Author: Frank Heley

Frank Heley graduated from North Dakota State University with a BS in Criminal Justice in 2009, a MS in Criminal Justice Administration in 2012, and a PhD in Criminal Justice, with a focus on policing, in 2018, and is a current member of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. He has worked as a security supervisor in the hospitality field, as a drug and alcohol researcher, and as a criminal justice instructor, as well as having been a private investigator for 21 years. Under the auspice of the Center for Criminological Inquiry, he currently conducts independent research and provides consulting services.

Are We Missing The Discussion Of Anomie and Its Role In Mass Shootings?

We see it played out again and again in the news; another tragic mass shooting and more calls from activists and politicians to do something to stop the “gun violence”. Yet only a few on either side of the political aisle push for the solutions to stop the every-day gun crimes that plague our large cities and take far more victims to the grave in a matter of weeks than a whole year of mass shootings. But it is the spectacular nature of the crime that draws the attention of the public and pundits alike and many time the proposed solutions for the events split down the political spectrum. Often the Democratic view perceives the problem to be too many guns and too easy access to them while the Republican view, in order to not in any way infringe on lawful gun ownership, seek to address the problem by promoting target hardening and the use of police and the justice system to enforce exiting gun laws.

Typically, liberal Democrats would like to think that simply banning certain weapons (“assault weapons”) and their high capacity magazines will make a dent in the problem but seemingly are unaware that there are over 20 million modern sporting rifles (as second amendment advocates refer to AR 15 styled rifles) in circulation, making them difficult to eliminate. These rifles are also not used in the majority of mass shooting incidents, pistols are, but the labeling of these semiautomatic weapons as “battle rifles” and “assault weapons” would seem to paint them as easy targets for banning and thus affecting mass shootings. Preventing access to these rifles and other firearms through age limitations and “universal” background checks are seen as another way to prevent the mass shootings that have garnered so much attention but yet these proposals have little potential in stopping mass shootings let alone other criminal use of firearms. As background checks currently only apply to licensed gun dealers, trying to impose such restrictions on the private transfer of firearms to others would be difficult to enforce and likely would only provide a another hoop for lawful gun owners to jump through but would not be much of a hindrance to the criminal element. Already, most responsible gun owners who try to sell their firearms on-line make those transfers through FFLs out of a sense of responsibility and a sense of concern over being criminally and/or morally liable if the gun is misused by a restricted individual.

Adding age restrictions would seem to have a negligible effect on gun violence as individuals under 21 are already restricted from purchasing handguns Yet handguns are the most commonly used firearms relating to criminal behavior both in mass shootings and other gun violence, as opposed to rifles that account for a small percentage of all murders as it is. Overly restrictive gun laws seem to have little effect as well. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws regarding possession and sale of firearms but yet it has one of the nation’s highest murder rates. However, this call for restricting rifle purchases for those under 21 gained new impetus following the Uvalde shooting but making policy on the ideas that “this one thing” could have prevented a shooting is ill informed and constitutes legal whack-a-mole in the search for some other thing that could have prevented a shooting after it occurs.

The conservative Republican approach rightly eschews the call for rifle bans because despite the attention mass shootings get, other murder weapons, including the hands, kill more people every year than rifles do and these mass shootings like what occurred in Uvalde typically account for less than 1% of all firearm deaths in any given year. As of this current year, more than 95% of gun homicides have been shootings with only one to three victims. If the key to addressing firearm violence is not the guns but rather than individual, as well as focusing on the everyday firearm deaths and gun violence rather than on one-off events, the conservative path addresses the consistent statistics that show only a small percentage of the population are engaged in violence utilizing firearms, they are typically known to law enforcement as repeat offenders in terms of their criminal behavior, and that the geographic areas of frequent gun violence are limited in size and well known to the police. According to the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab, just 4% of city blocks account for the majority of gun violence. A 2017 report by the Guardian found across the U.S., neighborhoods that contained just 1.5 % of the population accounted for 26% of gun homicides. However, in the current social climate such a focus on certain individuals and neighborhoods could be construed as over-policing in minority neighborhoods, and without modifying training and appropriate supervision and documentation, bias does become a salient issue.

