« The haze and litigation maze after Baze | Main | Victim rights amendments on Oregon ballot »
May 4, 2008
Food for crime-fighting thought
These two recent notable article provide reasons to ponder the possibility that sentencing policies need not, and perhaps should not, be the primary way in which we try to fight crime:
- From The Economist, this piece describes success in the battle against meth by noting, inter alia, that "[w]hen Safe Streets, a community group, asked pupils to design their own anti-drug posters, many emphasised cosmetic hazards over chemical ones."
- From The New York Times Magazine, this piece describes efforts to deal with urban violent crime through a disease-treatment philosophy: "Zale Hoddenbach, who works for an organization called CeaseFire, is part of an unusual effort to apply the principles of public health to the brutality of the streets."
May 4, 2008 at 02:53 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200e5520daaa28833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Food for crime-fighting thought:
Comments
The NYT article was very interesting. I guess the violence interrupters act like white corpuscles to follow the medical metaphor but not all white corpuscles are equal (in this case ) so the metaphor is not perfect. When you are desperate you will try anything and sometimes it works. If it does you ask why did it work and can we make it work again?
Posted by: John Neff | May 4, 2008 6:30:36 PM
I just love the Economist:
"So grim was the methamphetamine experience in Pierce county that some view the rise of crack cocaine with relief."
Ah, success as measured by drug warriors.
Posted by: Alec | May 4, 2008 8:10:43 PM
Doug, like Alec, I found that Economist piece really bizarre. I offered this brief analysis of why when it came out.
Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | May 5, 2008 10:38:16 AM
