and absence of guardians. This can be applicable to Miss Ki's study.
McConnel (1976) indicated that a correlation exists between crime occurrence and how individuals perceive the physical environment. This may suggest the importance of signals or cues in the environment in which a potential sale may be made. Phelan (1977) asserted that burglars, for example, may choose targets which exhibit environmental characteristics which may be "useful," such as poor street lighting and lots of bushes which result in poor surveillance and abundance of hiding places. This can be applied to drug sales; except that drug sales can be done in a variety of space. Even eyes in the street (Jane Jacobs, 1961) can hurt drug sales. That study may be a very difficult and dangerous one. It might be very difficult to win the confidence of drug dealers who will permit us to carry out such study. A covert study may be done, but police assistance is necessary making it even more problematic since police will arrest when a crime occurs. So collection of data feasibility may be problematic.
Analysis and interpretation of the data may also be flawed since cities or streets are not built the same everywhere. Interpretation may be restricted to the specific town where data may have been collected. Miss Ki may have to change her specific thesis statement. For example, what role do government subsidized building projects play in illicit drug dealers selecting it to make a sale? We also, as in Student #1, have to deal with ethical and legal issues which have been elaborated on previously. It is also important to stress CPTED, as examined by Jeffrey, architectural designs by Newman, and surveillance by Jane Jacobs' contribution to environmental criminology. Miss Ki has a social science degree; this means she may be familiar with social science methodology and research procedure. The focus here would be mostly the theoretical issues, forming a committee, feasibility of data collection, analyses and interpretation, and utility of findings.
Student #3, which I will name Mr. Toogood, comes from the department of criminology and criminal justice program of which I am familiar. Mr. Toogood wants to do a "CPTED" or Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design study in an upper-middle-class residential neighborhood (where his family lives), aimed at developing a set of recommendations for presentation to the neighborhood homeowners association (of which his father was just elected president). Mr. Toogood has a good idea, but the idea might be mixed up in political enrichment and cloud. "CPTED" is an environmental crime prevention model designed to deal with crimes other than those that are inherently uncontrollable by defensible space. For example, as Jeffrey (1971) notes, it is not in anyone's power to stop a hired gunman from killing or the choppers over Vietnam. Crimes that may be prevented by "CPTED" might not be present in an upper-middle-class residential neighborhood. Trasler (1986) thought that some of the techniques used in environmental crime prevention seemed especially applicable to the prevention of particular kinds of crime. For example, deflecting offenders seems to be suited to controlling incivilities and identifying property to preventing theft. It may be tempting to argue, therefore, that environmental crime prevention measures are only useful in respect of certain crimes, perhaps those with a strong "opportunistic" component, while other crimes that are more deeply motivated or committed by "hardened" offenders need to be tackled in other ways. Bevis and Nutter (1977) argued that offenders would be less likely to venture into areas with grid-street networks, since higher levels of surveillance would be present, and they would more likely be recognized. Reppetto (1974) determined that burglars, for example, selected their targets by weighing the balance of perceived gain versus perceived threat of being observed. In other words, the degree of surveillability must be considered in target selection, since increased levels of surveillability may lead to increased possibilities of being seen, reported, and apprehended (Robinson, 1994). As Jane Jacobs (1961) stated, there must be "eyes on the street" for surveillability to play a role in the decision to burglarize a dwelling. Mayhew's (1981) idea was that offenders avoid being seen by anyone who will be familiar with, or committed to, any property or environment under threat--persons who will recognize and interpret the behavior of unfamiliar persons, and likely take action. It is pertinent that I discuss further with Mr. Toogood that the residential area in which he proposes to do his study may be beyond the limits of effective crime control through environmental design. Upper-middle-class residential neighborhoods usually have high surveillability. Sometimes citizens switch neighborhoods and sometimes are willing to pay high amounts of taxes to provide both private and public security, which means police patrol, security patrol, security surveillance cameras, alarm systems, or target hardening are present. Mayhew distinguished three main groups who will recognize and interpret the behavior of unfamiliar persons, and likely to take action: the police, security, and others, who are trained in law enforcement. According to Robinson (1994), this would explain the findings of Waller (1976) and Reppetto (1974) which showed in Toronto and Boston, respectively, that the presence of doormen (people who might see a would-be burglar, for example) decreased the likelihood of victimization. The other groups are residents and those who work in public places. In upper-middle-class areas, rarely are there apartment buildings designed to rent to citizens who may not qualify in terms of income, education, fame, family, etc.