But within these perspectives is an approach that ostensibly should provide common ground-that of red flag laws (RFL) that focus on mental health issues. Conservatives do want to bring attention to the fact that many mass shooters suffer from some form of mental health problem and the importance of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Liberals see the path to this through the implementation of RFL. However, conservatives have some concerns, and rightly so, that RFL can be applied very subjectively and limit second amendment rights. Traditionally, mental illness adjudication was necessary to prevent possession of a firearm and the lower standard presented by RFL can allow for the restriction of possession, or removal of firearms, based on reports from family, friends, teachers and other non-mental health professionals. The ability to have firearms returned, and the timeline and criteria for their return, is often rendered unclear and subjective. Having some common, and not necessarily dangerous, mental health issues like depression, anxiety, or anger issues could trigger firearm removal without clear criteria on when these issues actually pose a threat and whether they have been resolved sufficiently to allow for their return. However these non-professional reports are essentially the only way that the authorities can move quickly to address individuals with mental health problems who may pose a danger to others. Vague or non-specific threats can too easily be downplayed or overlooked, as happened in Uvalde (and many other incidents) and when these threats become more concrete it may tragically be too late to enact firearm prohibitions or removals.

The most current gun legislation has tried to address the mental health issue and school safety while trying to limit the prohibition of firearms themselves. Pro-gun conservatives should see this as a win as they can claim taking part in legislation that may give the appearance of having an effect on gun violence without any real prohibitions on ownership and which encompasses a focus on target hardening at schools, which can also fail, like in Uvalde, when school personnel fail to follow safety recommendations and protocols that would have prevented the violence in the first place. However the prospect of more money for the state to address mental health issues and enhanced background checks on young adults have raised the specter of unfair limitations on some ownership.

Liberals bemoan that this new legislation did little to address reducing firearms ownership through some of their main pressure points like universal background checks and the prohibition of certain firearms. As gun ownership has increased so has the pressure to limit or reduce gun ownership with the belief that with more guns comes more violence and crime. Firearm ownership has increased during which we have seen a spike in violent crime in recent years in this country, especially in urban areas. But their belief that more guns means more crime and more mass shootings may simply be a false equivalency. This increase in ownership has been steadily climbing over the past couple decade while the violent crime rate has been dropping over the past few decades. Lawful gun ownership has continually been on the rise and not just with white males. Female and minority ownership has been on the rise, with Black females representing one of the groups with some of the largest increases in ownership in recent years. As socially aware as liberals should be, many of those with an anti-gun viewpoint seem to be missing the point on the causes of gun violence that don’t have a focus on the firearms themselves.

The problem with gun violence in general stems greatly from the social problems that plague the poor neighborhoods of large cities, namely poor educational resources lead to an uneducated populace and poverty. Low levels of education limit the opportunities for upward social movement and good employment. Limited employment workforces and opportunities translates to little incentive to invest economically in these poor neighborhoods leading to even less job opportunities. The strain that the social problems introduce into the populace manifest themselves into mental health issues like anxiety, anger, and depression. The accompanying sense of hopelessness and limited opportunities results in a loss of collective efficacy which manifests into criminal behavior as well as a “code of the street” structure that drives revenge and retribution, stemming from a distorted honor culture that views violence as the way to engender respect and preserve social status. In these conditions, attempts to limit access to firearms does little to stop street gun violence and simply provides a market for additional criminality in the form of gun trafficking.

Access to guns also would seem to have little bearing on mass shootings and gun violence in general and has more to do with both mental health and a sense of anomie. That particular form of strain constitutes a sense of separation from society and the culture at large, leaving young people adrift in a society that appears not to value them, and which being valued is increasingly difficult. When you cease to be part of society and/or view yourself as separate from society and culture the restraints on abnormal or violent behavior become increasing y difficult to recognize and accept.

That sense of anomie may be particularly salient when it comes to the issue of mass shootings. Time magazine recently posted an article examining mass shootings and the gun culture in the Philippines. The Philippines, similar to the US, suffers from poverty , corruption, drug problems, and crime in addition to an authoritarian government regime. When Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972, Filipinos were limited to one handgun and one low powered rifle, both which had to be licensed with the government. But in 2000, President Estrada lifted these bans and allowed citizens to possess as many guns as they wanted, of any type and any caliber. In 2013, some limitations were placed on ownership and carrying in public through individual licensing, such as being 21 and taking a firearms safety seminar but the average citizen could own up to 15 firearms (collectors even more) but licenses were good for 10 years.

Yet, even while not enshrined in their constitution, firearms are an important feature in the culture, and similarities to our culture at large. include relatively easy access to firearms, a high percentage of illegally owned firearms, and a high rate of homicides involving firearms. It is one of the deadliest places in Asia when it comes to firearm homicides. The Philippines murder rate involving firearms is 1 out of 100,00 compared to the US murder rate of 4 out of 100,000.

