~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Los Angeles Times

Hate crimes against gay, transgender people rise, report says

The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs report says violent crimes against people in the LGBT community rose 13% in 2010, and that minorities and transgender women were more likely to be targeted.

by Lee Romney, Los Angeles Times

July 13, 2011

An 18-year-old gay man from Texas allegedly slain by a classmate who feared a sexual advance. A 31-year-old transgender woman from Pennsylvania found dead with a pillowcase around her head. A 24-year-old lesbian from Florida purportedly killed by her girlfriend's father, who disapproved of the relationship.

The homicides are a sampling of 2010 crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people compiled by a national coalition of anti-hate organizations.

The report, released Tuesday, showed a 13% increase over 2009 in violent crimes committed against people because of their perceived or actual sexual orientation, gender identity or status as HIV positive, according to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.

Last year's homicide count reached 27, up from 22 in 2009, and was the second-highest total since the coalition began tracking such crimes in 1996. Of those killed, 70% were minorities and 44% were transgender women.

The data are compiled by the coalition's 43 participating organizations and are not comprehensive. They include crimes reported to the groups by victims who did not seek help from law enforcement. In fact, 50% of the 2010 assault survivors did not make police reports, with minorities and transgender people the least likely to come forward, the report said.

Among the cases was an April 2010 attack on Cal State Long Beach transgender student Colle Carpenter, who was cornered in a campus restroom by an assailant who carved "It" on his chest. Jake Finney, project manager with the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, said campus police initially "were not clear that the word 'It' was a slur and indicated anti-transgender bias." The center contacted the FBI, which assisted in the investigation, and the crime was ultimately classified as hate-motivated, Finney said.

The 2010 murder count is second to the 29 logged in 1999 and 2008. Among the 2008 fatalities was gay Oxnard junior high school student Larry King. The classmate charged in that killing, Brandon McInerney, is on trial.

Coalition members said hate crimes tended to increase after other high-profile attacks and when civil rights advances for the LGBT community were publicly debated.

"As we move forward toward full equality, we also have to be responsive and concerned with violence that may run alongside of it," spokeswoman Roberta Sklar said. "We don't want to go back into the closet to avoid it."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-lgbt-hate-crimes-20110713,0,148393,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama gives Social Security warning in debt debate

The president says checks are not guaranteed without an increase in the debt ceiling. Sen. Mitch McConnell offers a proposal that could have political consequences.

by Christi Parsons and Lisa Mascaro, Washington Bureau

July 13, 2011

Reporting from Washington

President Obama said he "cannot guarantee" that millions of Social Security beneficiaries would get their checks as scheduled next month unless he and congressional leaders agreed to raise the nation's debt limit by Aug. 2, a warning that came as both sides ratcheted up the tension over the monthlong standoff.

Amid a volley of charges and countercharges over who would bear responsibility for a crisis, the Senate's Republican leader proposed a complex plan under which Congress would largely surrender its authority to determine the debt ceiling.

The proposal offered by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would essentially flip the debt ceiling process on its head. Rather than vote on measures to raise the debt limit, members of Congress would vote on bills that would forbid increases. Obama's presumably certain veto of the measures would allow the ceiling to rise. Politically, Republicans could claim to be voting to hold the line against a higher limit, safe in the knowledge that there would be no catastrophic default on federal borrowings.

But the plan would essentially abandon the GOP quest to use the debt ceiling as a mechanism to force deep cuts in the federal budget, and was widely criticized by conservatives.

Obama has rejected plans for a short-term agreement, but the White House said McConnell's proposal was an acknowledgment of the importance of meeting U.S. obligations.

The back-and-forth played out Tuesday in a darkening atmosphere, with the White House saying that federal officials would face a "Sophie's choice" in deciding what to pay when federal revenue falls short of bills coming due, as is expected in the absence of an increase in borrowing authority from Congress.

Obama wants a resolution within 10 days to avoid unpredictable reactions by financial markets to the growing uncertainty, but Republicans accuse the White House of trying to stampede them to an agreement.