Upper class areas are very different from most areas studied with "CPTED." Hollander, et al. (1980) put forth that high rates of crime could be explained due to the presence of certain characteristics in the physical environment. These, he notes, included a high proportion of vacant lots and multi-family units (apartments), mixed land use, and availability of street parking. The characteristics described above are not usually present in an upper-middle-class residential neighborhood. As Robinson contends (1994), when those factors or characteristics were present by themselves, or in combination, they enhanced the likelihood that a potential offender may conceal his/her intentions due to blending in, or seemingly remaining anonymous and not out of place; surveillance would be a less significant factor under such circumstances. Burglars, for example, in the Boston area were asked which targets they would burglarize and why. Several reasons related to surveillability emerged in the Reppetto (1974) study. These included inconspicuousness, isolated neighborhood, and neighbors not knowing each other because of transiency.
Rengert and Wasilchick (1985) asserted that the exemplary circumstances for encouraging a potential offender would be land which generated pedestrian traffic, for it placed an abundance of unfamiliar people in the vicinity. This is not what is expected to be present in upper class areas. Other factors that should be examined in detail are occupancy and accessibility which we have already discussed in the previous pages. Robinson (1994) tells us that the risk cues indicated by Cromwell, et al. (1991), which were associated with occupancy included ". . . the presence of cars in the driveway or garage, visible residents, noise or voices emanating from the house, and other cues indicate that someone is at home." Prior research has consistently indicated that a significant consideration of the burglar, for example, is whether the site is occupied. Burglar interview studies (Walsh, 1980; Maguire & Bennett, 1982) and analysis of burglary rates (Reppetto, 1974; Waller & Okihiro, 1978; Winchester & Jackson, 1982) have both demonstrated the importance of occupancy in deterring burglary. For accessibility, Rengert (1981) stated that crime sites must be accessible to potential criminals in order to be considered a criminal opportunity and it entails two factors: the existence of potential offenders and ease with which potential targets can be reached. As Rengert (1981) notes: "the relative magnitude of an opportunity is proportional to its relative degree of accessibility, which will partially determine its probability of being exploited." Cromwell, et al.'s (1991) risk cues associated with accessibility study included ". . . location and type of doors and windows, as well as the extent of target hardening such as locks, burglar alarms, fences, walls, burglar bars, and dogs." Davidson (1984) wrote, ". . . there is little evidence that security is a deterrent. We cannot equate this type of security to those that are present in an upper-middle-class community." Angel (1968) stated that crime rates were related to social and physical environments, to accessibility, territoriality, and to victim behavior. According to Angel, measures of deterrence included witnesses, surveillance and community awareness. In studies of street crime (armed robbery, strong-armed robbery, and purse snatching, Angel explained boundary conditions of crime. These, he notes, included behavioral conditions of offenders, behavioral conditions of victims (territoriality and accessibility), and social deterrents of crime (police patrol, community awareness, and effective witnesses). Reppetto (1974) determined that young burglars, for example, preferred easily accessible targets, while older burglars preferred more profitable targets, regardless of accessibility. Robinson (1994) tells us that by asking burglars in the Boston area which targets they would burglarize and why, several reasons related to accessibility emerged in the Reppetto study. Among them were apparent affluence, absence of police or security patrols, and ease of access.