But despite this proliferation of guns and gun culture the Philippines do not experience what we typically describe as mass shootings. To be sure there have been instances of large body counts but these are connected to politics or criminal gang activities but the “angry loner” type of gun violence that we see in schools, churches, shopping malls and workplaces are very rare. The victims were rarely bystanders and homicides had more to do with monetary gain or reward in a country were a quarter of the population is below the poverty line

While this lack of mass shootings could be due somewhat to the effect of a legal system that may deal harshly with criminal use of firearms more importantly, says Philippine academic Raymund Narag, an Associate Professor at Southern Illinois University, are the powerful social factors that have a restraining effect on indiscriminate violence. They are deterred in part by hiyâ. It is a Tagalog word meaning shame or embarrassment and avoiding it and sparing one’s family and community from it is often described as a core Philippine value. The idea that someone would engage in such behavior of random wanton violence would be seen as unconscionable and a source of shame that shouldn’t be visited on the family, friends, and community of a potential shooter. As with other Asian cultures, the importance of society and culture at large are paramount and the ties to society and cultural are not to be overridden by the individual self. Narang says the strong ties of Philippine kinship means troubled individuals are more likely to be identified before they become mass shooters. In the US “if you have a problem you are expected to go seek out a mental health professional,” though it entails stigma, access difficulty and financial burden, and “are expected to divulge everything there. You don’t talk to your neighbors or your parents (because the US doesn’t have an engaged culture) where one’s problem is everyone’s problem.” Jose Clemente, a professor of social psychology at the University of the Philippines, says the difference in his country is that community is everything. “At an early age we are taught to value our families and our relationships” and that that extends on to valuing their communities and developing close-knit relationships. This then makes avoiding hiyâ an important component of being a member of society.

In looking at mental health issues in this country, the idea of community and society and what is acceptable needs greater reinforcement at a younger age, holding individuals responsible for their effect on society as part of that society, and building those close-knit relationships that act as a form of social control rather than leaving individuals to suffer from anomie, adrift in a society they have weak or distorted connections to. Attention seeking through social media is no substitute for real community connections and a lack of accountability that encompasses more than what is offered by the legal system can lead individuals to have a distorted view of self and community. Trying to fix the problems of a disturbed individual on the cusp of committing violence with a deficient mental health system is a too little too late response. Rather, instilling a sense of community, personal responsibility, and the importance of real life connections to others at a young age may be a more effective response to dealing with the problem of mass shootings.

Welcome to Criminal Justice Access

Greetings everyone,

For November at criminaljusticeaccess.com, be sure to check out Research Briefs and explore an improved understanding of jurors’ assessment of eyewitness testimony, learn about profiling efforts to distinguish between single victim and serial rapists, understand how marijuana using mental health professionals relate risk to their marijuana using clients, and consider crime incident risk factors that support the use of tactical officers as opposed to their reported over-use.

Research Briefs

Evaluating Witness Testimony: Juror Knowledge, False Memory, and the Utility of Evidence-Based Directions

Helm, The International Journal if Evidence & Proof, 2021

Helm states that there is a general assumption that jurors are capable of accurately assessing the truthfulness of witnesses, including the accuracy of their recollections of the incident in question, based on their own experiences with memory recall. However, research in law and the cognitive sciences suggest that they do in fact have difficulty assessing the validity of other individuals’ memories. Jurors understand that factors like fearful and stressful emotions and intoxication, and observation circumstances such as distance from an event or lighting, will affect the recording of a memory. However they are less knowledgeable about the factors that affect memory recall, such as suggestion, after the memory is encoded, which can alter the recall of specifics or generate inaccurate or nonexistent events. This is problematic as false or misleading eyewitness testimony has been identified as a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Distinguishing between true and false memories can be challenging and jurors likely have a poor understanding of the cues that suggest a memory could be false. Juries are provided little guidance in identifying false memories and make mistakes based on intuitive concepts of memories rather than established cognitive science. Helm suggests how legal procedure can facilitate the presentation of information in this way, specifically in cases involving potential false memory.

False memories can be generated in a few ways. For example, source misattribution can occur when people are incapable of distinguishing between two or more sources of their memories. The image that people generate in their minds when thinking about an occurrence can be confused and misattributed to something that happened in reality. False memories can also be generated spontaneously when people recall the gist of something occurring. This familiarity with a person or event but not a specific, verbatim, precise recollection can result in a false memory For example, recalling a general description of an offender may produce a familiarity but is lacking in enough precise details that would determine the suspect is not a true match for the offender, which results in misidentification of a suspect. Helm also notes that “spontaneous false memory can also arise as a result of what is known as change blindness where a witness does not notice that a perpetrator and a bystander are actually different people. These errors can lead to an occurrence known as unconscious transference, or the familiar bystander effect. This effect refers to a memory error whereby a witness identifies a familiar, but innocent person, as an offender. For example, research has shown a tendency to misidentify an innocent bystander to a crime as an offender or to identify a familiar person from an entirely different context as an offender”.

