scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology in 1995"




Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The problem of gang-related violence is not a new phenomenon, yet public concern over the rising violence perpetrated by juveniles has led to a renewed interest in the study of juvenile gangs as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The problem of gang-related violence is not a new phenomenon, yet public concern over the rising violence perpetrated by juveniles has led to a renewed interest in the study of juvenile gangs. Whereas gangs used to be predominantly confined to large urban centers such as Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York City, today's gangs appear to be increasingly present in medium and small-sized cities previously believed to be immune to gang activity.1 The increased visibility of gangs, coupled with the growing fear of juvenile crime, has led researchers and others to conclude that there is an association between

197 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the United States, concealed-weapons laws vary greatly among localities, but most approaches fall into two categories: a discretionary system, sometimes called "may issue" licensing, and a non-discretionary, or "shall issue," system as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Restrictions on carrying concealed weapons are among the most common gun control policies.' These statutes limit who may have a deadly weapon-usually a handgun-hidden on their person when outside the home. By reducing access to guns in public, concealed weapons laws seek to make firearms less available for violence.2 Details of concealed weapons laws vary greatly among localities, but most approaches fall into two categories. One of these is a discretionary system, sometimes called "may issue" licensing.3 Under this policy, legal authorities grant licenses only to those citizens who can establish a compelling need for carrying a gun. The other approach is a non-discretionary, or "shall issue," system.4 Here the authorities must provide a license to any applicant who meets specified criteria. Because legal officials are often unwilling to allow concealed weapons, adopting a shall issue policy usually increases the number of persons with permits to carry guns.5 In 1985, the National Rifle Association announced that it would

83 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper explored the relationship between sentencing guidelines and prison populations in nine states and found that guideline laws alone appear to have caused prison population growth to moderate, but in others the guidelines were probably only one aspect of a larger policy to limit prison expansion.
Abstract: This paper explores the relationship between sentencing guidelines and prison populations in nine states. The guidelines are associated with declines in prison population growth in the six states where legislators decreed that guideline framers consider prison capacity when establishing guidelines for prison sentence lengths. In some states the guideline laws alone appear to have caused prison population growth to moderate, but in others the guidelines were probably only one aspect of a larger policy to limit prison expansion.

68 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explored whether increased gun ownership raises or lowers the perceived safety of others in the community by looking at subjective beliefs, an issue that has yet to be examined.
Abstract: gues that women must take responsibility for their self-defense. "One choice is a firearm," the ad reads, "a deeply personal decision that requires deliberation, knowledge and maturity" (emphasis added). More than 50% of gun owners cite protection as one reason they own a firearm.' Gun owners, particularly those who own their guns for protection, report they feel safer because of their guns. For example, 89% of individuals whose primary reason for gun ownership was self-defense said "yes" when asked "Do you feel safer because you have a gun at home?"2 The findings are not at all surprising. If their guns made them feel less safe, owners could simply get rid of their guns. This Article emphasizes that the decision to own a firearm is more than solely a personal issue or a household issue-it affects others in the community as well. In the jargon of economics, the decision to acquire a gun has externalities. Families who own guns could theoretically increase community safety, e.g., by deterring criminals, a positive externality, or reduce community safety, e.g., by increasing the risk of accidental injury, a negative externality. The externalities may be actual, perceived, or both. This Article explores whether increased gun ownership raises or lowers the perceived safety of others in the community by looking at subjective beliefs, an issue that has yet to be examined.

34 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Overall crime rates in the United States have been falling for nearly twenty years, but violent crime, declining on a national basis for the last three years, has not changed dramatically since 1980, especially in comparison to the startling run-up in serious crime that coincided with the maturation of the post-war birth cohort.
Abstract: America's intensifying dismay about violent crime has become so pervasive that one may well affirm that there is something of a "national crime crisis." Yet there is something of a puzzle as well. Overall crime rates in the United States have been falling for nearly twenty years. Violent crime, declining on a national basis for the last three years, has not changed dramatically since 1980, especially in comparison to the startling run-up in serious crime that coincided with the maturation of the post-war birth cohort. The homicide rate has fluctuated to some extent, but despite recent increases it is still below the levels of the late 1970s and indeed, below the rates recorded though most of the 1920s. To some extent the growth of public apprehension concerning violent crime can be explained by its cumulative nature: "[w]e experience the crime wave not as separate moments in time but as one long descending night." When serious crime touches oneself or one's family, it is an event that is more or less present throughout one's life. The direction of crime rates should be less important, therefore, than changes in the number of people whose lives have been touched by crime. This number may constantly increase through a generation or more though the crime rate falls. It should be obvious, however, that cumulative enlargement of the circle of people who have been victimized by crime can be at best an incomplete explanation for the change in public attitude that is taking place. Public attitudes about crime have changed much more rapidly than the size of its population of victims. "The crime crisis" is a crisis of confidence in the ability of the public sector to address the crime problem constructively. As such it is very much a part of the tide of skepticism about the role of government that has been an expanding feature of partisan political discourse in recent years. Liberalized carry concealed laws are essentially a response to intensifying doubt about the capacity of government--the police, the courts, and the corrections system--to deliver adequate levels of public or personal security. Serious questions remain, however, concerning the ability of private sector practices to deliver the goods where the public sector has failed. Because the techniques of social science are clumsy, the information generated is often nebulous and hard to interpret.