Until now, administration officials have declined to specify which bills they would pay after Aug. 2 with no increase in borrowing authority.

But in an interview with "CBS Evening News," Obama issued his most explicit warning about government benefits and said for the first time that the elderly might not be the only ones affected.

"This is not just a matter of Social Security checks," Obama said. "These are veterans' checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out every month."

Based on cash flow projections, the government will have enough to cover only slightly more than 55% of its bills in August.

Republicans have said the Treasury Department should prioritize its bills. But besides debt service, the biggest government bills are for Social Security checks, Medicare, weapons for the military, fuel, active-duty military personnel and unemployment benefits.

"That would then entail a kind of 'Sophie's choice' situation where you have to decide what bills you can pay," said Jay Carney, the president's spokesman. "So, no, we can't guarantee, if there were a default, any specific bill will be paid."

Carney said the administration did not want to confront a decision to pay "the Chinese government, but not pay Social Security recipients or veterans' benefits recipients."

Some Republicans said Obama was resorting to scare tactics to win an increase in the debt ceiling. "Telling seniors that they may not receive their Social Security checks is his backdoor way of trying to fulfill his desire to raise the debt limit without any conditions," said freshman Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.).

McConnell, the minority leader, ignited a conservative backlash with his proposal to force Obama to repeatedly return to Congress for debt ceiling increases.

McConnell's plan, if passed, would create a legislative mechanism in which Obama would be required to request an increase in the debt ceiling in three stages, with the biggest increase scheduled for next summer, in the heat of the presidential campaign. Republicans and Democrats alike could then vote to oppose the request. If that "measure of disapproval" passes Congress, then Obama could veto it and the request would essentially be approved. Only a two-thirds majority in Congress could override the veto.

The plan would force Democrats to take a political hit for raising the debt ceiling and allow the GOP to vote against it without risk of default.

McConnell said his proposal was not his "first choice," but that he had little alternative but to offer a contingency plan. "As long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable," McConnell said.

McConnell's proposal quickly angered conservatives on and off Capitol Hill, some of whom did not see the logic in walking away from a possible deal that could produce spending cuts in the trillions. Critics called it an abdication of Congress' responsibility, and Freedom Works, the large "tea party" group, urged its Twitter followers to tell McConnell to "find his spine."

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said in a tweet that McConnell's proposal was "an irresponsible surrender to big government, big deficits and continued overspending."

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, called McConnell's plan "the height of irresponsibility" for allowing an increase in borrowing authority without budget controls.

The proposal was presented at talks at the White House as congressional leaders convened for a third consecutive day of negotiations.

"Sen. McConnell's proposal today reaffirmed what leaders of both parties have stated clearly, that defaulting on America's past-due bills is not an option," Carney said, while reiterating that Obama favors a long-term plan on debt and deficits.

Tuesday's talks did not appear to resolve an impasse over Medicare cuts and tax increases. Republicans have outlined $350 billion in cuts to the senior healthcare program, including higher costs participants would have to pay.

Seniors would be hit with increased costs for lab services, post-acute care and supplemental policy benefits, among other changes.

Democrats have refused to agree to such reductions in Medicare without increases in federal revenue, which the GOP has rejected.

The impasse over Medicare and taxes represents a key obstacle to reaching the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction the GOP wants in exchange for its vote to raise the debt limit.

Both Democratic and Republican congressional leaders moved to shore up their caucuses Tuesday at closed-door meetings as lawmakers grew restless over the debate.

Rank-and-file Republicans worry that cuts will be insufficient to satisfy their tea party constituents. McConnell was told at the White House this week that cuts would amount to only $2 billion in fiscal 2012, according to a congressional aide familiar with the closed-door session.