While research has demonstrated how false memories can occur and is well accepted and understood in legal contexts, lay persons’ viewpoints on the generation of false memories diverge from the experts and as well are over confidant in the accuracy of memories. Helm states this lack of understanding must be accounted for and corrected by legal procedure. Direction can be provided to jurors, warning them of a need for caution before convicting a defendant in reliance on the correctness of the identification, debunk relevant memory “myths” (such as the belief that a confident witness is always reliable), list potential influential encoding factors, or explain relevant discrepancies in witness statements. It is also possible to call expert witnesses to explain memory pitfalls to jurors and judges.

Helm states that “in order to be effective, directions relating to witness memory must both appropriately alter juror knowledge relating to witness memory, and facilitate the application of that knowledge in a case context.” However in referencing the Turnbull directions in use in England and Wales, they may do neither and are essentially ineffective. As in the U.S., judges are not memory experts and the application of juror direction is dependent on the discretion of judges and that many cases are moved through the system based solely on eyewitness information. However, even if accurate information regarding memory is presented to jurors there may be a problem in the delivery of this information through a relatively superficial judicial direction following the presentation of the evidence. With jurors having their own “common sense” intuitions of about memory that needs to be dispelled, the relevant research and information about memory must be related with enough detail and background to be persuasive enough to update jurors beliefs. To influence jurors a more central direct approach may not be influential enough to change jurors’ minds. For example simply giving direction to the jurors that a confidant witness may not be accurate will be unlikely to change a juror’s mind as it lacks the meaningful information for the jurors to evaluate and substantiate the claim.

A different approach to jurors may be necessary as research indicates the leading model of jury decision making, the Story Model, indicates juries make decision by a narrative “story” organization on trial information. Evidence is incorporated into a narrative that explains what happened and verdicts are reached by matching the best fitting narrative to a verdict category. Their mental representations of evidence in story structure indicate that “jurors are more likely to remember evidence that is consistent with the story associated with their verdict, and that jurors are likely to find evidence more important where that evidence has a causal role in the story that is associated with their verdict”. Existing direction on witness testimony based on their recollections is insufficient to establish an understanding with jurors how those concerns may apply or how they fit into their narratives. For example, not being given detailed information, based on research, on the types of situations were witnesses may not be reliable or credible, or how jurors can be helped evaluate whether the “confident witness” is indeed accurate. Also, directions may be too cursory to be effectively incorporated into their narratives. Jurors too often consider the overall gist, or inferred meaning of the evidence, provided rather than verbatim details. It’s thus necessary to make the evidence and directions regarding it more meaningful to jurors, which will facilitate more informed decision making. Overly simplified directions by a judge that “warns the jury that even a witness who is very confident may be incorrect, but without being told why this might be the case, or being given examples of the types of other cases in which memory has been impaired in this way, it is likely to be difficult for jurors to extract meaning from it appropriately”. Lacking this context may result in either jurors being dismissive of all witness evidence, jurors not attributing meaning to the information at all and disregarding it in decision making, or attributing meaning to the information in a biased way-judging the importance of the warning based on their unrelated conceptions of the case-for example if they feel overall that the defendant seems guilty they might conclude that although confident witnesses can be wrong, the confidence in the case at hand does signal accuracy. A third problem exists if the directions are not provided prior to the presentation of evidence as it will be difficult for jurors to incorporate this new information into a narrative that has already been constructed or they will simply alter the understanding of this new information to fit into the already established narrative.

Helm states to be effective juror instruction about the accuracy and validity of witness testimony should follow these guidelines:

Provide jurors with sufficient information to allow them to evaluate the case for the conclusions presented and update their beliefs accordingly.
Provide jurors with sufficient information to allow them to understand the types of cases in which particular concerns may be important, and why; and
Instructions that are consistently given prior to the presentation of case evidence in order to inform juror narrative construction from evidence, and to reduce effects of motivated cognition or confirmatory bias in juror interpretation and analysis of information given.

Helm’s recent research sought support for these contentions utilizing 411 participants as mock jurors reading case vignettes. Participants were grouped into no instruction, basic instruction, and detailed training instruction groups and were also asked a series of memory questions rating their agreement with statements regarding 1) Eyewitness testimony about an event often reflects not only what they actually saw but also information they obtained later on, 2) Eyewitnesses sometimes identify as a culprit someone they have seen in another situation or context, and 3) An eyewitness’s confidence can be influenced by factors that are unrelated to identification accuracy. Helm’s results provide support for more in-depth training instruction for jurors. Basic instruction did increase consensus with existing scientific research on false memory compared to no instruction to a small degree. However, the training instruction was clearly more effective at increasing the level of juror belief with the scientific consensus. The training group, but not the basic instruction group, also indicated an influence on case outcomes. In vignettes with weak evidence less guilty verdicts were produced, however in strong evidence cases the training direction did not influence the number of guilty verdicts, which Helm states demonstrated that training directions helped jurors effectively identify an enhanced risk of false memory, rather than just introducing a general skepticism of towards any eyewitness testimony.

