During the horror of last week, you would be forgiven for missing a very welcome development: the new executive order from @POTUS on policing. Read on.
On the anniversary of the brutal murder of George Floyd, the President signed an order including a new federal use-of-force standard, database for police misconduct, a ban on chokeholds, and restrictions on no-knock warrants, among other reforms. whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
These changes are closely aligned with the @CouncilonCJ's Policing Task Force recommendations, which was directed by @NLVigne. I'm so proud of that influential work, which carefully examined the evidence on which reforms have worked, and which haven't. counciloncj.org/tfp/
The majority of the reforms announced focus on federal law enforcement, because that's what the President has authority over. Still, federal reforms send a powerful signal to states and localities on how policing needs to change.
These reforms will make a difference, and they strike a balance between establishmentarians refusing any reforms and activists insisting on radical change. Biden's USDOJ, lead by @vanitaguptaCR, has gotten this balance largely right from the start. washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
At the state and local levels, there is also room for cautious optimism. As described in this article from @Arnold_Ventures, 20 states enacted 48 police accountability measures in 2020. 132 measures were enacted by 38 states. arnoldventures.org/stories/we-hav…
These changes are incremental, but they are real. They will be pilloried by some in law enforcement as going too far too fast, and they will be dismissed by #Defund radicals as toothless and meaningless. But for the rest of us, collectively they represent important progress.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
10 years later, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) still makes a difference, according to this important study by @cblatts and others. This is great news for the anti-violence field. Read on. vox.com/future-perfect…
As CCJ's Violent Crime Working Group has noted, "Of the anti-violence interventions not involving law enforcement, CBT appears to have the strongest track record of success." counciloncj.org/meeting-bullet…
And a CBT program that works with the highest risk individuals in Chicago recently showed mixed but promising results.
If you're trying to make sense of which policies work to reduce gun violence, it's helpful to keep in mind that here in the U.S., we don't really have one gun violence problem, we have at least four. Read on.
The first are gun suicides, which cause the most gun deaths. Some don't consider this "violence" bc the harm is self-inflicted, but given that almost 25k lost their lives in 2020 to this it's well worth including. I exclude accidents bc thankfully there aren't nearly as many.
The second are mass shootings, which cause the fewest homicides but get the most attention. According to the CDC, horrific incidents like #Uvalde account for less than 1% of total gun deaths.
I think Patterson and Densley correctly analyzed the problem: hurt, angry men looking to lash out. But the solutions in their book are not helpful from a policy perspective - they essentially call for more of everything. /1
I call this policy "moreism" - someone accurately identifies a social problem and says, "If you give me tons of attention, resources, and support, I can solve this." Well, yeah, but that's true of most problems and doesn't acknowledge the reality of scarcity. /2
It might feel good to ask for everything, but by doing so, you're actually more likely to get nothing. Instead, we need a list of "doable" items in priority order to get momentum going. /3
According to excellent work by @Crimealytics, we can expect murder to be up about 7% nationally in 2021. That follows a 29% surge in homicides in 2020. Why is this happening? What can be done?
Short answer: this is happening because of the pandemic, politics, and guns. The pandemic has put everyone under intense pressure, but since #COVID concentrates among the same people and places that violence does, they feel it worst of all.
The more pressure, the more people act out. Adding on to that, the institutions responsible for responding to violence - police, community-based interrupters, etc. - are all under intense pressure too. As Rick Rosenfeld and I have said before, it's a perfect storm.
@abbie_henson Thanks for asking. In criminal justice policy (not academia), we deal with big, tough, real issues. Life, death, freedom, incarceration. No one can challenge the undeniable salience, gravitas, and objective reality of murder, for instance.
@abbie_henson The research I’m interested in gives concrete guidance on how to save lives and keep people free. Agree those engaged in such research should strive for objectivity, but can never be totally so. Also agree they should be transparent about that.
@abbie_henson Strongly disagree that objectivity is an illusion just because it cannot be perfected. The @urbaninstitute blog didn’t just call for critical reflection, as you are. It threw the baby out with the bath water, describing objectivity and rigor as “harmful research practices.”