In an appeal to conservative Republicans, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) promised at a private meeting that he would support their call for a balanced-budget amendment. "We're going to fight for one," Boehner said, according to a source in the room.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-debt-talks-20110713,0,2703272,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tightened borders force immigrant smugglers to take risky sea routes

Guard troops and customs authorities arrest 14 suspected illegal immigrants after their boat overturns in heavy surf, two days after a group of 15 were found stranded on Santa Cruz Island.

by Sam Quinones and Andrew Blankstein, Los Angeles Times

July 13, 2011

Before dawn Tuesday, California National Guard troops spotted a suspected smuggling boat moving up the coast from San Diego.

The boat had no lights and after about an hour, it headed for shore at Crystal Cove State Park, near Newport Beach in Orange County.

In the rough surf, the small craft flipped, spilling its occupants into the ocean.

No one was hurt. But federal customs authorities, working with the Guard troops, arrested 14 suspected illegal immigrants, all from Mexico; another immigrant escaped and remains at large.

The incident came two days after 15 immigrants from Mexico were rescued from Santa Cruz Island, where, according to authorities, they were abandoned by a smuggler.

The two cases are only the latest in an increasing number of forays by traffickers seeking to avoid increased enforcement on land. The panga boats used by smugglers are not designed for deep-water trips and are unsafe, officials said.

"In recent weeks we've had multiple instances where smuggled aliens have been ejected from these boats, suffering fairly significant injuries," said Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Over the last year, boatloads of illegal immigrants have been captured from San Diego to Malibu. In one case, a woman with a broken nose and a man with a broken leg were hospitalized.

As the battle over illegal immigration has increasingly shifted to the California coast, a regional task force has been formed by several agencies to combat maritime smuggling. In the next month, Kice said, a full-time patrol boat, financed by the Department of Homeland Security, will be seeking out smugglers.

Last year, 867 illegal immigrants and smugglers were arrested at sea or along the California coast, more than double the number in 2009. Most landings occurred on San Diego and Orange County beaches. In the last year, the U.S. attorney's office in Orange County has brought charges against at least 17 individuals tied to maritime smuggling.

Meanwhile, those engaging in human trafficking have also been smuggling drugs, which has led to discoveries of vessels on Santa Catalina Island and Santa Rosa Island. Smuggling groups have also resorted to posting lookouts to watch for authorities.

On Saturday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection marine agents stopped a pleasure boat off the coast of Dana Point and found 500 pounds of marijuana. The agents arrested two men aboard and two more at a nearby dock, according to the agency.

The first maritime loads of immigrants were found along the San Diego coast in 2009. As authorities cracked down, smugglers began sailing farther north before attempting to come ashore.

Moreover, Kice said, "smuggling organizations are taking these loads farther and farther out to sea." Some boats have been tracked 50 miles to 100 miles offshore, she said.

In May, authorities tracking a maritime smuggling operation raided an Anaheim apartment and found nine illegal immigrants, wet and caked with sand. Their boat had come ashore in Carlsbad in San Diego County after developing engine trouble.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0713-immigrant-boat-20110713,0,1893709,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Medical marijuana: Research, not fear

The DEA is right in saying there's not enough scientific evidence about the medical uses of cannabis. But that's because the government's paranoia about the plant makes legitimate research on possible benefits all but impossible.

July 13, 2011

What is it that makes marijuana more frightening to the federal government than cocaine or morphine? The Drug Enforcement Administration has steadfastly, over decades, listed marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no medical value and that the potential for abuse is high. Cocaine and morphine, far more dangerous and habit-forming, are listed as Schedule II because they have some medical value.

Last week the DEA ruled once again, a decade after it made the same decision, that marijuana is a potentially dangerous drug without known medical benefits. During the intervening 10 years, though, nine more states passed medical marijuana laws, bringing the total to 17. Two years ago, the American Medical Assn. recommended changing the classification of marijuana to Schedule II, which would make it easier for researchers to obtain the drug for medical studies.

In March, the National Cancer Institute reported: "The potential benefits of medicinal cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief and improved sleep." However, it stopped short of endorsing marijuana as a medical treatment, concluding that there was too little evidence.