While the study did have some limitations it did indicate that more specific detailed instruction can assist jurors in making informed decisions and can be utilized with other juror misconceptions such as witnesses that are inconsistent are lying or mistaken (when they could be influenced by trauma), or in using them to dispel rape myths. Helm states more work needs to be done in research with real life juries, which can lead to policy that can be put into actual practice in the courtroom.

Helm, R. K. (2021). Evaluating witness testimony: Juror knowledge, false memory, and the utility of evidence-based directions. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 25(4), 264-285.

Predicting Rapist Type Based on Crime-Scene Violence, Interpersonal Involvement, and Criminal Sophistication in U.S. Stranger Rape Cases

Mellick, Jeglic, Bogaard, International Journal of Police Science & Management, 2021

The authors contend that in stranger rape cases, physical evidence like DNA and fingerprints may be absent or inconclusive and that in these cases, offender profiling, linking crime scene behavior to an offender, may be useful in resolving those cases. Similarities in crime scene behaviors may point to offenders whose past offenses may have exhibited the same behaviors or suggest a certain type of offender has perpetrated the offenses.

While offender profiling may in some ways be lacking scientific rigor, two assumptions underlie profiling: the consistency assumption and the homology assumption. Consistency assumes that the actions of any offender are consistent across offenses, i.e. there will be a repetition of particular aspects of behavior if the same offender engages in the same type of offense again, such as in serial murder or serial rape. Homology assumes a likeness between the character of an offender and the behavior they engage in at a crime scene, so rather than differentiating between offenders by the presence or absence of singular individual behaviors it examines groups of behaviors across groups of offenders. This “accounts for the possibility that a serial offender may not engage in the exact same behavior across a series of crimes, or likewise, that two different offenders may not engage in the same exact behavior but have rather thematically similar behavior”.

Rapists can be classified based on their behavioral themes by analyzing their crime scene behavior. As these offenders interact with other people in a similar way in non-criminal scenarios, they will interact with victims in a similar way during their offenses. This means it’s possible to link a crime and offender based on their behavioral themes. So a serial offender will exhibit similar behavior across similar offenses, and offender distinctiveness, meaning that two offenders will not behave in the exact same way, makes it possible to distinguish between them.

The authors state that previous research has found different themes explain the differences between rapists; themes of hostility, involvement, and control. Hostility entails overtly aggressive interaction, involvement pertains to physical or verbal attempted contact with the victim such as kissing, complimenting, or reassuring the victim, and control utilizes a surprise attack or weapon to control the victim. Other research suggests similar theme methodology, such as hostility, dominance, and compliance gaining. However, the behaviors tied to these themes may be altered or varied in the offense depending on the context of the situation, namely the victims behavior, making analysis of the factors important in understanding offender behavior. Offenders’ level of initiating violence, victim age, and offender mobility are all factors that will affect the characteristics of the behavioral themes, Offenders will also decide how to act based on the effort, rewards, and costs involved in their course of action which contributes to their profile.

The authors state it’s also important to distinguish between single victim rapists and serial rapists but there has been little research examining the differences between the two. However, research has indicated that single victim rapists are usually known to their victims and use a confidant approach compared to the overwhelming characteristics of serial rapists being strangers to their victims and utilizing surprise attacks. Some research in this area indicates more violence and interpersonal contact (such as inducing the victim to participate) with single victim rapists than serial rapists, however serial rapists show more criminal sophistication (in avoidance of detection and apprehension) in comparison. While stranger rape is more difficult for the police to investigate, their crime scene characteristics can be used to profile offenders. The authors contend that while research has examined serial rapes, single victim rapes, and stranger rapes separately, or comparing serial rapists to single victim rapists, no studies have compared single victim rapes and serial rapes in the stranger rapist context. In the authors’ study, they sought to examine these differences in the stranger rape context hypothesizing that single victim rapists would use more violence and interpersonal contact while serial rapists would show a greater criminal sophistication than there single victim counterparts.

Utilizing the case files of 3,168 male sex offenders they composed a sub-sample of stranger rapes involving 244 single victim rapists (SVR) and 141 serial rapists (SER) (37% White, 47% Black, and 14% Latino) whose victims were 84% female. The violence component examined the amount of physical violence and included offender threats and oral, anal, and digital penetration. The criminal sophistication component involved, the use of weapons, drugs and alcohol, isolation of the offense location, bondage or incapacitation of the victim, and grooming or luring the victim. The interpersonal theme examined whether the offender caressed the victim, performed oral sex on them, induced participation, or introduced pornography into the crime.

Significant differences were found in the demographics of SVR and SER with most SVR being single while SER tended to be divorced. Significant racial differences were also found. While SVR were more evenly represented among White (35%), Black (45%) and Latino (18%), the SER sub-sample demonstrated fewer Latinos were represented (8%) and Whites comprised 40% and Blacks 51%.

Significant differences existed in the three crime scene behaviors between SVR and SER. In the violence theme there were no significant differences between most penetration and actual physical violence between the two groups however, SVR were more likely to use threats of violence and digital penetration compared to SER. Significant differences were also found in different areas of criminal sophistication. Compared to SVR, SER were significantly more likely to use a weapon, more likely to use a gun or knife as a weapon, incapacitate/choke their victims, and groom/meet or lure their victims to a location. However SVR were more likely to have used drugs or alcohol during the crime and commit the crime in an unknown or new location, compared to SER. The only significant difference in the interaction theme was that SER were more likely to induce participation from the victims compared to SVR. The significant characteristics, placed in a logistic regression model for prediction of type of rapist was found to explain 35% of the variance in rapist type and overall correctly classified 75.8 percent of the type of rapist cases.

The authors conclude that “these findings could be used to identify potential suspects in stranger rape cases because the crime scene information could help law enforcement determine whether they are looking for individuals who have committed these types of crimes previously and may already be in the system”. They also suggest that “the crime-scene behaviors associated with serial rapists could also be used to identify unknown offenders as possible serial offenders. This includes individuals who may have committed sexual offenses before, but who have never been caught and cases where offenders have just started their rape career. This allows for law enforcement to narrow down their suspect pool and thus assist the investigation”.

While this study is exploratory the findings can guide future research by testing the predictive power in actual crime scenes as well as more closely examine different regions and cultural groups as well as include more crime scene characteristics not examined here such as developmental factors, triggering behaviors before an attack, or the cognitive processes involved in the offender’s planning before an attack.

Mellink, I. S., Jeglic, E. L., & Bogaard, G. (2021). Predicting rapist type based on crime-scene violence, interpersonal involvement, and criminal sophistication in US stranger rape cases. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 14613557211036564.

Cannabis Use Among Mental Health Professionals: A Qualitative Study of Cannabis-Related Risk Perceptions

Ghelani, Journal of Drug Issues, 2021

The author recognizes that there are potential risks and harms in marijuana use. Research indicates the potential for issues of dependence, cognitive deficits, anxiety, and the risks of driving while intoxicated. These risks may be poorly understood or not attributed to marijuana use if users assume that marijuana is considered to be harmless, specifically considering the current legal status of marijuana in Canada.. The author explores whether mental health professionals who were themselves marijuana users, were cognizant of the risks that do exist in treating individuals who were also marijuana users.

The small qualitative Canadian study consisted of seven professionals (three social workers, two psychotherapists, a nurse, and a nurse practitioner) whose clients worked with marijuana users and explored the extent that study participants were aware of and addressed marijuana use risk with their clients and in their own use.

Overall, all the participants recognized the psychosocial risks involved in marijuana use by their clients and in some cases, when relevant, in their own use. Anxiety, panic, and avoidance behavior was the most prevalent risks mentioned by the participants, especially amongst young and/or inexperienced users, though two participants noted they do experience some anxiety in social situations. Most of the participants noted that marijuana use could also negatively affect interpersonal relationships through anxiety caused by peer pressure or a fear of separation from their peers who used. Some participants noted the effects on clients stemming from tension in parental or spousal relationships from non-users, as well as the social stigma that results when their clients are viewed as “criminal”, a “stoner”, or ” lazy” because of their marijuana use. The participants were also very well aware of the dangers of driving while intoxicated on marijuana and related how chronic use may also affect employment if their clients’ jobs require the operation of a vehicle.

Beyond social issues, the participants also discussed the cognitive and neurological impairments and risks their clients might face or experience. Five of the participants discussed how marijuana use could lead to psychosis and exacerbate symptoms of schizophrenia. The suggestion put forth to their clients was to stop using cannabis because they were experiencing symptoms along the schizophrenic spectrum, with some participants noting that cannabis has the potential to make young people more vulnerable to psychosis or for long term users to be more resistant to anti-psychotic medications. Most of participants discussed how cognitive functioning could be impaired, especially in the brains of adolescents and young adults, cautioning against their use of marijuana. Some participants discussed the possibility of decreased motivation and reduced day to day function with some clients as well as how it may affect memory, attention, and concentration. Two participants themselves noted that it decreases their concentration and smoking too much “allows their mind to wander”. Most of the participants noted that these issues can affect education and employment function and cautioned their clients from using before or during work, or when starting a new position, as memory issues, motivation, and interaction with others can be negatively affected.

Four of the participants noted the potential for cannabis use to lead to a chronic habit or dependence. Unhealthy use patterns like “wake and bake” (starting the morning by getting high) may signal dependence. Two of the participants expressed some concerns about developing a psychological dependence themselves, such as habitual use in a situation where they felt like they should have refrained, or in using to calm themselves or help cope with stressful situations rather than utilizing other methods.

The authors discuss how the framework of rational choice can be utilized to examine these results. While the participants and their clients are aware of the risks or negative outcomes that can be associated with marijuana use, in the cost benefit analysis the benefits such as relaxation, mood enhancement, relief of anxiety, and pain relief outweigh the potential costs for both study participants and their clients as well. Indeed, few of the participants noted any negative outcomes from their use but they all held a comprehensive understanding of the potential risks. Interestingly, while there is some evidence of small physiological risk from marijuana use, only one of the participants mentioned the potential pulmonary or cardiovascular effects. However this may stem from a greater focus from the participants on the psychosocial aspects of use as it relates to their employment field. The study does provide evidence that legalization, acceptance, and use does not preclude mental health professions from recognizing the potential risks involved with marijuana use nor does it inhibit them from sharing that information and treating clients who may be struggling with use, abuse or dependence issues.

Ghelani, A. (2021). Cannabis Use Among Mental Health Professionals: A Qualitative Study of Cannabis-Related Risk Perceptions. Journal of Drug Issues, 51(4), 679-689

The Role of Context in Understanding the Use of Tactical Officers: A Brief Research Note

Jenkins, Semple & Bennell, International Journal of Police Science & Management, 2021

The authors note that the use of tactical officers and services are being utilized more frequently in North America and in more incidents than in what is typically recognized as high risk incidents, like hostage taking, such as in proactive policing and warrant service. Some observers are concerned that these activities are disproportionally focused on minority communities. While the authors do give consideration to the view that the use of tactical police officers and services may not be called for in all instances, where they are used the authors contend that view often doesn’t consider the risk factors in those incidents that suggest the appropriateness and utility of those officers and services. They state that analyses of tactical operations use too often focuses on the type of call rather than the risk factors that may be present in the calls themselves. What might appear to be a relatively benign domestic disturbance type call may not account for risk factors like the violent or resistive history of the subject, situational factors like intoxication, and the presence of weapons. Feedback from tactical officers indicated these risk factors are typically in play in the calls that they respond to but these risk factors are typically not examined in studies of the use of tactical officers. The authors sought to use their current project to analyze more detailed contextual factors in the use of Canadian tactical officers. Using the same Winnipeg Police service data used in a previous study to suggest an increase in the use of tactical officers, the authors broke out the contextual data from the incidents to analyze the risk assessment for these types of situations. A coding scheme was setup and the four contextual risk factors analyzed were the history of the subject, (for example, their propensity of violence toward the police), the state of the individual, (for example, intoxication), the subject making threats to their own or others safety, and the belief that weapons were present, along with other contextual data contained in incident reports. Call type was also hierarchically coded to indicate the level of risk in the type of call.

Analyzing differences in the number of tactical responses between 2013 and 2016 indicated that a significant increase in deployment (from 474 in 2013 to 2757 in 2016) was more of a result in a change in reporting rather than change in their actual use. Data showed tactical officers responded to 78 different types of calls, though the vast majority (81% ) were reactive as opposed to planned operations. The most common calls tactical officers responded to were active warrant arrests, gun and weapons calls, shots fired, breaking and entering, domestics, alarm calls, suspicious persons, and well-being checks.

In regard to weapons believed to be on the scene, despite the variation in calls, on average, 60% of the calls indicated a weapon was involved, with more weapons present in the 2016 data than in 2013. Of the weapons believed to be present firearms were mostly commonly reported in 2013 (42%) and in 2016 (48%). In the cases where additional information reported, call types that indicated a firearm was likely to be present on the scene, such as gun call, shots, fired, and gunshot wound, made up approximately half the calls where guns were thought to be present. However, of the calls in which a firearm was believed to be present, 59% of those calls were not firearm related. The authors state the findings suggest that simply looking at the call type is not a reliable indicator of the presence of weapons and suggests a variability of situations within call categories. It also appears that weapons are frequently believed to be present on seemingly benign calls like domestic disturbances, traffic incidents, and warrant executions, etc. With the concern over the use of tactical officers responding to “routine” calls the authors sought to determine how frequently firearms were believed to be present at some of these reportedly routine calls. The presence of firearms were believed to be present at 45% of suicidal threat and mental well being checks, as well as half of warrant executions and domestic disturbances, suggesting these are not low risk routine calls but actually pose a significant risk to officers and the public.