31 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The logic of restricting gun ownership to responsible, law-abiding citizens is immediately apparent and relatively uncontroversial, even to the National Rifle Association as discussed by the authors, and it reflects a widelyshared belief that members of certain social categories pose an unacceptably high risk of misusing firearms.
Abstract: Keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous and irresponsible persons is one of, if not the primary goal of United States gun control policy.' The logic of restricting gun ownership to responsible, law-abiding citizens is immediately apparent and relatively uncontroversial, even to the National Rifle Association.2 It reflects a widelyshared belief that members of certain social categories pose an unacceptably high risk of misusing firearms.3 As in the case of denying a driver's license to people who are legally blind, there is a strong consensus that people who have demonstrated certain kinds of irresponsible 'and unstable behavior should not possess weapons which are capable of injuring or killing the possessor or others.4 Federal gun

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a Symposium on eliminating all guns from the civilian population and possibly even from the police, which is the goal of the NRA's Gun Control Act.
Abstract: I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. My reading of the articles in this Symposium has been enlightening even though I have been reading research on guns and violence for over a quarter of a century, ever since the Eisenhower Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, when I enlisted Franklin Zimring to be a Task Force director of Volume Seven, "Firearms and Violence in American Life."

Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: In modern Western political and legal thought, the subject of legal enforcement of morality is narrower than the literal coverage of those terms as mentioned in this paper, which is why much legal enforcement is uncontroversial and rarely discussed, except when the law enforces aspects of morality that do not involve protecting others from fairly direct harms.
Abstract: In modern Western political and legal thought, the subject of legal enforcement of morality is narrower than the literal coverage of those terms. That is because much legal enforcement of morality is uncontroversial and rarely discussed. Disagreement arises only when the law enforces aspects of morality that do not involve protecting others from fairly direct harms. More precisely, people raise questions about legal requirements (1) to perform acts that benefit others, (2) to refrain from acts that cause indirect harms to others, (3) to refrain from acts that cause harm to themselves, (4) to refrain from acts that offend others, and (5) to refrain from acts that others believe are immoral. Answers to some of these questions may be affected by whether the relevant moral judgments are essentially religious. Subsidiary questions concern the appropriateness of taxes adopted to discourage behavior the government should not forbid outright and the appropriateness of prohibitions on others profiting from such behavior (as when someone lives off the earnings of prostitutes). Since it is rare that one argument for restricting behavior will stand by itself, with no other arguments supporting restriction, a conclusion about a single theoretical issue will not usually yield a decisive answer as to whether any particular behavior should remain free. However, a conclusion that some argument for restraint is unwarranted can significantly affect the overall power of the totality of arguments. For example, if someone concludes that the claimed immorality of homosexual behavior is not a proper basis on which to forbid it, this will substantially affect the overall strength of reasons in favor of prohibition. A final subtlety concerns two perspectives from which to consider the subject of the legal enforcement of morality. One perspective is

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The author would like to thank Don B. Kates, Jr. and Daniel D. Polsby for their thoughtful comments on previous drafts, Robert J. Cottrol for discussing the issues with me early on in the writing process, and Gary Kleck for his helpful suggestions and recent data.
Abstract: The author would like to thank Don B. Kates, Jr. and Daniel D. Polsby for their thoughtful comments on previous drafts, Robert J. Cottrol for discussing the issues with me early on in the writing process, and Gary Kleck for his helpful suggestions and recent data. 1 Philip Cook, The "Saturday Night Special": An Assessment of Alternative Definitions from a Policy Perspective, 72 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 1735, 1740 (1981). 2 U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, GUNS AND CRIME 1 (1994). 3 Id. 4 See 720 ILCS 5/24-3(h) (Smith-Hurd 1993); S.C. CODE ANN. § 23-31-180 (Law. Co-op. 1990); HAW. REV. STAT. § 134-16 (1985); MINN. STAT. ANN. § 624.712(4) (West 1987). 5 720 ILCS 5/24-3(h) (Smith-Hurd 1993). [Copyright © 1995 T. Markus Funk; Northwestern University School of Law. Originally published as 85 J. OF CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 764-806 (1995). Reprinted with minor changes in 8 J. ON FIREARMS AND PUB. POL'Y 39 (1996). Permission for WWW use at this site generously granted by Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology (no web page) and the author. For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S. Hein & Co., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14209; 716-882-2600 or 800-828-7571.]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Questions of relevance relating to DNA evidence, even to the most elementary concept of a "match" between two DNA samples, can be confusing.
Abstract: The basic concepts are always the hardest. This is particularly true in the study of evidence. Relevant evidence is evidence that alters the probability of a fact that matters, and relevant evidence generally is admissible unless it is too prejudicial.' Despite this seemingly simple formulation, questions of relevance relating to DNA evidenceeven to the most elementary concept of a "match" between two DNA samplescan be confusing. Well established methods of molecular biology permit laboratories to compare DNA from a crime scene to DNA from a defendant.2 If the DNA in these samples is similar, the match usually is powerful evidence that the incriminating DNA came from the defendant. To describe the incriminating effect of the resemblance, scientists may use numbers. The numbers seen most frequently in criminal cases are