The cancer institute and the DEA are right that there's not enough scientific evidence about the medical uses of cannabis. But whose fault is that? The biggest reason there is so little proof about marijuana, one way or the other, is that the federal government is paranoid about legitimate research on the drug and has refused to relist it as Schedule II. The few and scattered studies that have been completed, in this country and around the world, have not proved marijuana's potential benefits, but by and large, they have produced some promising findings. In the late 1990s, both the New England Journal of Medicine and the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, suggested that marijuana appeared to have some medical uses and recommended more research.

Those recommendations went unheeded, and no wonder. All research-grade marijuana in this country is under the control of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, whose mission is to research the addictive properties of drugs, not their potential medical benefits.

Our prescription is for better knowledge. Marijuana is just another drug — one with psychotropic effects, for sure, but one that might be able to help sick people. Oversight of research-grade marijuana should be shared with an agency whose primary mission is medical research. Marijuana should be listed as a Schedule II drug to facilitate further research. The findings should be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, just as clinical trials are for any other drug. Then the nation can base its marijuana policy on information, not on entrenched fears or a patchwork of possibly well-intentioned but under-informed state medical marijuana laws.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-marijuana-20110713,0,1248851,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Immigration policy: U.S. should abolish its 'diversity visa' program

We should handpick our immigrants with a view to our national interests and the individual attributes that they bring to the table.

by Peter H. Schuck

July 13, 2011

The U.S. "diversity visa" program — 50,000 green cards allocated by lottery each year to applicants who only need a high school education to qualify — has been generating embarrassing headlines lately. Shortly after notifying this year's lottery winners — out of nearly 15 million applicants — of their entitlement to move permanently to the United States, the government discovered a computer glitch that produced erroneous results. (Instead of a random drawing, 90% of the winners were from entries submitted on the first two days of the 30-day registration period.) The government told the winners, who likely were busily severing their ties to families, friends, jobs and communities in preparation for their imminent move to the United States, that their visas were rescinded. A redo of the lottery is scheduled for Friday.

This latest spectacle of government incompetence and broken promises, causing mass upheaval and crushing hopes that the government itself had raised, is all too familiar — think of Hurricane Katrina's aftermath and the failed mortgage relief program. But the visa fiasco obscures a more fundamental objection to the program: It was misconceived at its inception.

Immigration is in many ways the lifeblood, future and salvation of an aging, technology-driven America. The stakes could hardly be higher in getting our immigration policy right and bringing in those who can provide what we need: skills, entrepreneurs, close family members and investment.

A green card to the U.S. is one of the most valuable pieces of paper in the history of the world. So why would we want to give roughly 5% of them each year to people who, for all we know, have nothing more to offer America than a high school education, a winning ticket and (in many cases) an agent they paid to help them game the lottery system?

No sensible public policy would do such a foolish thing. Instead, like other immigrant-receiving nations, we should handpick our immigrants (refugees aside) with a view to our national interests and the individual attributes that they bring to the table. In contrast, the diversity lottery, like most wasteful programs, reflects four dubious characteristics: powerful friends in Congress, a superficially appealing but spurious rationale, a supposed free ride for taxpayers and status quo inertia.

The program was created in the late 1980s by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and some other members of Congress to gain legal status mainly for people from Ireland who had overstayed their visas and were here illegally. This "temporary" program was promoted as diversity-enhancing: As it evolved, lottery participants would be limited to people from countries that had recently supplied relatively few immigrants. This feature, along with the lottery's randomness, gave the program an ostensibly egalitarian cast. But this was largely illusory.

Kennedy made sure that it included Ireland — which, of course, had sent large waves of immigrants here decades ago and so had little justification for special visas now — and that another law ensured a minimum allotment for Ireland. He also saw to it that the law treated Northern Ireland as a separate qualifying country. (Eventually, a significant portion of the lottery winners were from Africa — almost half last year. Africans do increase national-origins diversity, but our immigration stream has long been so remarkably diverse that we hardly need to boost it with randomly distributed visas.)