I must remind Mr. Toogood that the scientist is in no better or different position than any other citizen when it comes to stating his preferences for social policy, but only in a unique position to point out the possible behavioral consequences of social policy and to guide the democratic process in its arrival at a decision for such policy (Robinson & Smith, 1971). As Jeffrey (1971) stated, "the best service the behavioral scientist can provide is to let it be known what the future will be like if certain policies are or are not pursued . . . . The major defect in policy is not that individuals lack goals or values, but that they assume they are moving in the direction of reaching the goals, whereas, in fact, they are behaving so as to destroy the goals or frustrate the chances of fulfilling such goals--the scientist can also point out that different social groups or entities have different value systems; policy must be based on what will happen, not on what we hope or wish will happen." I will recommend that Mr. Toogood re-evaluate his intention as regarding his proposed study. I will discuss the feasibility of data collection, research design, problems of analysis, and interpretation, which already look very problematic for such study. Neighborhoods such as his may be relatively be absent of crimes which "CPTED" is designed to be effective with. Also, the relative utility of findings could be basically of no use to public policy. I will then recommend other studies that may sooth Mr. Toogood. For example, preventing thefts by law enforcement officers, security officers, at their work place; Ronald D. Hunter and C. Ray Jeffrey's studies in Tallahassee, commercial burglary, theft from vehicles at night clubs, preventing theft by cooks at restaurants, hotels, and school cafeterias, etc. I will then advise Mr. Toogood to think about those and call me to schedule another meeting if necessary.
My underlying reasons in conclusion, therefore, for making these decisions as they relate to each student is that studies or social research are vital to society's growth and survival. As Faust (1970) notes, "in addition to their theoretical implications, it is felt that the results of investigations have some general implications for the planning of action programs dealing with various facets of crime, crime prevention, and public policies.
For Student #1, I will refer her to and discuss behavioral consequences of diet-induced changes in serotonin synthesis. Serotonin plays a significant role in sleep and arousal, food intake, aggression, and sexual behavior. Serotonergic systems also appear to be important in the mediation of mood, so diet-included alteration in serotonin could modulate these behaviors (Jouret, 1968; Leatherwood, 1986). Furthermore, serotonin and diet are implicated by substantial evidence for alterations in mood or emotions, that in extreme cases, markedly affect individuals' perceptions of the world (American Psychiatric Association, 1987). Primary characteristics include a diminished interest or lack of pleasure in all, or almost all activity; sleep disturbances; fatigue or low energy levels; decreased ability to think or concentrate; feelings of worthlessness; disrupted eating patterns; and recurrent thoughts of death or suicide (American Psychiatric Association, 1987). I will further refer Miss Quiz to look up Adrian Raine's evoked potentials and antisocial behavior study which may help her understand the nature and processes of different elements in the brain; in addition to the nature and measurement of the CNS components.
Student #2, or Miss Ki, I also refer to Robinson (1994) and other studies that dealt with specific spatial factors in the environment. For example, Miss Ki may want to utilize multiple streets and sites for drug sales study, verification of addresses of locations, and what unit of analysis will best serve her study. She might want to read up on different situational crime prevention studies such as those case studies researched by J. F. Decker, Pat Mayhew, Paul Ekblom, Dennis Challinger, Johannson Knusson, R. V. Clarke, Jane Sheridan, Susan Pease, Cjloris Laycock, Mary Alice Sloan-Howitt, etc. Students sometimes may jump on some ideas that they may like the impression of without knowing and understanding what it may in the long run entail. Student #2 or Miss Ki must also be reminded, for example, about the amount of time and sometimes maybe sleepless nights and money she would have to endure and spend to accomplish her project, especially because collection of environmental data is usually obtained through site visits. In her case, she must be exposed to dangerous corner streets to obtain this type of information and data.
However, the students will be rescheduled for another meeting if necessary to further discuss other important issues associated with asking a faculty member to serve as a major professor. I will also say that I am very thrilled that these students are interested in crime prevention. Crime prevention is vital for the survival of society today. Violence, drug use, trafficking and sales, and other crimes have impacted the society in ways that are different from yesteryears. The society needs more students to focus on creating strategies to control, prevent, and solve these types of social problems--especially social problems of youths, which I suspect that if left unresolved will derail any strategic efforts by society to improve the quality of life of all citizens in the 21st century. "Crime prevention is like health prevention: if we don't inoculate children against diseases, we have epidemics that take a terrible toll. Prevention is one of the most valuable tools in the anti-crime arsenal, and we must use it to help reduce the pandemic of crime that now exists" (Louis J. Freeh, 1997).

Email: Evaristus Obinyan

---

Powered by FreeFeast.com Create Your Free WebPage Here

AMAZON.COM NEW & USED Search: All Products Books Magazines Popular Music Classical Music Video DVD Toys & Games Baby Video Games Electronics Software Tools/Hardware Outdoor Living Housewares Cameras Phones For: