Teens, and Guns Issues - Essay Example

Teens and Guns: When discussing the topic of guns and youth, the matter is always one of opinion and controversy. The difference of opinions can be quite staggering. In regards to this, there are four primary problem areas in which law enforcement plays a critical role: juvenile gun violence; the combination of youth, guns, and drugs; the link between drugs and delinquency; and youth gangs. A recent trend analysis of juvenile homicide offenses shows that since the mid-1970s, the number of homicides in which no firearm was involved has remained fairly constant. However, homicides by juveniles involving a firearm have increased nearly threefold. "In addition, during this same period, the number of juvenile arrests for weapons violations increased 117 percent." ("Reduce", n.d.). "When guns are the weapon of choice, juvenile violence becomes deadly." ("APA", 1993). The logical statistics show this to be true. During the period between 1976-1991, firearms were used by 65% of juvenile homicide offenders, and firearms were used in nearly 8 out of every 10 juvenile homicides in 1991, compared with 6 out of every 10 in 1976. Between 1979 and the present day, the rate of suicide among youth ages 15 to 19 increased over 31 percent, and firearms were used in 6 out of 10 of these suicides. Depression is statistically at a significantly high level among the youth of today; research has shown that approximately 1 in 5 teens will have at least one episode of major depression by the time they are 18 years of age. Depressed teens are at more risk for suicide, and research shows that teens and preteens commit suicide with guns more than any other method. "When teenagers are angry or depressed, they are more likely to kill themselves or harm themselves or others if they can easily get a gun." ("Focus", 2000). Violence is a learned behavior, and children learn this behavior from their family and their peers, as well as from items of media such as television, music, movie videos, and video games. Another form of learned violence occurs when a child is brought up in an abusive home, where they see violence or when they are physically or sexually abused themselves. Research studies have in fact shown that violent behavior can be decreased or even prevented if factors such as these were eliminated. Studies also show that if you have a gun in your home, you are 5 times more likely to have a suicide in your house than homes without a gun. In relation to this, there is a stance against guns which believes that there should be much stronger gun control laws, and that the subject of teens and guns should be taken significantly into consideration. Those who are involved in this stance believe that the only way to make a positive change in the current situation of teens and guns is by reducing the environment of fear and that in order to achieve the greatest reduction in the number of weapon-carrying youth is by directing any and all efforts at the most frequent weapon carriers. It is believed by Alfred Blumstein (2002) that "the dynamics are extremely different when a handgun is present; the conflict escalates well before anyone can retreat or intervene. Once handguns become prevalent in a neighborhood, each person who carries one has an incentive to make a preemptive strike before his adversary does." Blumstein's observations also suggest that "the growth in homicide committed by young people during the 1980s was attributable more to the weapons they used than to the emergence of inadequately socialized cohorts of 'super predators'." In retaliation against those who comprise guns and say that they are at fault for the strikingly high crime, homicide, and suicide rates among teens; these people attempt to make strong points such as that "cars kill more teens than guns. Alcohol kills more teens than guns. Disease kills more teens than guns." (Glover, 1999). The aim of those involved in this stance is to make known that guns are in fact not the leading killer among teens, and that the 'real' sources should be properly identified and have action taken against them, rather than against guns. As Glover goes on to claim, "We're all horrified over the violence we've seen from children and we focused immediately on their weapons of choice: guns." The primary subject of attention brought from this group is that America should basically take more time teaching their children how to be responsible, and that as an end result of this, children will then not turn to guns with means of causing harm to themselves or to someone else. "You see, part of the problem in America is the failure of parents to teach their children responsibility. And those children have grown up irresponsible and have raised children who are irresponsible. They know nothing about discipline. They know nothing of self-discipline." (Glover, 1999). This relates strongly to one major point of view from the other side; the factor of needed responsibility amongst the youth of America. "Youth people seldom understand the full impact of their behavior. The lack of awareness of consequences coupled with a tendency to respond with violence can be a lethal combination." ("Reduce", n.d.). To those who are negative towards guns, is also the strong viewpoint that promoting maturity and respect of life is incredibly important for their children, and that without this the youth of today will certainly turn to negative resources and cause negative effects. Some people do not seem to take either side. Rather, they believe that through responsible parents teaching their children how to be responsible, and through the reducing of firearms availability, the strengthening of regulations, and the applying of technological innovations; are all components which would create a more positive situation amongst youth and guns. The opinions of these people seem to be correct at least in some form, considering the statistics: "An evaluation of the effectiveness of local gun laws and policies shows that mandatory sentencing laws for felonies involving a firearm have prevented gun-related violent crime. (Howell, 1995). In 1994 there was an Act passed (the Gun-Free Schools Act) which required states that receive Federal elementary and secondary education funds to require school districts to expel for at least one year any student who brings a gun to school. Many other anti-crime and anti-gun policies and tactics have taken place over the past ten years as well against teens; the targeting of such things as youth gang violence and youth-focused community oriented policing are two significant factors in the attempt of decreasing gun use among teens. A combination of prevention, intervention, and suppression strategies has been implemented in communities across the United States, in order to address the problem of teens and guns. Although there are certainly those (most of who want to make themselves publicly known) who argue that guns have nothing to do with the high crime, homicide, and suicide rates among youth, there is a more domineering stance which stands against guns, and those people involved aim particularly at toughening up gun laws, especially in the concerning of teenagers. It is absolutely imperative that any of these programs, however, be based in sound theory and work closely with the juvenile justice system. Only then can any of these methods turn out successfully. "Specifically, policies and programs must be based on appropriate targeting of institutions and youth, as well as their relation to each other at a specific time and place." ("Reduce", n.d.). From my review, and considering the dangers, I absolutely do not think that it is necessary or that there is a purpose for carrying a handgun besides for shooting someone else. In fact, I believe the answer can be found right there in the question itself. Although I understand a person's point of view that they want to feel safe and protected, my opinion is that if no one at all was allowed to carry handguns, would you not feel more protected immediately Rather than allowing everyone on the block to be armed with a weapon, why not feel safe knowing that they are not allowed to carry that weapon I believe that the answer and solution to the high crime rates in relation to guns would only make sense to be: remove the allowance of (hand) guns. I know that I would feel much safer knowing that my neighbor was not legally allowed to carry a gun, rather than thinking they had one in their back pocket. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but after reading the literature and acknowledging the statistics, I think it is quite clear that the allowance of people carrying handguns is ridiculous, and that if we want to decrease the number of casualties, especially in regards to teenagers, that the carrying of handguns should be banned. References "APA". (1993). Violence and Youth: Psychology's Response, vol.1. Washington, D.C.: Report of the APA Commission on Violence and Youth. Blumstein, A. (2002). Why Is Crime Falling - Or Is It Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 2000-2001. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. "Children". (2000). Teens, Depression and Guns. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from http://72.14.207.104/searchq=cache:qL97C4IGfJkJ:www.seattlechildrens.org/child_health_safety/pdf/flyers/CE457.pdf+teens+and+guns&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=22 "Focus". (2000). Guns and Violence. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from http://www.focusas.com/Violence.html Glover, V. A. (1999). Guns & Rosies. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from http://brevia.com/Main/guns.htm Howell, J. C. (1995). Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. "Palo". (2006). Teens and Violence Prevention. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from http://www.pamf.org/teen/parents/emotions/violence.html "Reduce". (n.d.). Reduce Youth Involvement With Guns, Drugs, and Gangs. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/action/sec3.htm Let's Get Tough: Three-Strikes Laws Three-strike laws are a category of statutes which are enacted by state governments in the United States. They began in the 1990s, and their purpose is to require courts to hand down a mandatory and most often times extended period of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of serious criminal offence on three or more separate occasions. "The stated rationale for these laws is that the automatic and lengthy imprisonment of individuals who commit more than two felonies is justified on the basis that recidivists are incorrigible and chronically criminal, and must be imprisoned as a matter of public safety." ("Wikipedia", 2006). The name itself derives from baseball, where a batter has three strikes before striking out. The main purpose of activating these three-strike laws was to lower the crime rate among offenders; there are split opinions on this subject. While some believe that these laws are sure to be effective against crime due to the lengthened and more rigid penalty the offenders while receive, some question if the three-strike laws can realistically be expected to lower the crime rate. The cost of this effort to deter criminals is quite substantial; "In California alone the three-strikes law is estimated to increase correctional spending by $4.5 to $6.5 billion per year; a drain to among other services education, public health, ensuring that a new generation of young criminals will fill offending shoes of their incarcerated brethren." (Rand Research Brief, California's New Three-Strikes Law: Benefits, Costs, and Alternatives, Rand Corporation, 1994). This law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons who are convicted of felonies who have been previously convicted of a violent or serious felony, and it also limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a prison sentence for crimes such as: murder, robbery, burglary, assault, and felonies of the like. The major initial impacts of this law are several, all of great importance. The first is the fact that thousands of cases are being prosecuted. "As of the end of August 1994 (six months after enactment of the law) there were more than 7,400 second and third-strike cases filed statewide...as of the end of November 1994, more than 5,000 second and third-strike cases have been filed with the courts." (Legislative Analyst's Office, 1995). There have also been less guilty pleas taken by defendants, and with this, a significant increase in jury trials. Due to the three-strike law, more defendants are refusing to plea bargain and instead are deciding to take their cases to jury trial, as they understand the much longer prison sentences they could face. "Historically, more than 90 percent of all felony cases statewide are disposed of through plea bargainingAvailable data indicate that only about 14 percent of all second-strike cases and only about 6 percent of all third-strike cases have been disposed of through plea bargaining." (Legislative Analyst's Office, 1995). Due to this law, there has been an increase in the number of persons held in county jail while awaiting trial, and as well, there has statistically been less immediate impact on state prison population than was expected. Some of the other impacts include: the early release of sentenced offenders from county jails; an increase in jail security; the augmentations to budgets of criminal justice agencies in some countries; and certain behavior responses from some judges, juries, and victims. Although in the beginning this law seeming rather appealing to most, there was also the argument on whether or not it was realistic to expect a law such as this to help reduce crime. After all, the statistics show that in reviewing the characteristics of offenders who have been charged under the three-strikes law so far: "about 70 percent of all second and third-strikes are for nonviolent and nonserious offenses." (Legislative Analyst's Office, 1995). Also there is the fact that out of the offenders that have been convicted thus far under the three-strike law: "approximately 19 percent were for a violent or serious offence." (Legislative Analyst's Office, 1995). A RAND Corporation study also estimated that the overall reduction in violent crime as a result of the measure would be substantial, yet the opinions of some on this are not so sure. On the one hand, many of the defendants who are sent to jail under the three-strike law are non-violent criminal offenders, which means that most of them are into petty theft or drug dealing; there is obviously nothing wrong with this, only that the intent of the three-strikes law was to stop and convict violent criminals. Another factor is that the prisons are all so full that more will have to be built immediately; with tax payers footing the bill. On the other hand, it is thought to be that for the most part, if a criminal does not reform after two felony convictions, then it is unlikely they ever will at all. This is a somewhat stereotypical and automatic way of thinking, but results show this is factual. The theory of the three-strike law - which seems to work at least part of the time - is that once a two-time offender realizes what a lengthy sentence they will receive if they commit crime again, they will deter from doing so. The three-strike law is not the first law of its sort, although it is certainly tougher and more seemingly determined than any others; tough-on-crime laws like this have contributed to the nation-wide drop in crime rates over the last decade. "Three-strike laws can help reduce the prison population by serving as a deterrent to potential repeat criminals." (Murphy, 2000). From my review, I have come to the conclusion that yes, I do agree with a policy that calls for "spending billions on incarceration throwing money into the wind", for several important reasons. For one, I personally believe that although the three-strikes law was originally intended for violent criminals, what does it really matter if that's not the category that it actual particulates In other words, regardless of whether the three-strike law has resulted in charging and/or convicting violent or non-violent criminals, they are all still criminals, and should be taken off the streets. I certainly do not object to my money being used for something of this sort, I do not believe that just because the intention of the three-strike law resulted to not be exactly what was expected, that after looking at the statistics it is quite obvious to see that it is still having an incredibly positive result. References Murphy, J. (2000). Are Three-Strikes Laws Fair and Effective Retrieved April 6, 2006, from http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1290b-1.html Legislative Analyst's Office. (1995). The Three Strikes and You're Out Law. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_1995/3strikes.html "Wikipedia". (2006). Three-Strike Law. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law Read More