The other risk factor with enough additional information to be analyzed was the subjects’ history. Less information on the subject was available on reactive calls that tactical officers responded to (28% of tactical officer calls) versus planned operations (like warrant executions). The most frequently reported history risk factors in incidents were possessing weapons (8%), gang affiliations and previous murder or attempted murder charges (slightly greater than 1% for each). However 6% of calls also entailed the individual making explicit threats toward themselves, the public or the police.

The research indicated that the majority of tactical officer responses were utilized in planned operation like warrant executions which entailed a variety of entry approaches from no-knock (approximately 1/3 of warrant executions), to knock and announce, knock and talk, or surround and call out, as well as being involved in subject takes downs and surveillance. Exploratory analysis between the roles of tactical officers and the belief that weapons were present on the scene, utilizing Chi Square, found a significant relationship. Specifically, knock and talk, and knock and announce, were used significantly more when no weapons were believed to be present compared to situations where firearms were believed to be present, while surround and call out and high risk takedowns were used significantly more when weapons were believed to be present. No knock entries were significantly more frequent when the belief that weapons were not present suggesting other factors, such as the likelihood of destroying evidence, contributed to that entry method, supported by the evidence that controlled drug and substance warrants made up nearly all the no knock warrants.

The authors conclude that a view that tactical officers are misused on routine calls, including warrant executions, and should be scaled back, misjudges the seemingly benign nature of these calls. Rather, the belief that weapons were present at the majority of these calls and that call type was generally not of indicative of the risk posed to the public or officers as the belief in weapons being present at supposedly low risk situations prompted the use of tactical officers. Thus the belief that a tactical response is unwarranted in routine calls may be a misguided view when this additional context is included. The authors did recognize that the limited contextual information in some call data prevents them from making policy recommendations but rather illustrates that contextual data is an important consideration in regard to making tactical police utilization and policy decisions. However this does require policing agencies to collect more detailed contextual information more frequently, in a standardized manner, in order to better assess the use of these officers and the policies recommendation affecting their deployment.

Jenkins, B., Semple, T., Bennell, C., & Huey, L. (2021). The role of context in understanding the use of tactical officers: A brief research note. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 23(4), 385-391.

Welcome to Criminal Justice Access

Greetings everyone,

For the month of May, at criminaljusticeaccess.com, I’ve posted 2019 UCR crime data (2020 data is not available). For 2019, the FBI summary concludes “For the third consecutive year, the estimated number of violent crimes in the nation decreased when compared with the previous year’s statistics. In 2019, violent crime was down 0.5 percent from the 2018 number. Property crimes also dropped 4.1 percent, marking the seventeenth consecutive year the collective estimates for these offenses declined. The 2019 statistics show the estimated rate of violent crime was 366.7 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants, and the estimated rate of property crime was 2,109.9 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants. The violent crime rate fell 1.0 percent when compared with the 2018 rate; the property crime rate declined 4.5 percent.”

While overall numbers and rates have declined, within the individual index crimes, data on murder shows that while they have been declining since a peak in 2016, they showed a slight increase from 2018 to 2019, comparing CIUS 2018 to 2019. However, there is a discrepancy as the 2019 CIUS states there has been a slight decrease from 2018 and references a higher number of offenses occurring in 2018 than was stated in the 2018 version. Rape offenses have been on a steady rise since 2014, though the slight increase from 2018 to 2019 is flattening the slope of the trend. Robbery offense numbers had been relatively steady from 2014 to 2016 but started to drop in 2017. That trend continues with a slight decrease in robberies from 2018 to 2019. Aggravated assault offenses having been relatively steady from 2016 to 2018 following a rise in previous years, experienced another rise between 2018 and 2019.

Burglary offenses continue their sharp decline but the decline between 2018 and 2019 was not as large as the previous two years. Larceny and theft offenses have also been on a steady decline and 2019 was no exception. Motor vehicle thefts, having been on the rise since 2014, plateaued in 2017 and declined both in 2018 and 2019. Arson as well has seen a slight decline in both 2018 and 2019.

Check out 2019 US Crime Data for more details.