This program imposes a cost — an opportunity cost: These visas would otherwise have gone to applicants who met more demanding, individually applied criteria. Finally, the program, like so many other bad policies, proved easier to create than to dislodge; it has remained on the books for more than 20 years. The fact that some of the 50,000 lottery winners will turn out to be desirable immigrants is an accident, not a policy.

The solution is straightforward: Abolish the program and use those 50,000 visas (or more) to promote carefully defined national interests, particularly in more high-skilled immigrants who, many studies show, produce jobs, innovation and new businesses. After all, these visas are permanent, not temporary, as with the H1-B visas.

Indeed, this would be an opportunity to experiment with two new ways to improve visa allocation. First, the government could auction some visas to the highest bidders, just as it auctions scarce broadcast spectrum. The winners are likely to be either employers willing to pay for needed skilled workers or individuals who can finance their bids based on their ability to create value and thus earn good incomes in the U.S. The auction proceeds could be used for job-training programs for low-skilled or unemployed workers, or for other social needs.

A second experiment would allocate some visas through a points system — long used by Canada and elsewhere (and even considered by Kennedy) — that awards points for English fluency, job skills, family or other ties to American society, and other predictors of successful assimilation, with visas given to those with the highest point totals.

These approaches promise to teach us more about which kinds of legal immigration reforms can best advance our national interests. Leaving those interests to chance is a bad gamble.

Peter H. Schuck, a Yale Law School professor, is co-editor (with James Q. Wilson) of "Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-schuck-visa-lottery-20110713,0,2134043,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Google News

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

National Latino Peace Officers Association Calls on Secure Communities Task Force

National Latino Peace Officers Association Calls on Secure Communities Task Force
to Fundamentally Overhaul Controversial Immigration Program

Letter Expresses Grave Concern About Program's Impact on Community Policing, Public Safety

by Hugh Holub

Washington – As the newly-constituted Department of Homeland Security (DHS) task force on Secure Communities meets this week, the largest minority law enforcement organization in the nation, National Latino Peace Officers Association, sent a letter to task force members calling for overarching reforms to the controversial Secure Communities program. NLPOA joins numerous elected officials and law enforcement leaders in expressing opposition to the current program, which has strayed far from its stated goal of deporting serious criminals, and is having a dangerous effect on community policing.

NLPOA President, Edwin Maldonado, writes: “As law enforcement professionals who are also Latino, we have an important perspective to offer. We chose this profession because protecting the public from crime is our number one priority. We also understand how to build relationships with members of the Latino community, given our personal experiences and backgrounds. Unfortunately, we've seen firsthand how the relationship between law enforcement and some members of the Latino community has eroded over the last several years, as the federal government and some state legislatures sought to expand police roles in immigration enforcement.”

The letter describes the damage that Secure Communities has done to trust between law enforcement and the Latino community, and lays out the minimum reforms needed to focus the program on its stated goals. A letter submitted yesterday to the task force from Boston mayor, Thomas Menino, lays out similar concerns with the program, which has been widely criticized by law enforcement for increasing the fear of local police in immigrant communities and making them less likely to report crimes to the police.

Please see the text of the letter below; the original letter can be found here.

Date: June 30, 2011
To: Secure Communities Advisory Committee
From: Executive Board, National Latino Peace Officers Association
Re: Recommended Reforms to Secure Communities Program

For more than thirty-five years, the National Latino Peace Officers Association (NLPOA) has been working to achieve a few core objectives. At the top of that list are keeping America safe, bridging the gap between law enforcement and the Latino community, and eliminating prejudice and discrimination in law enforcement. Our belief is that these goals are complementary and can be achieved together.

In its current form, we believe that DHS' Secure Communities undermines our organization's core objectives. That is why we are writing today.

According to the federal government's description of Secure Communities, the program was supposed to focus on identifying and deporting undocumented individuals convicted of crimes. Initially, we were quite supportive of the program. Over the past year, however, we have become increasingly concerned that Secure Communities is operating far beyond its mandate, and hurting the relationship between police and the immigrant community. News reports and investigations by outside groups have revealed that many of the people identified for deportation through Secure Communities have no criminal record whatsoever; some were even the victims of crime, who contacted the police seeking protection and ended up in deportation proceedings. ICE's own data shows that 60% of people deported through the program committed either in low level offenses, like traffic violations, or no offense at all.

When non-criminal immigrants are deported after having contact with local law enforcement, it sends a message to the community that we are agents of Immigration. This leads immigrant crime victims and witnesses to think twice before coming to us with information about real crimes. Crimes go unreported, justice goes unserved, and the entire community suffers.

As law enforcement professionals who are also Latino, we have an important perspective to offer. We chose this profession because protecting the public from crime is our number one priority. We also understand how to build relationships with members of the Latino community, given our personal experiences and backgrounds. Unfortunately, we've seen firsthand how the relationship between law enforcement and some members of the Latino community has eroded over the last several years, as the federal government and some state legislatures sought to expand police roles in immigration enforcement.

We can and must do better. A first step toward repairing that trust is to bring the scope of Secure Communities back to its original stated purpose. On June 17 th , ICE Director John Morton announced several changes to the Secure Communities program. Although the changes were a step in the right direction, they are not enough.

Among the changes announced was the creation of an Advisory Committee, to address many of the concerns raised in this letter. We write today to the members of that committee to urge that your recommendations involve real, structural and enforceable changes to the Secure Communities program that bring it in line with its stated mandate and goals.

In order for us to renew our support for the Secure Communities program, it must be reformed to align with its original goals, through the following changes:

1. Tailor the program to focus only on individuals convicted of serious crimes . Civil immigration enforcement against non-criminals should be the job of federal immigration agents, not state and local police.
   
   
2. Clarify the limits of police authority to enforce civil immigration laws . The immigrant community needs to know that they can work with state and local police to put criminals behind bars and not risk their own deportation.
   
   
3. Create accountability mechanisms so these changes aren't merely voluntary . The limits on police roles and authority must be strictly respected and enforced by federal, state, and local law enforcement. This is the only way we can credibly repair the damage done to community policing.

These are the minimum reforms necessary to ensure that Secure Communities can become a viable program and not compromise the critical trust between local law enforcement and the Latino community.

The NLPOA is a law enforcement organization that values greatly our role in keeping America safe. We are also an organization of Latinos who know that positive outcomes are only achieved when we work together. We look forward to working with the Advisory Committee in the coming weeks to achieve reforms to Secure Communities that will restore trust and truly enhance safety in our communities around the country.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2011/07/12/national-latino-peace-officers-association-calls-on-secure-communities-task-force/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Opinion

Opinion: Shocking Violent Crime Raises Tough Questions

A 4-year-old boy was shot in the back two weeks ago. Thirteen people were shot or stabbed during the July 4th holiday weekend. What happened to neighborhood policing?

by John Keith

Six weeks ago, I wrote aPatch column about Boston crime, taking comfort in the fact that the annual number of homicides in the city had decreased by almost 50 percent during the past 20 years.

Suddenly, I'm not feeling so smug.

Two weeks ago, a four-year old boy was shot while playing in a crowded Dorchester park. Then, last weekend, during the Independence Day holiday, thirteen people were stabbed or shot, four of whom lost their lives.

These acts of violence disturbed me. Shocked me.

Following the shooting of the boy, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino issued a press release expressing his “sadness and anger” but then left town for previously-scheduled trips to Washington, D.C. and Chicago.

His role was assumed by Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis, who appeared on TV expressing his deep disappointment, anger, and even despair. (Read Commissioner Davis's letter to the community.)

And, then? Well, as happens any time there's an incidence of violent crime in Boston, there was an initial outcry, a couple of newspaper articles, then general ambivalence. No more TV coverage, nothing written in the press. (Boston.com is so obsessed with another topic that it should change its name to Bulger.com .)

Broken Windows

Nineteen years have passed since the “ Broken Windows” crime-fighting theory was first proposed, the idea that if you take care of the little things, you can stop big things from happening. Sometimes known as “community policing” (originally, “neighborhood policing” here in Boston), the plan is to get police officers out of their cruisers and into the neighborhoods in which they work. They keep an eye on trouble-makers in the community and build relationships with parents and members of the clergy.

Broken Windows worked for many years, locally and across the country. We called it the “Boston Miracle”. Then everyone got tired. Or, if you will, complacent. (The Harvard Department of Sociology has covered this extensively.) Major crime continued to go down, but the decreases were smaller, incremental. I don't mean to suggest that people stopped working hard on the problem, just that less emphasis was placed on these successful crime-fighting programs. With the great economy of the 2000's, it seemed we had found solutions to our problem.

Back in the car

I thought about the current situation yesterday while passing through Copley Square. Hundreds of residents, office workers, and tourists were walking the hot and steamy streets, at times being aurally assaulted by canvassers, beggars, and a kid playing drums on buckets. An MBTA police officer had parked his cruiser (illegally) in front of the Boston Public Library, but I have to say, I didn't feel any safer.

Actually, it kind of pissed me off. That guy wasn't going to have any effect on crime in the neighborhood. He could have reacted quickly following a crime, but he wasn't deterring anyone from doing anything. Now, if he got out of his car and actually walked back and forth along the block, that would go a long way to making an impact.

Having him and his partners on the streets would reduce crime, but the true value would be in making people feel safer. The perception of random crime is the real problem for many people who live here in Boston because, regardless of the fear of being attacked, hundreds of thousands of us will never actually be a victim. The problem is, we all feel afraid we might be. Putting cops on the street would be helpful. (How about some of the new recruits?)

There's a rising fear of crime even though levels are down in almost every neighborhood of the city, according to the Boston Police Department. Compared to this time in 2010, incidences of major crime are lower in all police department districts, in all categories, except four: Homicides went from zero to one in A-1 and A-7; rapes and attempted rapes jumped by 50 percent in B-3; and burglaries and attempted burglaries increased by more than 25 percent in D-4 (which includes where I live, in the South End). Every other neighborhood has had fewer incidences of major crime, this year.

The disconnect between perception and reality has never been more pronounced. So, I have some questions for you.

Do you feel safe?

Regardless of the statistics, do you feel safe?

Are you afraid to live in your own neighborhood?

Do you feel more or less safe than a year ago; five years ago; a decade ago?

Why is crime a persistent problem in certain Boston neighborhoods?

What should be done to reduce crime?

Increase the number of Boston police officers on the force

Put more police officers on the beat, in the neighborhoods

Fully fund youth jobs' programs paid for by the city and/or private industry

Come up with additional, innovative crime-fighting programs

Arrest more people

Enact tougher gun laws

Create more faith and community-based programs

Pass laws requiring harsher sentences for major crimes

What are the major causes of crime?

Breakdown of the nuclear / “traditional” family

Housing projects - breeding grounds for crime

Illegal drug trade

Guns on the streets

Bad economy

What seems clear is that the “costs” of committing violent crimes are not sufficient to keep someone from doing so. I'm no expert, but perhaps looking at this could help us envision one or more potential solutions. We have to make crime not pay.

Apparently, those who injure, kill, rob, or rape have no fear of the consequences. The risk of losing one's own life or losing one's freedom is not enough of a deterrent.

So what, then?

http://southend.patch.com/articles/opinion-shocking-violent-crime-raises-tough-questions-3

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How a New Police Tool for Face Recognition Works

Police forces across the country are planning to start using new mobile technology later this year that can identify suspects and instantly reveal their criminal history based on a picture of their face or iris, the colored portion of an eye.

Here's how it works: To scan a person's iris, police officers can hold the special iris-scanning camera on device, called MORIS, about 5 to 6 inches away from an individual's irises. After snapping a high resolution photo, the MORIS system analyzes 235 unique features in each iris and uses an algorithm to match that person with their identity if they are in the database.

For the facial recognition, an officer takes a photo of a person at a distance of about 2 feet to 5 feet. Based on technologies from Animetrics Inc., the system analyzes about 130 distinguishing points on the face, such as the distance between a person's eye and nose. It then scans the database for likely matches.

The MORIS, which stands for known as MORIS, for Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System, also includes a small metallic rectangle to scan fingerprints.

The MORIS device goes beyond technology already in use by some local law-enforcement agencies. In Pinellas County, Fla., the sheriff's office uses digital cameras to take pictures of people, download the pictures to laptops, then use facial-recognition technologies to search for matching faces.

Deputies use the technique to verify the identity and search for criminal records of individuals such as people they have stopped who aren't carrying other forms if ID, as well as accident victims and homeless people. The sheriff's office says it has run thousands of identity searches this way since 2004, resulting in 700 arrests.

Deputies are required to ask people for permission to take a photo and use the facial-recognition technology. “Legally, we don't have to, but we have a policy in place to ask for consent,” says Scott McCallum, a systems analyst for the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.

The MORIS device is manufactured by BI2 Technologies, an 11-person company based in the quintessential New England town of Plymouth, Mass. The company was founded in 2006 by Mullin, who coordinated criminal justice programs for the state, and Peter Flynn, a former sheriff. The two saw an opportunity to use biometric data to address issues in the criminal justice system—such as the accidental release of the wrong inmates from jails and prisons.

The company used existing iris recognition algorithms and camera technologies to build a product to recognize prison inmates called IRIS, the Inmate Identification and Recognition System, which they sold to more than 320 law-enforcement agencies in 47 states.

The systems link to a national database of criminal records, managed by BI2,that includes iris and face images as well as other profile information about millions of individuals, such as outstanding warrants or whether they are a convicted sex offender. Previously, similar searches took several hours and required picking up the phone to call to other police departments for more information.

After an inmate escaped from a correctional institution in Rhode Island last year by assuming the identity of another inmate who was eligible for parole, the state's Department of Corrections installed BI2's iris identification system in its prisons. Officers now verify the identity and criminal history of an inmate by scanning their irises when they are admitted and later discharged from the correctional facility.

Sheriffs soon started asking BI2's executives to build a mobile device that would allow them to tap iris, facial and fingerprint recognition technologies to instantly match suspects on the street against the database of people who already have been enrolled in the system. BI2 engineers shrank eye-scanning cameras down to a size that could attach to the back of a smart phone and tapped technologies from Conway, N.H.-based Animetrics Inc. that recognize faces based on cell-phone camera pictures.

Police officers in Brockton, Mass. were the first to test an initial prototype of the device last summer. The iris scan instantly matched suspects to past criminal records, but the fingerprint scanning still needed some work, says William Conlon, Brockton's chief of police. “It has a lot of promise, it just wasn't quite ready when we had it,” he says.

BI2 has spent the last year tweaking the device, improving the fingerprint scanning and switching the camera position to vertical from horizontal, based on feedback from officers. BI2 also is in the midst of readying a submission for approval from Apple Inc. for its app and hardware to be used on the Apple iPhone and Android devices

The devices being launched this year by BI2 cost $3,000 apiece, which includes the price of the smart phone. Together, the iPhone and the device weigh 12.5 ounces.

Some of the devices are being funded through grants directed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which is tasked with advancing community policing in state and local law enforcement.

Bernard Melekian, director of the COPS program, said challenges remain in developing guidelines for the proper use of the mobile recognition technology for police work.

“If the purpose is to determine instantly an individual's identity and determine whether they are wanted or have serious criminal history, that is not only a desirable use, it is an important use,” he says. “To simply collect information on individuals to add to the database would not in my opinion be a desirable use of the technology.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/07/13/how-a-new-police-tool-for-face-recognition-works/tab/print

.